DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Another drone in the Airport

You are technically 100% right but may I show you an important twist. Here are the three reckless endangerment instructions given to the jury in the Seattle drone case. Note the subjective element. Did the defendant know and appreciate the risk or danger of what he was doing? Or was he just stupid and ignorant?

View attachment 46968View attachment 46969View attachment 46970

"Reckless" implies that distinction anyway - it requires a conscious disregard for the consequences. That's why the definition is "recklessly engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death to another person" rather than just "engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death to another person".
 
"Reckless" implies that distinction anyway - it requires a conscious disregard for the consequences. That's why the definition is "recklessly engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death to another person" rather than just "engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death to another person".

That's a good point about word placement and the conscious disregard of the consequences. Its ironic that being dumb and foolish could be safest way to fly!
 
  • Like
Reactions: sar104
This was probably posted before but I only found it the other day. Very interesting animation showing the devastating knock-on effect a selfish drone pilot may cause while flying near an airport.

 
This was probably posted before but I only found it the other day. Very interesting animation showing the devastating knock-on effect a selfish drone pilot may cause while flying near an airport.

Flying a drone within five miles of an airport or anywhere close to manned aircraft is very dangerous. Penalty for it should be strict. However, this is one slick video and made me wonder who paid for it and why? And how reliable and credible was the alleged drone sighting in the first place? I gather the last time the UK authorities investigated an airport drone incident the culprit turned out to be a TESCO plastic bag.

upload_2018-9-18_20-57-23.png
 
...The Airport Director said the chances of this incident occurring were 1 in 1 million...what are the chances of a hobby drone colliding with and taking down a commercial airliner?

I know its tacky to answer my own question but not sure what else to do. In looking into Gatwick, I stumbled upon the 2018 CAA Drone Risk Safety Assessment. My apology if old news for some but its right on point and very informative:

The whole thing should be read but here are some highlights:

The drones most likely to end up in proximity to manned aircraft are smaller drones, typically of 2kg or less, flown by operators who either do not know the aviation safety regulations or have chosen to ignore them.

It is considered unlikely that a small drone would cause significant damage to a modern turbo-fan jet engine; even if it did, a multi-engine aircraft would still be likely to be able to land safely.

The likelihood of a small drone being in proximity of a passenger aircraft when it is travelling fast enough to potentially damage a windscreen is currently observed to be about 2 per million flights, where proximity means within visual line of sight of the aircraft.

The windscreens of small helicopters and light aircraft are more susceptible to rupture if struck by a small drone, even when flying below normal cruising speed. Helicopters face more particular risks because of the additional susceptibility of helicopter rotors to damage from a collision with a drone, and their operating patterns which typically involve lower-level flying and take-off and landing from a range of sites.

The construction of the drone plays a significant role in the impact of a collision. Notably, the 0.4kg class drones used in the testing, which included exposed metal motors, caused critical failure of the helicopter windscreens at lower speeds than the 1.2 kg class drones, which had plastic covering over their motors. This is believed to have absorbed some of the shock of the collision, reducing the impact. The testing and modelling showed that drones could cause significantly more damage than birds of equivalent masses, at impact speeds lower than required to meet birdstrike certification standards.

Likelihoods of other aviation specific events can be used as a useful comparator to put a small drone collision risk into perspective. For example, based on current levels of reporting, a pilot is currently around twice as likely to have a birdstrike resulting in damage to the aircraft as they are to report seeing a drone in proximity of an aircraft. The likelihood of a small drone actually hitting a passenger aircraft windscreen at sufficient speed to rupture it is very much smaller than the probability of it being in the proximity of an aircraft.

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1627_Jan2018.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cymruflyer
People do stupid things with cars. They even do terrorist attacks with cars.
Yes true and if the actions of those stupid car drivers was causing you to be banned from driving in certain areas and then even more regulations were forming to ban you from driving even more, you would then sit up and think about taking action against the ones causing you to be limited on where you could drive your car. Think of it that way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 787steve
2.5 miles is 4000 m. At a climb rate of 5 m/s (Mavic sport mode maximum) and a descent rate of 3 m/s, that's 36 minutes round trip. Are you quite sure about that?
You are assuming he took off at sea level. He may have been at a ground altitude of 1,800 feet when he took off. You'll need to know that before assuming anything.
 
You are assuming he took off at sea level. He may have been at a ground altitude of 1,800 feet when he took off. You'll need to know that before assuming anything.

"I’ve never had any problems with flying over a mile, in height, been up 2 and a half several times, no issues!"
Maybe - but I don't see much ambiguity in that statement. I didn't assume that he launched from sea level, but his statement certainly implies that he took off and climbed 2.5 miles vertically.
 
Flying a drone within five miles of an airport or anywhere close to manned aircraft is very dangerous. Penalty for it should be strict. However, this is one slick video and made me wonder who paid for it and why? And how reliable and credible was the alleged drone sighting in the first place? I gather the last time the UK authorities investigated an airport drone incident the culprit turned out to be a TESCO plastic bag.

View attachment 47053

Love that image! lol

Yeah it's interesting. I reckon it may have been funded from the BAA as a sort of deterrent or even to make aware the public, not just drone users but people in general. I take it the case you are referring to is this one?
 
Its referring to this incident:-

The 'drone' that hit an incoming Heathrow plane probably wasn't a drone

BALPA are a massive hindrance. Always "listen to the pilot, they're always right" and never once looks for details to back up anything. So by default, everything is a drone, even if its a bag.
The AirProx board is even worse, for an official body they rubber stamp without question ANY drone reports. Even those 15,000ft+ and with zero supporting evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mister Pink
"I’ve never had any problems with flying over a mile, in height, been up 2 and a half several times, no issues!"
Maybe - but I don't see much ambiguity in that statement. I didn't assume that he launched from sea level, but his statement certainly implies that he took off and climbed 2.5 miles vertically.
Yes, I see your point, it does sound like he foolishly went that high above his take off point, glad I don't have him near the area where I fly my plane, he seems an accident waiting to happen for some poor pilot.
 
Love that image! lol

Yeah it's interesting. I reckon it may have been funded from the BAA as a sort of deterrent or even to make aware the public, not just drone users but people in general. I take it the case you are referring to is this one?

Yes, thats the case!

Video appears to have been made and widely distributed to news outlets by NATS which is a public-private partnership created in 2001 between the government, which holds 49% and a golden share, and the Airline Group, which holds 42%. Its stakeholders include British Airways, easyJet and the Universities Superannuation Scheme. Nats staff hold a further 5% stake and LHR Airports Limited 4%.

What I would like to see is the same slick video depicting what happened to air traffic during these incidents:

Gatwick Closes Four Times After Just One Air Traffic Controller Turns Up Then Goes For Break

9 Apr 2018

The runway was forced to close because of staff shortages. Gatwick Airport was forced to close four times because only one air traffic controller turned up for work. Airport rules mean controllers need to take two breaks each shift – which caused the runway to be shut every time they went on their break.

NATS: Computer Failure Behind London Airport Chaos Was Unprecedented

13 December 2014

British airspace controller says inability of operators to see all flight plan data prompted restrictions on departures and landings. An unprecedented systems failure was responsible for the air traffic control chaos that affected airports across London and south-east England on Friday.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Mister Pink
Back to Seatac airport. Here is Skywest Pilot Joel Monteith's report of prior contact with Richard Russell. Note: Monteith did not investigate or report Russell's suspicious behavior at the time. You can tell from this recording that he was unsure who to call or contact even after the crash. He said in the recent newspaper interview that no one ever followed up with him.

Pilot Joel Monteith recounts experiences with Richard Russell
 
It happened again in Lisbon Airport...

"Operations at Humberto Delgado airport in Lisbon were interrupted for 11 minutes late on Wednesday after the control tower had spotted a drone flying overhead. Two flights had to be diverted to Faro airport, while a third aircraft eventually landed late. Official source of Ana Airports of Portugal confirmed to Correio da Manhã this scenario, advancing that the case was reported at 22:47. The police authorities and the National Civil Aviation Agency were alerted. Despite police action, police were unable to locate any suspicious devices nearby. After the sighting, a transavia from Orly in Paris and another from Vueling, who had left the Spanish island of Ibiza, were ordered to head to Faro. The approximately 300 passengers affected stayed overnight in hotel units in the Algarve, having gone to Lisbon by bus. This is no longer the first time that Lisbon's main airport sees operations shut down due to the presence of drones."

Shame on these drone pilots!!
 
Guest editorial in a local Seattle paper. I did not know that ground agent was lowest paid employee at the entire airport.

I Worked With Richard Russell at Horizon Air, and I Understand Why He Did What He Did

by Todd Bunker Aug 17, 2018 at 8:45 am

I was surprised to wake up last Saturday morning to the headlines. Not completely shocked, but surprised nonetheless. I was a ground service agent at Horizon Air for the better part of 2016, and I worked alongside Richard "Beebo" Russell. As ground service agents, we handled luggage, walked through planes for final inspection, and pushed them out onto the taxiway.

We weren’t close, barely acquaintances, which seems odd considering the tight quarters and the foxhole mentality that is required to work in these particular roles. But with the high turnover (if you follow Horizon Air jobs, you will know they are always hiring that position for SeaTac), it’s not that hard to imagine.

Day-to-day survival on The Ramp (the area between the terminal and the taxiway, where passengers are loaded and unloaded, baggage is handled, planes fueled, etc.) requires a lot of sacrifice to keep the planes moving. It would be difficult enough if the inadequate break room didn’t always resemble a crowded, sweatbox college party—but without any drugs or alcohol, and nobody having fun. Brought your lunch to save spending $10 buying a meal in the terminal? Sure hope it’s still in the fridge when you get your lunch break. Nasty emails directed to anonymous lunch bandits were a common occurrence. There was a locker room, but not enough lockers for everyone. Think about how many layers are required to work in the weather in Seattle, and then think about where you might put your jacket, gloves, etc., when you don’t need them without them getting stolen, if you don’t have a locker. These things aren’t luxuries; they are a basic part of work life.

Going into the job, I knew that there was a sharp disconnect between the shiny happy side of the terminal, and the grit on the ground. What I didn’t realize was how much like a military base it was run. Which makes sense, historically, and which is why Horizon and other airlines recruit heavily from military bases.

When a lot of your supervisory staff and co-workers are ex-military you begin to realize what being expendable is. I believe Beebo was acutely aware of that—because we all were. It's the kind of dehumanizing situation that could lead to what happened on August 10.

If the environment itself isn’t enough to persuade you that you are nothing more than a cog to the upper management/shareholders, there are plenty of other, even more exasperating reminders. You are making around $3 less per hour than anybody else at SeaTac (including other airline employees, restaurant employees, car rental employees, bus drivers, etc.), although there are benefits! Health insurance and stock options might be nice, but they don’t pay the rent. However, a vast majority of the ground service agents are men under age 30, so insurance and stock options mean nothing to them. They become empty gestures from a management who knows you’ll never use them, and thus cost the company little.

But that's only one part of the picture. To be clear, the people I worked with were dedicated, hard working, safety-conscious, attempting to be loyal—all of the things that are supposed to get you ahead in America. But the workers on the ground and our immediate supervisors could barely keep our heads above water. As a subsidiary of Alaska Air Group, Horizon Air is the proverbial red-headed stepchild. It is glaringly clear to everyone who works there that cost-cutting by the executive team(s) in order to keep the shareholders happy is the main goal, and Horizon is the first stop on the belt-tightening train.

We the lowest level employees knew that when the record quarterly earnings report came out there wasn’t going to be any trickle down. When I worked for Horizon, we were cursing our low-wage fate in the break room, while Alaska was spending $2.5 billion acquiring Virgin America (gotta keep up with Delta), and then investing another $2.5 billion upgrading their turboprop airplane fleet to jets. Acquisitions and sexy new jets play well at the stockholder meeting; increased labor costs do not.

The first thing I thought when I heard the news about a plane being stolen by a Horizon employee was, "Ah yes, the end of summer. Of course." Summer is nearly constantly as busy as the holiday season.
My summer of 2016 kicked off with a new schedule (we bid on shifts every 3-4 months), which as it turns out was literally generated by a computer program. X number of flights, X number of employees, some advanced mathematics, and poof! Perfection. Except the schedule that summer was so out of touch with what was going on on the ground that a handful of veteran employees went to management and successfully lobbied for a "do-over," because the schedule as presented was unrealistic, and featured far too many new employees at a given time compared to experienced ones.


An important perk are monthly bonuses, which can range from $50-200 a month depending on whether "target numbers" are hit. About halfway through my summer tenure at Horizon Air, we were informed that the bonus structure was being revamped. It now included delays caused by weather and Air Traffic Control, circumstances completely out of our control. This was described as "more realistic to the situation on the ground." It was more like a morale murderer.

This is all to say that I can understand what could drive a normal person to do what Richard Russell did: He saw his chance for relevance—to be simply acknowledged as an individual human being—and grabbed it. I don’t condone it, and wish it would have turned out with a spectacular landing that he could've walked away from as a folk hero to some (myself included). I'll leave the question of exactly how he did it to the investigators.

Richard's situation was not unusual for what has morphed into a wage-slave economy. The fact that he had access to a plane makes it sensational. There are plenty of people out there making not-enough money, and they keep plugging along, not stealing multi-million dollar aircraft and crashing them.
But the next time you’re at SeaTac, take the chance to look out at Horizon’s gates from the main food court, and marvel at the controlled chaos on the ground. Off to your left, you’ll see baggage tugs speeding to and from the catacombs under the terminal. Farther out, Delta planes lurk, large.


And when you step onto the stairway of your next flight, holding that Big Mac you bought in the terminal because otherwise there's no reasonably priced food on the plane (customers are now just numbers, too), remember that the person who flipped your burger is probably making $3/hr more than the person who handles your luggage, walks around the plane doing final inspections, and ultimately pushes the plane full of 76 souls (as we used to say) out to the overcrowded taxiway to send you off safely.
Your life depends on the work they do.


Editor's note: The Stranger has called and emailed Alaska Airlines, parent company of Horizon Air, for comment on the allegations in this op-ed. Except for an automatically generated response that said they received our message, we have not heard back. If they get back to us, we will publish their response.
 
Yes true and if the actions of those stupid car drivers was causing you to be banned from driving in certain areas and then even more regulations were forming to ban you from driving even more, you would then sit up and think about taking action against the ones causing you to be limited on where you could drive your car. Think of it that way.

You can use water in winter to kill someone when he gets out of the house slips on ice and breaks his neck. So lets ban water during winter and lets start thinking about calling the police when you see someone holding a bottle of water in front of someones house.
I do not want to think that way. I prefer severe punishment for someone who used ice as a weapon rather then punishing people because of prevention of possible crime.
 
You can use water in winter to kill someone when he gets out of the house slips on ice and breaks his neck. So lets ban water during winter and lets start thinking about calling the police when you see someone holding a bottle of water in front of someones house.
I do not want to think that way. I prefer severe punishment for someone who used ice as a weapon rather then punishing people because of prevention of possible crime.
Precisely and if you saw someone about to use ice as a deadly weapon, with your thinking, I suppose you would do nothing and just watch it happen and assume the authorities would eventually find the killer and bring down upon them, the severe punishment you want doled out. right??? Plus why wait until winter, people have been using water in the unfrozen form to drown others for centuries. Not a very good example, since ice or water and drones are a poor comparison to use.

The authorities can and have been introducing legislation to reduce the use of and do an all out ban in some situations/areas on drone flying, due to a few idiots doing stupid things with them. That is why it matters to the rest of us. I have not seen any authorities ban water, ice or cars due to an isolated few idiots or mad people using them in less than responsible ways.
 
Last edited:

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
131,139
Messages
1,560,284
Members
160,109
Latest member
brokerman