Slashdot Mirror
Footage Reveals Drone Aircraft Nearly Downed Passenger Plane in 2004
Newly released footage, writes reader Wowsers, shows that in 2004 "A German drone aircraft was within meters of bringing down a passenger aircraft with 100 people on board. The link shows stills from onboard the drone. The incident had been hushed up for nine years, and is creating waves in Germany now the footage has been leaked out."
I think I saw this episode.
Or is it just another Photoshop? Also what's the object in the middle at the top?
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
So it's not like the drone is a robot that decides where and when to fly on its own, this is not hugely different from just 2 normal large passengers jets being directed at each other by ground control.
I only wonder if there is anything like ACAS / TCAS on the drone and is the drone allowed to maneuver away from collision on its own?
You can't handle the truth.
I have searched for this in german web pages. Beside aero.de and spiegel.de there is next to NO german web pages mentionning this and a lot of english pages. In fact it isn't even on google news in german...
No it's not a Photoshop. The drone is not equiped with an automatic preventation system against collisions. The accident nearly happened in Afghanistan. The whole discussion came up by the mistakes which were made and the money which was spend on the Eurohawk project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_RQ-4_Global_Hawk)
The video on YouTube is dated Dec 2006...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NOar22TX2k
A drone nearly hit a civil plane in 1998 over Iran : the story
The only way flying cars for people will work is with massive computerized control, which is being built into ground cars, too. Best get on with it.
Of course, this one being military grade could probably shut it off anyway, if it had it.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I wonder if it's merely a coincidence that this...became available... at roughly the same time that Euro Hawk's ICAO-togetherness issues became insurmountable(it certainly would be a convenient one, if somebody wanted to twist that particular knife, very good footage at a very good time), or whether photogenic leaks and procurement debacles are both more or less continuous phenomena and so necessarily overlap from time to time?
It has occurred to me, thus it has occurred to government, that a drone-related 'accident' is a statistical certainty if their use continues to grow. It will be peddled through the news outlets as an unfortunate sacrifice for your national security. "Think of all the lives it's saved", "Piloted planes collide too", and maybe "Casualties in the War on Terror" may be used to church it up.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
JYI: This was a small drone (40kg). It would have taken a very unlucky hit to take down the airpane.
I had a colleague who operated those things in Afghanistan, they were essentially a big RC plane.
You'd think with all their experience with unmanned drone aircraft, the Germans would have no such problems...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
The video exists on YouTube since December 2006
Interesting, as I recall seeing this video in the documentary "Rise of The Machines" last year:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20JCGDwBt7A (starting at 20mins)
For fuck's sake, the SUBJECT BOX is for a SUBJECT, not the start of your god damned sentence.
Seems like Luna has an operational speed of 70 km/h.
How many seconds would it need to evade a passenger jet of that size coming towards it anyway?
Which one of the two aircraft was in the wrong air lane?
Current technology won't separate the aircraft well enough. The drones are not about to see and avoid like people. Think of control delays (speed of light seems pretty fast until you realize the pilot is thousands of miles away, you have to get the video image to them, and then the pilot has to react, then the reaction command has to get back to the aircraft, it isn't seconds, but certainly many milliseconds).
Then you can also see how fast the two aircraft are converging. It was easy to miss the little dot, and it was really darn big by the time the drone could make it out. Of course by then, there wasn't much either could do. And what is with that big antenna or whatever blocking the view?
One day a drone will hit a passenger carrying aircraft. Who is gonna scream then? Lets let the technology catch up, and not put these things in civilian airspace.
this is more fun. drama and all.
Someone should be prosecuted for this... Is the sharing of the video is treason and not just copyright infrigment? #FreeManning #ShareingIsCareing
Slashdot staffers could be prosecuted for sharing link to copyrighted video.
*sarcasm*
A plane full of "mohammeds" crashes in "Bin Laden's yard" and its just another day at the office.
If it were in New York City then maybe we would give a shit... for some reason, planes crashing in that city are big deal.
The pilot of the plane didn't pay attention to the drone, but manage to miss it anyway. The drone in question is slow moving and was on radar, the pilot and tower got away with a near miss.
This isn't a secret, and never was. This is the Daily Mail (UK's drama-queen rag for females) digging up some old shit to generate advert impressions.
It would be pretty easy to turn the public against drones if there was some near term sci-fi blockbuster that illustrates what a drone-filled culture looks like. You'd think that hollywood would be all over that, but they aren't. I wonder why?
It was "leaked" to youtube in 2006 and now has been viewed 217,648 times. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NOar22TX2k The Daily Wail makes its money from people that don't have anything significant to worry about in their lives - The Wail gives them something to worry about. A standard modus operandi is to find something that is dangerous in excess, write a scare story, and completely ignore that it was made illegal several years previously.
Can I get a /. option to block stories that are linked to the daily fail?
only jews were on board.....so the joke goes .....i know not funny but its said hitler was cloned and is now in some grand video game driving his "new planes" around
They never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Alarmist headline - check
Photo completely irrelevant to the story (32,250lb Eurohawk instead of this photo) - check
Incorrect description of events - check
Nonsensical sentence - "The drone passes under the left wing of the engine" - check
If you insist on reading a mindless tabloid, at least read one with T&A
Ugh, you just made me click a Daily Fail link. Damn you slashdot.
Governments apparently deem everything "classified" simply so people don't know what they're doing. It seems like there should be more specific justification than just an overall secrecy blanket. eh?
comment.
people don't agree with their opinions on what is the "correct" way to do things?
A couple-pound plastic widget is not going to bring down an airliner after a collision, unless it's exceedingly (un)lucky. Large planes can take impact from much bigger objects and keep flying.
Footage Reveals Drone Aircraft Neatly Avoids Passenger Plane in 2004, Testament To Drone Technology.
Fixed.
From TFA:
The 88lb German 'Luna' drone was caught in air turbulence created by the Ariana passenger plane, before losing control and crash landing near the Afghan capital, Kabul.
Uh, yea, not really "neatly avoid[ing]" when the damn thing crashes as a result.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
only contain redundant information? Why not repurpose this wonderful box to set ourselves free from the tyranny of subjects!
A miss is as good as a mile
You do realize that the frontal area of an airplane consists largely of the cockpit and engines, right? And that many areas of the plane's wing and body are slightly thicker than a soda can? Those "NO STEP" warnings are there for a reason. Have you seen what a single goose, about 6-7lb, can do to a passenger airliner? This thing weighs more than ten times that, and is substantially larger. If you think 88lb of hard material traveling at several hundred miles per hour won't cause serious-to-catastrophic damage to a passenger airliner, you're an idiot.
Please help metamoderate.
Guess what, jackass? Data is data. If it's cyphered you have no way to know it's video.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Did you ever witness the top-post vs. bottom-post Usenet battles? Those were fun. I'm a bottom poster though I snip. Well, no... I haven't engaged in Usenet activity in years.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
V1 was not a rocket. It was a pulse-JET powered DRONE aircraft with a mechanical control computer.
Once the video is complete it shows the name of the drone "LUNA-TIC." LUNATIC? Really? This takes a little of the surprise away from it for me.
Rules or conventions, etc, organize things, processes. You've surely encountered the case where someone defines the meaning of a word as something different than what you define the same word to "mean" and the conversation using that word quickly becomes confusing or even confrontational.
What if I decide to use a yellow traffic light to mean "everyone else begins stopping their vehicle, but I should accelerate", or "No left turn" as "No left turns unless you are in a hurry".
What if you employer had the opinion that the term "Raise" meant "decrease in real world purchasing power".
What if your parents had decided that "Dinner" meant "beating you with a rubber hose until the economy improves".
What if the next judge you have to deal with has defined "innocent until proven guilty" to mean "innocent unless inconvenient for myself".
What if slashdot.org defined "Reply to This" to mean "send immediately to NSA/FBI/CIA headquarters"
See how one's reaction might be intense?
http://defensetech.org/2012/03/21/pics-of-the-day-the-c-130-that-collided-with-a-uav/
This was a Shadow UAV (~425 lbs).
This is with more than 1.3 million hours of UAS operations, so consider that in the context of frequency of occurrence.
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
Did you ever witness the top-post vs. bottom-post Usenet battles? Those were fun
Ahh, that brings back memories. I participated in those battles. I was a bottom poster, and I think we had logic and God on our side. But eventually we were just overwhelmed by the mass of top posters from the world of html email. It was like defending against the British Army on the Somme. Today I am a top poster myself for email, but I still bottom post in forums.
I'm pretty sure this was the episode of the "The Lone Gunmen" that got the series killed off.
That plane REALLY looks like a phallus.
What if I decide to use a yellow traffic light to mean "everyone else begins stopping their vehicle, but I should accelerate"
Then you get to be used as a demonstration of 'Evolution In Action'.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
fuck I can't read apparently. mod down..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
> Today I am a top poster myself for email, but I still bottom post in forums.
Same here, mostly. Actually, I just use whatever convention makes the most sense at the time, but almost always top post in email now.... unless someone else is known to be a fellow inline commenter, at which point, I quickly shift. If a discussion looks like it may go long, I will sometimes ask if they are ok with inline comments.
Though, even if we have been inline commenting, I will top post occasionally if its just a very quick note that pertains to the whole email like "I don't have time to reply right now, I will get back to you in a few days" or "Sounds good, see you there".
Top posts are great if questions are simple, and conversations are short. Just sitting here now I can think of several concrete examples of entire discussion threads at work that could have been so much shorter with inline posts....just because it helps context current in the discussion.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
For fuck's sake, the SUBJECT BOX is for a SUBJECT, not the start of your god damned sentence.
Just do what I do and, well, treat it as a subject header. If it comes back as a broken sentence fragment like that, consider it as being from a spambot and ignore it. I mean, in a way, that's what they're doing, abusing an established communication convention to desperately spray out as much information as possible in the hopes that people will be tricked into reading more of it, rather than actually having anything interesting to say.
people don't agree with their opinions on what is the "correct" way to do things?
No, and yes? I think?
No, "people don't agree with their opinions" appears false. People generally do agree with their own opinions, else they wouldn't be their own opinions.
Yes, others might disagree. Though you don't mention others in your question, so perhaps I am wandering away from your question.
Is English not your first language? If so, we understand.
But that statement/question as written makes no sense. I believe you are missing a noun to apply the rest of the question too. It makes it difficult to guess your intent and what you are asking.
One of the issues in the article is that the drone does not have a TCAS. According to international rules it is not required to have one.
It is a type of airborne collision avoidance system mandated by the International Civil Aviation Organization to be fitted to all aircraft with a maximum take-off mass (MTOM) of over 5,700 kg (13,000 lb) or authorized to carry more than 19 passengers.
Most light aircraft, which can and have brought down passenger aircraft, are not required to have it either as they are smaller than 5,700 kg and carry less than 19 passengers.
A stupid drone pilot took a drone where it should not have gone and some people are trying to use it to show drones are dangerous. Pilots of small aircraft do that all the time and people are not demanding they be banned. It is a weak argument to deflect attention from other issues.
Silence! Everyone knows it's butter-side up!
* It's not really; a near-collision with an out-of-control flying machine can happen from any flying machine that can go out of control (ps: that's all of them). It's just the cost of doing business.
Isn't Replies appearing top or bottom a client viewer option?
I still bottom post - everything. Why? I'm half convinced the retarded folks I'm responding to need all the help they can get recalling what they said or what the conversation was about in the first place. But, mostly I do it because I see myself as the last bastion against all that is evil in this world. God indeed... I'm more a crusader, maybe a Templar Knight. *nods*
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Inline is nice but after that day which shan't be mentioned there were a lot of simpler folk online who didn't really grasp the concept at the time. I was a frequent participant of the Microsoft owned NNTP servers and (that's where I spent a lot of time, I was an MVP for years back then) there were, shall we say, an even greater amount of slow people than there were out in the regular newsgroups. So, while I liked inline posting there was some issues with people following it. I found that increasing spacing helped. Sort of include their statement and reply in one "group" and then a few lines before the next one...
Wow, memories... I should meander back over that way sometime. I wonder if I'm the only one who has a sort of mental map of the internet in their head. There be dragons and whatnot... Ah well.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Did you ever witness the top-post vs. bottom-post Usenet battles? Those were fun
Ahh, that brings back memories. I participated in those battles. I was a bottom poster, and I think we had logic and God on our side.
You're not a real man unless you're on top. But I will admit, the bottoms are nice to look at.
What if you employer had the opinion that the term "Raise" meant "decrease in real world purchasing power".
Given the percentages that most people get vs. inflation, that's exactly what the employers mean.
Your logic was flawed!
The previous posts were an appendix! They weren't the important content!
To hell with the inline commenters, they claim clarity but work on the side of pure evil.
Though; what we should have been fighting for; was a markup language that let us designate sections of a post with a time period. So instead of using the > and >> arrows to indicate past messages, we would stick our message in and then any reader could re-organise the system in a top or bottom post scenario.
Obviously; this markup language would render readably in top-post order if you had a text-only client.
NO! It should default to bottom post so that OTHER people could read the question/comment before reading the response or so that the OP could be reminded of the content of their previous post. How had is it to scroll? ;)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I interleave every other word just to be safe. Every other post, I use my first word first.
but you have to put something. Why can't the subject be optional?
Living in Germany, I can say that this has been in several widely read (ie. millions) newspapers. AFAIK it was also on TV.
Sounds like you got out of the wrong side of the bed with extreme prejudice this morning.