Record-Breaking 11000ft Flight Sparks Criticism In Pilot Community

An anonymous reader writes: In an attempt to break the world 'how high can you fly a consumer drone' record, an anonymous person from the Netherlands flew a Phantom 2 Quadcopter to a height of up to 3.4 km. That is more than 3 km above the maximum European Union legal height of 120 meters, which has applied since July 1, 2015 to hobby drones. Undoubtedly he set a new record of sorts, which also led to substantial discussions among the drone pilot community on the safe use of drones. At a height of 3.4 kilometers or 11000 feet you can indeed run into regular air traffic, or cause a lot of damage in case of a crash. Fortunately not in this flight -- but the battery had only 4% capacity at the moment of landing.

Comments

So what you are actually saying...

[tlambert]

So what you are actually saying... "but the battery had only 4% capacity at the moment of landing" ...is that these things need better/bigger batteries.

Re:Would it really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is speculaton that the lithium batteries could explode if sucked into the jet engine, with unknown effect.

Geese rarely explode under similar conditions.

Re:Would it really matter?

[wonkey_monkey]

granted the Phantom 2 weighs much less than the average duck

It's a witch!

Re:"you can indeed run into regular air traffic"

[maxrate]

I'm a pilot, but I love drones, built a quad copter 3 years ago, a DIY job - at 11,000', sorry to say, possibility of impact is exceptionally high. Best case scenario, damage to manned aircraft in the tens of thousands - Worst case scenario - injury and loss of life. Probability of merely tens of thousands of dollars of damage = low, probability of loss of life = high. This isn't about killing anyone's fun flying the drones....- this is about the real (and not far fetched) danger of me and my passengers losing our lives due to someone taking some aerial photography or just messin' about. Drones need to be regulated, there needs to be safe guards installed. Don't think for a minute a pilot would spot one of these little drones and be able to avoid it. We really are at your mercy, airplanes are not big strong 'tanks' people think they are. They have thin skin, structures to withstand (only) aerodynamic lift properties. In the sky, avoidance is paramount. Also, geese/birds aren't made of plastic and metal, they are flesh and bone is which 'can blend' (if we're lucky). Metal and plastic parts colliding will certainly elevate our chances of surviving an impact. Folks talk about 'rights' in flying these drones, what about my 'right' to survive? We need rules, we need folks to abide by them, we need everyone to get along. BY THE WAY: As far as flying, come get a pilot license!! I did the drone thing, flying the 'real' thing is so much more enjoyable. The general aviation community is relatively small, we always welcome more folks in the sky - G/A is a great hobby, meet lots of people, lot's of places to travel to.

Quadcopter enthusiasts want quadcopters eliminated

[DNS-and-BIND]

The only conclusion I can draw from stunts like this is that quadcopter enthusiasts want quadcopters eliminated. Because this is precisely this bullshit that is going to get them banned, and yet again and again we hear these stories. If they would just be cool, and be responsible with their quadcopters, things would be great. But noooooo, that's not happening. You'd figure the Dutch would be especially sensitive after Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, but noooooo. So, government is going to step in and take away their toys before we lose an airliner.

Re:"you can indeed run into regular air traffic"

[DerekLyons]

It's not just about the even being unlikely - it's also about the consequences when it does happen. A one in a million event that dents someone's pride? No biggie. A one in million event that can result in multiple deaths or a mass casualty event? That's something to be concerned about.

Get a permit/file a flight plan

[davidwr]

Air-traffic authorities should provide for this sort of thing by allowing trained (licensed?) hobbyists to file a flight plan ahead of time, to give the authorities time to say "no, the airspace is busy at the time you requested" or "yes, go ahead, we've put you in the system and will alert other airspace users of your presence. Please use transponder code ABCXYZ."

Re:Get a permit/file a flight plan

[tlhIngan]

Air-traffic authorities should provide for this sort of thing by allowing trained (licensed?) hobbyists to file a flight plan ahead of time, to give the authorities time to say "no, the airspace is busy at the time you requested" or "yes, go ahead, we've put you in the system and will alert other airspace users of your presence. Please use transponder code ABCXYZ."

They do, actually. Rocketry enthusiasts routinely submit NOTAMs (Notice to Airmen) to the FAA for distribution notifying that areas of airspace are to be closed off for rocket flights. Granted, these vehicles routinely reach anywhere from 1000' to 30,000' so they just close it all off.

And I believe in the areas allowed, it's actually marked on charts as restricted airspace so you must fly around it or get permission from the controlling authority.

Of course, the problem is this usually takes place far away from civilization into basically deserted areas (also far away from popular air routes). which takes a lot of fun out of the whole thing when you have to drive 2-3 hours to get to the cleared area, but it means no one is even close to being put in danger.

Right now, we're relying on big sky theory ("see and avoid"). It works, most of the time, until your big sky gets a little crowded. Near misses happen pretty routinely, even under control of ATC. It's also why ADS-B is a new and exciting technology - before that, smaller aircraft don't usually have TCAS systems, while the bigger airlines do. (Proactive pilots routinely purchased "PCAS" Personal Collision Avoidance Systems - basically a portable transponder receiver that works identically to a TCAS except it can't do a TCAS negotiation). A TCAS to TCAS link means two aircraft converging would communicate for a non-conflicting resolution - one will climb, the other emergency descent. A TCAS advisory is considered so important, they are to be immediately obeyed even if it goes against ATC. (In the early days of TCAS, this did cause collisions).

ADS-B tries to provide same but is available to all.

And let's just say TCAS advisories, PCAS advisories and ADS-B traffic displays have been praised by many a pilot.

Re:Would it really matter?

[rwyoder]

Google Image search of "birdstrike aircraft": https://www.google.com/search?...

Now explain to all those birds that they should have been deflected around the aircraft.

1 in 1 ^ 18, Less than a bird strikes

[Anonymous Coward]

A drone in a 3km cubes (say 7.28 ^ 11 positions) overlapping a plane (say 50m x 50m x 50m, 216000 positions).

We're looking at numbers of the order of 1 ^ 18 for simple instantaneous collission, say it passes 1000 of these cubes, 1 in 1 ^ 15.

But that assumes pure random chance, that the drone pilot never sees the plane. Which is unlikely.

Put this in context there are BILLIONS of birds in the sky, do you want to regulate them too?

Re:1 in 1 ^ 18, Less than a bird strikes

[Chibi Merrow]

There aren't billions of birds at 11,000 feet.

And at low altitudes where planes commonly are (e.g. around airports) we scare them away with rockets or outright kill them.

Re:"you can indeed run into regular air traffic"

[thegarbz]

sorry to say, possibility of impact is exceptionally high.

For a pilot you have an unbelievably poor concept of risk evaluation.

You're not the New York subway. You don't have a machine taking up 100% of the available moving space every 5 minutes. You have a plane 5m x 10m (generously) trying to strike something the size of a football by random chance within an area defined by several cubic kilometers.

The possibilities of a strike happening by accident are TINY. The possibilities of a strike happening on purpose when someone actually tries to fly in the path of an aircraft equally would require a level of luck / skill that is borderline unachievable. Seriously I'm more concerned about terrorists, far more concerned about terrorists which is saying something because I don't give terrorism a second thought.

The best chance that someone who tries to strike an aircraft has is by flying on the approach path to the runway, even then there's a massive amount of luck and effort involved in actually making it happen. And I agree idiots flying a drone around an airport should get thrown into a spinning turbine.

Why is this an issue ?

[nehumanuscrede]

Before someone counters with " omgthinkoftheplanes " the only reason this is even IN the news is because it contains the word " Drone " somewhere within it.

How many photos have you seen of folks strapping various items to balloons with a Go-Pro attached taking selfies of said items with the Earths curvature as the backdrop ?

I would think they are just as much a hazard to aircraft as any drone, yet no one is running about in a panic or demanding legislation requiring folks register their balloons when purchased :|

Seriously news types, drones are nothing new. RC craft have been around quite a while so find somthing else to sensationalize if you wouldn't mind.