New UK drone laws next week

[Viciam]

Just came across this: Drone came within a metre of smashing into a passenger plane at Liverpool's John Lennon Airport

 

[Viciam]

Bump

 

[Marco Cantieni]

New UK bird laws the week after: Birds supposed to install a license plate on their feathers for easy identification in case of a collision or near miss encounter.

 

[DOC_XDA]

Honestly, I agree on regulations. What I disagree is in te "catastrophic collision"....I mean, c'mon, yes it would be catastrophic to the drone, but not to the airplane. Airplanes smash onto much heavier birds all the times and not because of that it causes a disaster. It is not likely a 1 or 2 kg drone will cause a plane to crash!...lets be reasonable. I agree we all have to be responsible including the media on using those kind of words. That only creates panic among the uneducated people, which it appears write laws. :/

 

[Viciam]

Honestly, I agree on regulations. What I disagree is in te "catastrophic collision"....I mean, c'mon, yes it would be catastrophic to the drone, but not to the airplane. Airplanes smash onto much heavier birds all the times and not because of that it causes a disaster. It is not likely a 1 or 2 kg drone will cause a plane to crash!...lets be reasonable. I agree we all have to be responsible including the media on using those kind of words. That only creates panic among the uneducated people, which it appears write laws. :/

Yes but there are people out there who also have bigger drones with 6/8 propellers, though mostly used by pros but still.

 

[gavcuk]

Why is anyone even reading this article? It has about as much chance of being factual as DJI turning repairs around in a week.

 

[dwallersv]

Honestly, I agree on regulations. What I disagree is in te "catastrophic collision"....I mean, c'mon, yes it would be catastrophic to the drone, but not to the airplane. Airplanes smash onto much heavier birds all the times and not because of that it causes a disaster. It is not likely a 1 or 2 kg drone will cause a plane to crash!...lets be reasonable. I agree we all have to be responsible including the media on using those kind of words. That only creates panic among the uneducated people, which it appears write laws. :/

The wind-tunnel testing I've seen tells a dramatically different story.

The reason is, birds are soft flesh, so when a collision happens, much of the impact energy is absorbed in the splattering destruction of the bird. Deformation absorbs a lot energy -- this is why cars are designed with "crumple zones" and other stress points designed to break and deform.

A Mavic, on the other hand, is like a rock. At 100mph, a drone (in this case a P3) will go right through the wing of a cessna 152.

 

[SeaComms]

I know they had pictures of a P3 but they stated the drone was blue, but hey, lets put up a picture of a white one...

 

[DOC_XDA]

The wind-tunnel testing I've seen tells a dramatically different story.

The reason is, birds are soft flesh, so when a collision happens, much of the impact energy is absorbed in the splattering destruction of the bird. Deformation absorbs a lot energy -- this is why cars are designed with "crumple zones" and other stress points designed to break and deform.

A Mavic, on the other hand, is like a rock. At 100mph, a drone (in this case a P3) will go right through the wing of a cessna 152.

That makes sense, although that would be lots of coincidence to crash just at the propeller. Anyway, good to know....and as said, it is not a good idea to fly anywhere near other flying objects.

 

[Evo1668]

Come on people for pity sake, it was reported in the UK Sun Newspaper.....if ever there was a publication built on fake news, its complete BS....

 

[westonmavicpilot]

I'm constantly baffled by the level of arrogance and ignorance displayed by so many people here regarding drones being flown near planes. How about we stick all those people on a plane and fly a drone into it and see if they remain so cocky about their chances at the point of impact.
Some of you complain about the way the media reports these near misses as though it's our right as drone owners to act like idiots and put people at risk - as if the public doesn't have a low enough opinion of drone flyers already you then defend the near misses on a public forum. Dumb.

 

[Evo1668]

Oh of course the mainstream media in most Western developed societies are so honest aren't they....arrogance has nothing to do with it...but stupidity and gullibility of readership to believe anything written in print is what amazes me...do your research on the article.....

Oh and don't fly drones near planes.....

 

[westonmavicpilot]

It's not about the gullible readership, we all know they will believe anything that's written, and sensational headlines sell papers - it's about the poor attitude and god given right that some think they have to either fly near or defend those that do. I did my research on the article, also reported in the Times and several other 'real news' papers... I guess they all just make this stuff up.

 

[Evo1668]

Check the wording across the coverage......identical.....Oh and don't think the Times ...sic is any excuse for real news - learn to look outside mainstream media and you might actually learn something

 

[Viciam]

Theres nothing about drone laws outside the main mainstream media im afraid

 

[Islandguy27]

True or not the big issue is if a drone hit a windshield it could penetrate and incapacitate the pilot of an airplane. That is where the real danger lies.

 

[Viciam]

Well lets wait and see if any new laws are announced within the next week or so

 

[danman999]

Honestly, I agree on regulations. What I disagree is in te "catastrophic collision"....I mean, c'mon, yes it would be catastrophic to the drone, but not to the airplane. Airplanes smash onto much heavier birds all the times and not because of that it causes a disaster. It is not likely a 1 or 2 kg drone will cause a plane to crash!...lets be reasonable. I agree we all have to be responsible including the media on using those kind of words. That only creates panic among the uneducated people, which it appears write laws. :/

Uneducated? Really?
A drone collision can rip off a pitot tube, damage a static port, block the oil intercooler or cause prop/turbine blade damage. When an aircraft is low and slow, as in during takeoff (laden with fuel) and landing, it is most vulnerable. The margins are considerably thinner should an emergency arise.
Also small single-engine and twins have thin plexi windscreens. A Mavic or other small drone could smash right through a plexi windscreen and into the pilot or passengers face, causing serious injury or worse.
I am a FAA certificated pilot with instrument and ground instructor ratings. I fly all the time out of Class B, C, D and E airports. My greatest collision fear around the airport surface area is not with another aircraft, but some hobbyist with a drone.
I am not saying all drone operators are careless and wreckless, but obviously many are. Thus my argument that for a drone operator to be able to fly in an airport area they need to be a certificated pilot, and I don't mean simply a drone operators license.

 

[westonmavicpilot]

Check the wording across the coverage......identical.....Oh and don't think the Times ...sic is any excuse for real news - learn to look outside mainstream media and you might actually learn something

Thank you for proving my whole argument about arrogant and ignorant people. You sir are a classic case! Condesending ****.

 

[Pablo]

Just came across this: Drone came within a metre of smashing into a passenger plane at Liverpool's John Lennon Airport

Not reading that as it's from The S*n.