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 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)
As best I can tell, the footage is from the forward-facing camera, whose view is slightly obscured by the nose-antenna-harpoon-thing(technical term) visible on the front of the drone in this shot.
That would presumably also be present in competent fake footage; but it is consistent with the line of sight that you'd infer from the drone's layout, and from the shots on the manufacturer's puff page.
The video on YouTube is dated Dec 2006...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NOar22TX2k
In the second frame it's another plane which is taking off in the opposite direction by the looks of it.
I'd say if this is declassified footage, and the Germans are up in arms about it, it likely isn't a photoshop job.
And it also suggests to me that all of the claims they're perfectly safe and won't ever interfere with civilian aviation is probably optimistic. I suspect this isn't the only near miss from a drone.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
The video exists on YouTube since December 2006
For fuck's sake, the SUBJECT BOX is for a SUBJECT, not the start of your god damned sentence.
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.
It's a chimney sweep's broom. The robot mistook the jet liner's engine for a sooty flue and was attempting to rectify it.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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.
It's the drone's genitalia, it was trying to mate with that big sexy mama.
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
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?
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?
According to the article, anti-collision technology was deemed to expensive. Which is kind of bullshit since a mode S transponder (which will help passenger jets detect the drones using TCAS) is less than $2000.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
sooty flue
It's quite treatable these days.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Giving away your location to other objects occupying the same airspace may be reasonable from a safety viewpoint. But would pretty much defeat a "secret" recon mission.
Now guess what's valued more by the military....
bickerdyke
people don't agree with their opinions on what is the "correct" way to do things?
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
You could say the attempt was so poor, it crashed and burned.
I think you're confusing military drones with toy quadrocopters. This one was 40kg and about 2m long, and by modern standards it's tiny.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Any commercial airliner flying that low will be taking off or landing, and as such their flight paths will be dictated by the orientation of the runway. The drone was clearly somewhere it shouldn't have been.
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.
OK, that'd be different; still not an automatic "bring down" though.
Well there was Eagle Eye, and now Person of Interest.
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...
Looks like a combination of an antenna and a pitot tube, to me.
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."
No but you have to identify as *something* and that is enough to give its presence away which is, by the way, absolutely what they do not want to do. I think a simple solution may be to have that as a feature that can be enabled or disabled as required with it set to enabled by default. Or, you know, they could make two versions - one for civil use and one for military use with the latter being set with the device configured to default to off.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Agreed.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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."
According to the article, anti-collision technology was deemed to expensive. Which is kind of bullshit since a mode S transponder (which will help passenger jets detect the drones using TCAS) is less than $2000.
This was a small, 88lb (40kg) drone, not a Global Hawk. $2000 would be a significant chunk of its cost.
If it was a military operation, they could just turn the transponder off.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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.
Of course it is different. Pilots of an aircraft being directed by flight control still have a responsibility to "see and avoid" and may turn down an ATC command if necessary to protect the safety of the flight. Pilots in a plane also have at least 180 degrees of visual available to them with a quick turn of the neck. There are also two pilots available to be scanning for traffic. Further, the view to the pilot is instantaneous and analog allowing for much finer detail and easier detection of traffic.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
That plane REALLY looks like a phallus.
This was a small, 88lb (40kg) drone, not a Global Hawk. $2000 would be a significant chunk of its cost.
But a small cost considering the danger of airborne vehicles prone to turbulence. If a flock of geese can bring down an airliner, a human constructed chuck of metal can do the same. Geese don't have transponders, but we can include them in our devices. Your argument is flawed. Even if the cost of the transponder would double the cost of the drone, it would still be worth it, considering the potential loss of life (and the associated liability costs).
Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, mode S transponders are mandatory in all EU airspace at this time, but I'm sure some AC will be able to comment on that. It's been a while since I've touched the controls of an aircraft in the USSEU.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
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
I'm not sure Kabul counts as EU airspace, though...
Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
So let me get this right, Roman_Mir is suggesting that something be required that doesn't actually make money for the drone manufacturer's owner??? Why, that's socialism! We need to let the site managers know that someone has hijacked Roman_Mir's account!
Sorry Roman, I just couldn't resist. Sometimes the target is so easy you just have to shoot it.
"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.
As I think has already been mentioned, the video appears to be taken at a fairly low altitude. That suggests the aircraft was either taking off or landing. Both activities put it at much greater risk than if it was struck by such an object at cruise. The margin for error is much narrower.
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
not an automatic "bring down" though.
It's wouldn't necessarily not bring it down either. Seagulls can bring down an airliner (only survivable if you have a pilot good enough to bring it down safely in the Hudson). You can always cite cases of people falling out of airplanes without parachutes and surviving, or an F-15 landing with one wing sheared off with one wing sheared off, but for the sake of safety you might want to avoid those things.
> 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"
At least it didn't get shot down...
not an automatic "bring down" though.
It's wouldn't necessarily not bring it down either. Seagulls can bring down an airliner (only survivable if you have a pilot good enough to bring it down safely in the Hudson). You can always cite cases of people falling out of airplanes without parachutes and surviving, or an F-15 landing with one wing sheared off with one wing sheared off, but for the sake of safety you might want to avoid those things.
Ugh.
1. Canada Geese, not seagulls
2. Both engines were hit, otherwise the aircraft would have still been flyable
It would likely be a better idea to always default to the safe option of "on"
If the military needs to maintain secrecy, they can spend the few minutes reading the user manual to figure out how to operate the device correctly.
If they can't be bothered to spend a few minutes figuring out how to disable the transmitter option, just imagine all the other mistakes that will be made that would give away their position and just generally screw up the goal of "secret".
I'm not sure Kabul counts as EU airspace, though...
It does not. But if you would be familiar with the topic of Airlaw and Regulations, you would be informed about the fact that according to standard aviation rules, a German aircraft (when flying in Afghanistan), must be compliant with German regulations (and thus EASA), ICAO and local (in casu Afghani) regulations.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
If it was a military operation, they could just turn the transponder off.
...and risk exactly such near misses as in this video...
bickerdyke
It must be the only incident. No other ones have been reported.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
No, just blown away.
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!
LOL, this drone's development has cost so far $0.5 billion and was in fact scrapped because of this cost. $2k is 1/250'000th of the total project cost. Peanuts.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
If it was a military operation, then the commercial airliner would not have been in the area. When they are flying in civilian airspace they need to have the transponder on.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Under VFR (Visual Flight Rules) pilots should look for other traffic and ATC tells them where they should see it.
Clarification: Under VFR, ATC will only provider traffic advisories if you request it and are in contact with ATC, which in many circumstance is not even necessary.
Under IFR (Instrument Flight Rules), ATC will provide traffic advisories, but visual separation is still required unless the aircraft is operating in actual IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions). IFR flights are still responsible to see and avoid, provided that they can actually see.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
* 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?
The military frequently uses charter flights to get troops into and out of the theater of operations.
I know everybody is blaming the UAV here, but there are two other possibilities to this story. 1) The pilot of the passenger plane is at fault. 2) The air raffic controller is at fault.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
Things are forgotten in the heat of battle though I'm not sure how much pressure a drone op is under.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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."
It mitigates the risk of financial liability to drones manufacturer, like insurance.
I don't think the German Constitution mentions drones at all. They weren't invented in 1949.
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.
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."
but you have to put something. Why can't the subject be optional?
That is not the drone you are looking for.
The near crash was a LUNA, not a Euro Hawk.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I suspect making your drones more easilty detectable might conflict with their whole raison d'etre.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I beg to differ. ;-)
OK, that's informative. Thanks!
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
I suspect this isn't the only near miss from a drone
But since there was no collision, I would call it a 'near hit'.
All my signatures are stolen from other people. Including this one.