Slashdot Mirror


Drone Comes Within 200 Feet of Airliner Over New York

New submitter FoolishBluntman sends this quote from CNN: "An unmanned drone came within 200 feet of a commercial jet over New York, triggering an FBI appeal to the public for any information about the unusual and potentially dangerous incident. The crew of Alitalia Flight 608 approaching John F. Kennedy airport on Monday reported the sighting. 'We saw a drone, a drone aircraft,' the pilot can be heard telling air traffic controllers on radio calls captured by the website LiveATC.net. ... The unmanned aircraft, described by the FBI as black and no more than three feet wide with four propellers, came within 200 feet of the Boeing jetliner. The FBI said it was looking to identify and locate the aircraft and its operator. A source with knowledge of the incident says investigators interviewed the pilot and others on the Alitalia plane."

10 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. Iran by detritus. · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, Iran is the proud new owner of an RQ-170, maybe they decided to take it for a joyride over US airspace?

    1. Re:Iran by petman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I just hope that it isn't Muslims practising to bring down another aircraft

      So you're saying that if it were Christians practising to bring down an aircraft, it would be okay?

  2. Will they get banned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder when there'll start to be some sort of crackdown on personal UAVs or RCVs. I've still not heard of any incidents of these being used to harm people*, but maybe this is the first incident. It's bound to happen at some point though, and I certainly expect a wave of copycats, accompanied some panic and backlash. The technology's probably not at that stage yet - would need larger payloads or much better automatic guidance for anyone to do much. I can't see it far off someone sticking a grenade on the front of one though for a cheap guided missile, or a ricin tipped spike and just fly one into someone. Might seem a bit far fetched, but there's certainly people out there with a will to do so.

    Of course, what can be actually be done about them isn't clear. It'd be like trying to stop pirate radio, but potentially even more difficult - fully automated devices wouldn't need any radio link, so the only thing you could really do it stopping purchase or having some form of traceable identifiers.

    * With the huge exception of military drones of course. Crime using RCVs is certainly not new, see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1112673/Remote-control-toy-helicopter-used-fly-drugs-prison.html

  3. Only two possibilities. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1) Nobody was supposed to see that drone. Since civilians obviously did, everyone is scrambling to act surprised about it.

    2) They don't actually know whose drone it was.

    You will know which it is by what happens to this story. If they figure out it belonged to any one of the various police-state departments the US government created and employs, the story will simply disappear- business as usual, nothing to see here. If it actually was a rogue drone, then whoever was flying it will probably get a story of their own in the near future.

  4. The cynic in me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...thinks it would be easy to set up a Straw Man situation by surrupticiously arranging an agency to do it, then announce to the media that some unidentified incident occurred, which in turn becomes a case for legislating against Joe Citizen being allowed to fly FPVs.

    1. Re:The cynic in me... by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or maybe get those agency's funds un sequestered?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:The cynic in me... by fazookus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You have to wonder how someone in an airliner going 200+ mph could even see something that small going ~0 mph, much less be able to describe it in such detail...

  5. Re:fuckwittery of the highest order by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So it is just the gross exaggeration of a tiny spot of light. Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to actually try to get one of those slow remote control quadrocopters to intersect with a jet airliner going a few hundred miles per hour. So somebody was playing with one of these too close to an airport and paying attention to the camera view of the 'ground' rather than any airspace around them. Even an automated flight gone out of control as it lost radio contact with the controller. This kind of extreme exaggeration stinks of a law enforcement desire to clamp down on these devices because they could all to readily spy on out of control cops.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  6. Re:That's not a drone by morgauxo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, I think you can get some higher powers legally using ham bands if you are licensed. I think that is limited to specific frequencies and still lower power than hams normally use to talk to one another but I'm not up on the exact rules for that. I bet it's a whole lot more than you can do by part 15 though!

  7. Re:I smell a rat by EdgePenguin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What is wrong with tracking drone purchases?

    I'd go even further, and say its not that unreasonable for the government to track drone usage by demanding you install a transponder and register it with them. Airspace is serious business.