Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Passenger Jet Nearly Collided With Drone In March
SonicSpike sends word of an FAA report that a small, remote-controlled aircraft was nearly struck by an American Airlines passenger jet as the jet was preparing to land. The pilot saw it briefly as he flew by — it was close enough that he was sure it stuck the plane, but no damage was found upon inspection. Jim Williams, head of the FAA's drone office, said the incident highlights the risk of ubiquitous, unregulated drone use. He said,
"The risk for a small UAS to be ingested into a passenger airline engine is very real. The results could be catastrophic." The article notes that the FAA "currently bans the commercial use of drones in the United States and is under growing pressure to set rules that would permit their broader use. Hobby and many law-enforcement uses are permitted. Last year, the agency began establishing test sites where businesses can try out commercial uses."
This raises a good point, instead of filling the front page with possibly unrelated posts, why doesn't slashdot have a "sticky" posts equivalent which floats at the top as a reminder to an ongoing yet important news story. For example, the Lawrence Lessig Super Pac donation raising story is still very important and needs as much awarness as possible. Just my opinion I guess, let's fix curropt politics & eventually save the Internet ya'll! :) ...
- stoops
If you read the stories on this carefully, you find out that it was a model of an F4 Phantom, not a copter type "drone" that we think of now.
Why is it that everything that flies now and doesn't have a pilot is called a drone and is a major new concern, even if it's been around for decades?
there should be liability requirements for commercial use and rules so you can't hide from it with all kinds of subcontractors
While there are certainly some people who will hold this up as an example why hobbyist drone flying should be banned, it just looks like a case of existing laws being broken. Am I believe there is not already rules governing the airspace immediately around airports? I'm sure there is, and I'm sure this person was violating those rules as they stand. So new laws against drone flying aren't going to have any effect on the outcome.
Secondly: The idea this drone could be pulled into the engine of a commercial aircraft with "catastrophic" results... and how is this any different than a large bird being pulled into the engine of an aircraft? If the sudden loss of a single engine from what should be an accidental interaction with a drone is all it takes to cause something "catastrophic" from happen, maybe the airplane needs to be designed better. If it's not accidental, but intentional (terrorism) then all the laws in the books aren't going to prevent it.
This hit every other website a day and a half ago.
But that's impossible! I thought the whole reason that slashdot "editors" don't proofread or dupe-check was so that they could get the stories posted faster.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
And that's related to this... how?
The "drone" in question was a plain old R/C model plane. Flown by a plain old idiot. In plain old restricted airspace. Which is already all sorts of plain old illegal.
"a small, remote-controlled aircraft was nearly struck by an American Airlines passenger jet "
You appear to be subtly implying that the jet was at fault. Why is that?
No amount of legal shenanigans can protect a company from recklessly flying drones in commercial airspace.
It's a myth that the law is so dumbed down that any company can employ wizard-lawyers to avoid consequences.
Any consequences you see companies avoid is usually a direct result of laws (usually passed by the GOP) which protects them. Courts prefer putting the cost of accidents at the footsteps of the perpetrator or the least-cost-avoider; it's political decisions which limit their ability to do so.
But even most of those laws have their limits. Did BP avoid consequences from the Deepwater Horizon spill? No, even though it had carefully constructed a network of subsidiaries and contractors in attempts to limit their exposure.
So don't use this supposed incident as an excuse for why the FAA should limit commercial drones. The bigger the risk, the less likely companies will be able to avoid the consequences. So the system is mostly self-limiting in that respect. It's only at the margins that the FAA might need to regulate. But the FAA wants control over the whole pie, and we should oppose that.
"a small, remote-controlled aircraft was nearly struck by an American Airlines passenger jet "
In what way is it correct to say the AA jet nearly struck the RC aircraft and not the other way around? The jet was where it was supposed to be, doing what it was supposed to do. The RC aircraft was the one out of place so it should be considered the offending craft.
From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... - "The pilot said it appeared the drone was a high-end model built to look like a fighter jet and powered with a small turbine engine, according to the FAA. Such model planes are capable of reaching higher altitudes than drone copters and may cost thousands of dollars. "
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
Where has the discussion played out? I would love to see the discussion happening elsewhere. Slashdot is mainly for comments. If I could see the comments elsewhere, that has been moderated well, I would agree this story is not needed in slashdot.
To me at least, the primary distinctions between a model aircraft and a drone are a) autopilot of some type (or very good telemetry for remote piloting) and b) range / flight time.
Model aircraft are flown by watching them from the ground. Drones are flown POV through on-board cameras and generally some autopilot capabilities.
Model aircraft typically have the capacity to fly for 10 minutes or so. Drones, an hour or more.
Drones, here defined as remotely piloted or preprogrammed aircraft with a flight time longer than twelve minutes, have not been widely available for decades.
In this particular case, the actual object has not been identified. We only have the report of the jet pilot who saw it. That report does say it was at 2,300 feet from the ground. That means nobody was looking up at it and flying it, in all probability. That altitude strongly suggests it was either following a preprogrammed flight path or was being flown from an onboard video feed.
Since an RC operator wouldn't be looking straight up at it, but would need be looking up at less than a 45 degree angle, someone flying it by remote control would have been a mile away. You can't look at a model a mile away and see whether the wings are level, or what the pitch attitude is. Therefore, it's rather unlikely that this was an RC model.
Another article: http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/...
"The pilot reported that the small unmanned aircraft involved looked similar to an F-4 Phantom jet, and not like a helicopter that might hold a camera that many associate more closely with drones. Such planes have gas turbine engines and can fly higher than an average drone, according to the FAA. Neither the drone in this case, nor its pilot, have been identified.
Why does the media insist in calling everything from model airplanes to 747's "drones". I think they're the real (mental) drones...
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
You, um, don't interact with the financial sector much, do you?
NOT A DRONE
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Why do commercial airliners have implicit ownership of the airspace? Until recently there's been no practical obstacle to this, but with cheap RC planes becoming available, the democratization of the lower few thousand feet is inevitable.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Examples, please? Because I gave you one, and you just reply with some idiotic pundit talking point.
First, let's not forget that it was conservatives that pushed through rules which allowed instability in the speculative investment markets to take down the banking industry.
Second, last time I checked all the usual suspects have been paying out tens of billions of dollars in fines.
Third, nowhere has there been substantial evidence of out-and-out fraud. Quite a few very rich people and entities took a bath in the downfall, no doubt burnt by some of the investment banks suspect business practices. You'd think if they had a case they'd have filed a suit and won. Some no doubt settled out of court, which means they got a pay out.
Fourth, the big banks that you're implicating don't have complex structures which limit their risk. All their subsidiaries are fully funded with billions of dollars. If you sue them, they'll lose money commensurate with the harm. So your example is entirely irrelevant.
Fifth, the real issue isn't well endowed commercial entities. If there's an issue, it's with small businesses or with hobbyists who wreck havoc, but who don't have any significant assets whatsoever. But there is such a thing as criminal negligence. That means courts can reach the same result in egregious cases as they could with stiffer FAA regulations.
The FAA regulating drones is like the FDA regulating 23andMe--it's the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. The threat is overblown, and alternative avenues for redress of any actual harm are sufficient to manage the risk.
Flying that close to an airport is already against FAA rules. Regulations, which already exist on that, won't change the fact that it might occasionally happen that (as another poster said) some fucktard will fly in restricted airspace.
As it stands now, we have overregulated drone rules.
Most RC enthusiasts know not to fly such a craft anywhere near an airport. General rule of thumb is 1000ft of clearance in each direction.
I doubt it "stuck" the plane.
To me the distinction between a model aircraft and a drone is that one can be remotely controlled at range and the other sits on the bookshelf or a tether.
This really shouldn't be up to discussion, all the major dictionaries define pilot-less remote controlled aircraft as drones providing they can be flown out of line of sight, and the Cambridge dictionary defines it as any remote control aircraft.
If you want to complain about the use of the word drone maybe you should work on getting the dictionary definitions changed. I am interested to know where you got your 12minute figure from.
This is more anti-drone FUD to increase regulation such that only big players like google and amazon can make/use UAS. Slashdot is continually playing into it. The model aircraft in question already violated (several) laws and regulations, no new ones are necessary. Jim Williams knows that, but is trying to justify his upcoming usurp of power. If we are to get the help of Joe Low-Information Voter to stop this landrush of corporate entitlement, we must speak loudly and clearly against such articles. In this case, I'd say it's probably best to bring up articles like this, and have handy in your quiver reasons why they are bullshit and clearly tactics to trick voters/consumers.
Captcha: matrix
Considering the size and mass of these drones, comparing to toughness of other airborne objects, and comparing the amount of emotions they arouse...
why is existence of birds still legal?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
How close to the airport was it?
The summary says "As the plane was PREPARING to land."
Well, what the hell does THAT mean? Was the landing gear down and locked, or did the flight attendants just tell everyone to put their seatbacks in the full upright position? That could be a difference of 100 miles. How far away from the airport do you have to be in order to fly a drone?
When I parked my car the other day, I briefly saw an old lady - it was close enough that I was sure it stuck to the car, but no damage was found upon inspection. I propose a ban on old ladies.
The story claims that all "drones" are unregulated. The "drone" in this story was an R/C airplane. Flying an R/C airplane anywhere near the flight path of an airport is a SERIOUS FEDERAL CRIME.
So again, the story is BULLSHIT.
This hit every other website a day and a half ago.
But that's impossible! I thought the whole reason that slashdot "editors" don't proofread or dupe-check was so that they could get the stories posted faster.
What's even more fun is when you were the one that submitted it minutes after it came out only to have it not posted and someone else's post excepted 2 days late with crappier links and less detail.
Most RC enthusiasts know not to fly such a craft anywhere near an airport. General rule of thumb is 1000ft of clearance in each direction.
The problem is these things are getting much better and much cheaper and much more accessible.
1000' horizontal clearance isn't much use if you thing has a service ceiling of 8000'.
The thing is in the past anything in that range would be so specialised that the sort of person to buy it would be deeply versed in all the rules and knowledge operations. These days, they're so cheap, any yahoo can get one.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Did you miss the part a couple days ago where it was declared by a judge that the FAA has ZERO jurisdiction over drones? It's AWFULLY convenient timing......
Yes.....like trained monkeys who are used to destroy bird nests at a Chinese military airbase.
Why do commercial airliners have implicit ownership of the airspace?
They don't. In the U.S., the people own the air and the FAA makes sure that it is used safely.
To expand on this: there are rules governing where planes can fly and when. The people that have to follow these rules are both commercial planes and "non-commercial" planes (i.e., 'general aviation' folks that fly (e.g.) Cesnas).
Around an airport, the use of the airspace for a radius of 5-20 nautical miles, from ground to about 5000 feet, is 'owned' by the air traffic controller and any aeroplanes operating in that area need to contact ATC for authorization to go into the area. Depending on the size of the airport, the class of airspace could B, C, or D:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_classes
Drone operators tend not to contact ATC to get clearance, and so they can potentially fly into other aircraft.
However, if the drone operator does not want to go through with the "hassle" of radioing ATC, there are 'uncontrolled' airspaces available. In the US, one can go to the FAA's web site and get airspace charts for free, and simply go to the location/s where ATC clearance is not required.
We've had a decent system for preventing flying vehicles from colliding for a few decades now. Perhaps the drone operators should leverage it for their hobby.
I fly military UAVs for a living. As a responsible pilot, I'm certified and follow airspace rules, flying a "fly by wire" aircvaft that has triple-string redundancy, and computers and software designed to the same standards as Airbus and Boeing fly by wire airplanes.
What the nascent drone industry wants to do is to throw away 50 years of safety improvements to save money for commercial operations. Do any of these "Commercial drones" have redundant datalinks, redundant flight control computers, commercially licensed pilots or flight controls and engines qualified for flight? Nope. None of those. They've deliberately thrown away safety to make a bottom line.
The FAA owns it and regulates it to allow the SAFE operation of the NAS. It's the drone pilots, in particular those lobbying for commercial operations, who feel entitled to do whatever the fuck they want, to the danger of everyone around and below them.
I do not want gov't control over these things bu the sub-human mongrels! Free American from the FAA, FDA, and FCC and let rich people frolic in its trickling down wake.
Everyone must become Snowden and reveal the truth about the govt's evil plans to become the Federal government!!!
> all the major dictionaries
Oxford is probably the most respected dictionary of English and it doesn't use that definition.
> providing they can be flown out of line of sight
A paper airplane can fly around the corner beyond line of site, so by "flown" you must mean "controlled". Control beyond line of site requires the telemetry mentioned in my working definition.
I think you'd also agree that an object that includes a full programmable autopilot, that can be programmed to fly past certain GPS waypoints, is a drone. So at this point we have "it's a drone if it can either be controlled beyond line of site via telemetry or follow a preprogrammed flight path".
A $6 foam glider can have its elevators set to either fly straight or perform a loop. That meets the condition of "follow a preprogrammed flight path", so we need to distinguish between that 30 foot flight and an actual drone. In practice, considering flight time effectively distinguishes drones vs children's toys. That's not a theoretical distinction, but a practical guideline.
Why not just pass rules that say hobbyists can only fly in certain areas? "Drone pockets". Until further legislation is passed.
Hobbysits will fly them. Why not strike a compromise till things can be ironed out.
Just a matter of months before a Boing 737 or Airbus A320 with its passenger load will be downed by a $400 to $500 Drone.
When that happens it will be the 'Challenger Disaster' moment for Drones in the U.S.
In this particular case, the actual object has not been identified.
In which case it might better be described as a "UFO". But then many people, who don't know what the term actually means, would jump wrong, and silly, conclusions.
But ... but ... the constitution. And freedom!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I think when he said "in each direction" the other one was up.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Really, what are the chances of "accidentally" flying a drone into a commercial airliner? Is it more or less than the chances of a blind man "accidentally" sniping someone 700 meters away?
If you replace the words "drone" and "remote controlled aircraft" in the article with the word "goose" nothing actually changes.
The risk is the same (possibly higher).
I wonder if the FAA has a goose office, I suspect not.
They require notice, so the pilot can be informed of any localized special concerns, such as "this is an airport, stay away".
davecb@spamcop.net
Oxford is probably the most respected dictionary of English and it doesn't use that definition.
From Oxforddictioinaries.com:
drone /dr(slashdotsuckssomuchatthis)n /
Pronunciation:
NOUN
4. A remote-controlled pilotless aircraft or missile.
When I said all the major dictionaries I not only meant it I also checked it. None of the dictionaries require autonomy for an aircraft to be considered a drone, and some of the more strict interpretations only require being able to be flown out of line of sight.
Like it or not, according to the dictionaries the media is using the term correctly.
Thegarbz said:
all the major dictionaries define pilot-less remote controlled aircraft as drones providing they can be flown out of line of sight
Then he said:
4. A remote-controlled pilotless aircraft or missile.
Notice Oxford doesn't say anything about line of sight. Indeed, they make no distinction between a typical RC toy and a drone. Therefore, their definition is not useful. If you're talking about remote-control toys, you say "toy plane".* To call a cheap toy a "drone" is misleading.
What you're missing is that dictionaries define a "apple" as "a fruit". That doesn't mean that all fruits are apples. Similarly, the fact that a drone is a remote controlled plane doesn't mean that all RC planes are drones. (Any more than all fruits are apples just because an apple is a fruit.)
* Yes I am aware that some RC planes are EXPENSIVE toys, toys for grownups. I've crashed a few and have the expensive parts on a shelf. That doesn't matter to this discussion. The Oxford definition, if treated as comprehensive, would include Air Hogs as drones, which is silly.
So your argument is the dictionary is wrong? Then complain about the dictionary and not about the media using the word.
I admire your attempt to save your argument though. You've gone from ignore all dictionaries, Oxford is the respected one, to Oxford isn't useful and therefor ignore their view on the language.
As some point you're going to need to pick a side and it may help to see if that side follows your point of view before you move on. That and your definition of "expensive" I think is a few years out of date.
You can get a remote controlled plane that can be flown out of line of site with FPV camera for under $200, you can get a fully autonomous unit for under $400. Just because something becomes cheap, available outside of military use, and is commonly used as a toy does not mean you should abandon its dictionary definition.
From that comment I take it you've changed your mind and decided that Oxford is correct and comprehensive? Because it doesn't say what you claimed "all dictionaries x say. American Heritage doesn't either.
If so, I guess you've also decided that all fruits are apples, because Oxford says apple is a fruit.
Quite the opposite, you're the one who decided on picking one well respected dictionary. I wrote:
all major dictionaries
Quite a bit different isn't it. Feel free to go look up the Cambridge dictionary, or the Collins dictionary, heck even the Australian Macquarie dictionary defines drone the same way.
As for the comparison between an apple and a fruit. You don't seem to understand words do you? When you compare a noun and a noun it follows they are either synonyms or subsets of groups. When you compare adjective-adjective-adjective-noun to a noun it follows that one equals the other.
But hey I'm just one person in this lonely little world who thinks that it should be ok to call any radio-controlled aircraft a drone. Oh wait I'm not, I seem to be siding not only with the people who define it but people who use the word in various media too.
I'd say your complaints were getting a bit silly but that already happened about three posts ago. If you don't like it then take up regulated language like French.
And no more than 400 feet up.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows