Are you trying this?

[Cookedinlh]

This is just 4 of the hundreds of similar cases being reported since January. Hope you are part of the solution by warning others of the dangers being created by these guys . . of gals maybe? The threat is real and needs to stop. It may seem like a fun challenge when you think of doing it . . . but it really puts a lot of REAL lives in danger.

Take the high road and stay low!


2016O1372 2016-06-19 13:40 Day-time Incident 7NM S TORONTO / BILLY BISHOP TORONTO CITY AIRPORT ON (CYTZ) Ontario 2016-06-20 - An Air Canada Embraer ERJ 190-100 IGW (C-FNAN/ACA704) from Toronto, ON (CYYZ) to New York, NY (KLGA) was approximately 7 miles south of Toronto, ON (CYTZ), over Lake Ontario, and reported observing a drone at 14,000'. The police were advised and a marine unit is investigating.

2016O1329 2016-06-14 14:45 Day-time Incident KINGSTON ON (CYGK) Ontario 2016-06-14 - On departure from Runway 01, the pilot of a Dorval Aviation Cessna 172K from Kingston, ON (CYGK) to Montreal, QC (CYUL) reported a white drone at 1000 feet overhead the threshold of Runway 19. Operational impact, taxiing B190 decided to depart Runway 19 to avoid the drone.

2016O1172 2016-05-30 21:45 Day-time Incident TORONTO / LESTER B. PEARSON INTL ON (CYYZ) Ontario 2016-06-01 - A Sky Regional Airlines flight SKV7537 inbound to Toronto, ON (CYYZ) reported sighting a drone at 10000 feet, 4 nautical miles southwest of Toronto, ON (CYTZ).

2016O1135 2016-05-25 20:40 Day-time Incident 8NM S OTTAWA / MACDONALD-CARTIER INTL ON (CYOW) Ontario 2016-06-02 - A WestJet flight (WJA366) and an Air Canada flight (ACA458), arriving at Ottawa (CYOW), ON, saw a large drone near their flight paths. For WJA366, it was on the left side at the same altitude (6 700 ft). ACA458 was at 8 000 ft when it noticed the drone 1 NM to its left at 2 000 ft below ACA458?s altitude. The target headed to the southeast at 20-30 kt on primary radar and was lost at about 2055Z.

 

[Cookedinlh]

Ho w about this . . .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7_PN4gum1A
that high enough? . . even if that is not 12,000ft . . . 2000ft is just as bad

How about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfxdeRx2fLA . . .not good

 

[halley]

I have to wonder how many of these are true drone spotting, and if so, how many of these are governmental/military purposes.

ACA458 was at 8 000 ft when it noticed the drone 1 NM to its left at 2 000 ft below ACA458's altitude.

Think you can spot a consumer drone at 1 nautical mile (1852 meters), 2000 feet (609 meters) below you, while traveling 140 kt (72 meters per second)?

Not discounting the danger that a consumer drone can present to other aviation, but some of the reports are surely misplaced when used to form policy.

 

[Guest]

Not that I agree, and you should still stick to the rules, but:
Plane Crazy? New Study Claims Drones Not as Dangerous as the FAA Says

 

[Cookedinlh]

That's an excellent article and the link to the study is EXACTLY the real data I was looking for, about the reality of the REAL risk that drones pose today. I'm at the International UAV Conference in Toronto week after next,(6-7 Dec) . . and I going to print out ever chart from that study. . . and see how people respond.
GREAT FIND . . . thanks!

 

[Guest]

Another article about this: Are drones really dangerous to airplanes?

However I still think that we should stick to the rules!

 

[Guest]

And last one from EASA Europa (they are like the FAA in the US)

‘Drone Collision’ Task Force | EASA

Stick with the rules!

 

[Cookedinlh]

Another article about this: Are drones really dangerous to airplanes?

However I still think that we should stick to the rules!

ANOTHER great read Guest . . . will read again in detail, Thanks . . Interesting "Conversation" website I will have to look more into that one too. Here's my conversation about it.
Let me know what you think about any of it.
What is your interest in this topic besides being a Mavic fan?
Cheers from the Great White North

 

[Cookedinlh]

You've just opened up a huge treasure trove of articles and studies on RISK analysis. The links in that last article are going to keep me busy for a while. Just in time for the Conference too. The only things I've been able to get my hands on so far was HYPED up news and Transport Canada/ FAA official data which is overly pessimistic about the risks. Thanks again for opening up that window. I was sure there must be lots of academic analysis on this but buried somewhere in acade

And last one from EASA Europa (they are like the FAA in the US)

‘Drone Collision’ Task Force | EASA

Stick with the rules!

Yes for sure . . I'm a rules guy too . . ex-military pilot . . . but I always want to know WHY the rule says XXXX when if you think about it rationally it could say YYYY
You've just opened up a huge treasure trove of articles and studies on DRONE RISK analysis. The links in that last article are going to keep me busy for a while. Just in time for the Conference too. The only things I've been able to get my hands on so far was HYPED up news and Transport Canada/ FAA official data which is overly pessimistic about the risks . . and with no explanation as to WHY really.

Thanks again for opening up that window. I was sure there must be lots of academic analysis on this but buried somewhere in academia.

 

[DoO]

Here's an article from the BBC yesterday. While not directly germane to this thread, it does have some information about how rules may be changing particularly with the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) in Britain, and around the world.

Safety test proposal for drone users - BBC News

 

[ascension]

Not that I agree, and you should still stick to the rules, but:
Plane Crazy? New Study Claims Drones Not as Dangerous as the FAA Says

I have read the link, and I think it is senseless to think that anything in it serves a drone operator's purpose, or that of the industry.
As a career airline pilot, I am well aware of the vector of gov and aviation interest in the drone evolution.
To state that they are less dangerous than birds is folly. Birds like to stay alive.
They avoid airplanes whenever they can. Of course there are going to be bird strikes when there are billions of birds in and around airports, but they try to stay away, and have infinitely more escapability skills than drones.

Birds are made of completely different materials than drones, and I believe a drone would cause far more damage to a windscreen than a bird, and I've hit birds before.

The bottom line is that comparing drones to birds is a losing strategy.
Stay away from airports.
Fly the thing responsibly.
Pursue strategies that lead the populace to think that drone operators are not a threat, and are most interested in being safe, responsible sharers of extremely low airspace.

 

[Cookedinlh]

If you want become part of the aviation community instead of being shunned . . . join COPA (Canadian Owners and Pilots Association) . . they are actively looking to help UAV pilots become part of the solution and not the problem.
COPA - Canadian Owners and Pilots Association
They are a national voice for UAVs now and many of the pilots there now see them as allies. I do, and more are beginning to recognize the value of all working together to keep the skies safer from the irresponsible ones who think they can just do what they want. Aviation is a great environment if you are a responsible person.

 

[erkme73]

IMHO, the answer as to why regulatory agencies are so pessimistic in their risk assessments of birds vs. aircraft has little to do with safety. Sure, that's the catch all phrase, and the nobel intent behind the rule making process, but without a single incident of a drone striking a manned aircraft - let alone doing damage or taking one down - the "if it saves only one child" mentality is at a fever pitch.

Who benefits from drone regulations? Well, we could argue that the flying public does - but if the science proves the risks are minimal (if not zero), then we should look to the next benefactor. Certainly not the drone producers. Arguably, the drone market in the US has been stifled by both uncertainty of pending regulation, and now over regulation. With the near-hysteria levels of ant-drone media reports (i.e. trash bags at 10k feet are reported as drones and aircrew are injured by evasive actions taken to avoid impact, etc), the public clearly feels a visceral fear and repulsion to drones. Whether it's a direct threat to safety, or someone losing their privacy, the public has been conditioned (if not outright brainwashed) into believing that a drone, any drone, is used only for nefarious purposes.

So with the aid of media, and the perpetual fear drum being beaten by the FAA (remember, it was a .gov employee who crash landed his Phantom on the White House lawn), a perceived problem exists that only the government can solve. This is the equivalent to someone breaking your leg, and then when you can't walk, you thank them for giving you crutches. So, again, IMHO, the benefactor is .gov. Their own actions have created the fear we witness, and now, they arrive as heroes to save us. Political points for new regs.

The ability to force all operators to bow and comply (register and pay a fee), showing the populace once again that they cannot safely exist without government protection, is an added perk.

Color me cynical, but I don't for a second think these regs have anything to do with safety. Just like TSA has nothing to do with protecting passengers. It's theater. And we're buying patrons. /rant off.

 

[ascension]

Color me cynical, but I don't for a second think these regs have anything to do with safety. Just like TSA has nothing to do with protecting passengers. It's theater. And we're buying patrons. /rant off.

Couldn't disagree more, and I think such a posture is counter productive.
TSA has everything to do with protecting passengers, at least the airline passenger component of it, and the reasonable drone regs, with available waivers, have everything to do with keeping hobbyist operators away from airplanes.

 

[erkme73]

Couldn't disagree more, and I think such a posture is counter productive.
TSA has everything to do with protecting passengers, at least the airline passenger component of it, and the reasonable drone regs, with available waivers, have everything to do with keeping hobbyist operators away from airplanes.

And that's a fair assessment. I don't want to thread-jack, so this'll be my only response to help qualify my previous post. I traveled to all 50 states and a number of countries for nearly 20 years, so my comments about experiencing and observing passenger security as it morphed from pre-9/11 to the current TSA boondoggle isn't without merit. I realize that as a commercial pilot, you have your own experiences.

TSA is nothing more than theater to make the public believe we are safe. From that standpoint, it is a success. If we consider nail clippers and the occasional ounce of weed to be airline threats, then yes, safety might have increased. Catching 5% of fake weapons doesn't do much for me. Nor does the gaping holes in airport personell access that happens through unsecured checkpoints. Or the fact that some mule that has a pound of C4 surgically implanted (or up his rear end) won't be detected by the fancy scanners, detectors or pat-downs. It's theater. Perhaps well-intentioned theater, but theater nonetheless. And what we're witnessing with the FAA registration is exactly the same thing.

I do, however, take exception to your contention that my position is counter-productive. Quite the contrary. It used to be considered patriotic duty to question authority - especially on issues of where personal liberty is at stake (i.e. illegal searches). At some point in recent history, we have become conditioned to accept authority at face value, and question all those who question authority - or call their positions counter-productive.

To the OP, sorry for thread-jacking.

 

[m0j0]

I continue to believe rules are necessary. I also do not believe the risk of drones striking airplanes is high. I really didn't need a study to figure that out. It really is only validation of common sense. The risk is incredibly low.. I don't think you could hit an airplane with a consumer drone even if you wanted to. That doesn't mean we should fly like buffoons but I think the risk is overstated.


Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots

 

[Cookedinlh]

I agree . . until you consider TIME . . . it's just like the chances of getting struck by lightning . . given enough storms eventually someone gets hit . . maybe we could just fit airliners with "Drone Deflectors" . . . more here.

 

[erkme73]

What I don't understand is, why doesn't .gov actually test (or mandate testing) what impact a drone has on a commercial jetliner... engine, windshield, etc. And on helicopters... use the largest consumer-level drone, under the worst case scenario, fire it at the fastest velocity at the weakest components under the most grueling scenario and actually SEE what happens. Engineering theory is great, and often very accurate, but sometimes - like when entire fledgling industries and citizens' rights are at stake - actual real-world test might just be warranted.

Such tests are already conducted with 20lb FROZEN birds. They test jet engines with explosives-rigged turbine fans (which are made of metals and are several feet long) to check for engine cowling containment.

If we're talking about requiring stifling regulation and potentially industry-killing rules, doesn't it make sense to do some actual tests to verify the 'risks' presented by drones is a REAL threat?

 

[Cookedinlh]

Its expensive for each 20lb Turkey they grind up to destroy a fully functioning engine so it may be a while before they try all the various size and weight drones . . . however I do know they are running lots of simulations and I've seen some.Here's what Virginia Tech is doing.

 

[Pittnuma]

Here's an article from the BBC yesterday. While not directly germane to this thread, it does have some information about how rules may be changing particularly with the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) in Britain, and around the world.

Safety test proposal for drone users - BBC News

That is the very thing that worries me, a test...
An indirect way to remove 90% of the hobbyists from owning a drone who would be no threat and have never posed a risk, not by lack of skills but by cost. CAA and EASA are very good at this.

This leaves 7% who luckily enough can afford/justify the price and the remaining 3% who already flout the law, fly dangerously and who are the very people they want to ban in the 1st place who will not register or take the test anyway, (case in point 1 f***wit who thought it was a good idea to continually overfly football stadiums, despite many warnings), if you think this is acceptable behaviour sell your drone now and take up knitting your the very reason these regulations are coming in and potentially destroying the hobby.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using MavicPilots mobile app