Drones near JFK commercial airplanes spotted

Just make it open season on drones. See one? Shoot one!
 
I'm thinking that now is not a particularly good time to own one. All it will take is a collision with an airliner and loss of life to have every three-letter agency investigating every purchaser of those devices.
 
Have we ever gotten close to property owner's having some sort of protected airspace... say up to 300' ?? Is that even a good idea?

As for the article, if UAV's are violating airspace around airports, they should be eliminated on sight - period. ... here's to training "Anit-UAV Enforcement Volunteer Force" What is the safest way to take them down around airport perimeters?
 
Well... since it's a New York airport we're talking about, just put all the drones under the authority of the NY MTA. That will insure that none of them ever get off the ground again.

Rich
 
Palmpilot said:
Now that the NTSB has ruled that small drones are aircraft, wouldn't they have the same right to operate at airports as manned aircraft? :dunno:
Click to expand...

I can just see someone calling up JFK from a handheld and asking for departure clearance for their quadcopter.

Thankfully if it ever happens we have LiveATC for someone to grab the laughter from the tower and save it for posterity.
 
Fredbob711 said:
I can just see someone calling up JFK from a handheld and asking for departure clearance for their quadcopter.

Thankfully if it ever happens we have LiveATC for someone to grab the laughter from the tower and save it for posterity.
Click to expand...

No doubt, but I suspect that the NTSB's decision is not immune to the law of unintended consequences.
 
Fredbob711 said:
I can just see someone calling up JFK from a handheld and asking for departure clearance for their quadcopter.

Thankfully if it ever happens we have LiveATC for someone to grab the laughter from the tower and save it for posterity.
Click to expand...
Non-registered air vehicles (e.g., Ultralights) are banned from most controlled fields. I'm sure that applies to unregistered UAVs. If you look in the FAA registration database, you'll see a number of UAVs *with* N-numbers....

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Non-registered air vehicles (e.g., Ultralights) are banned from most controlled fields. I'm sure that applies to unregistered UAVs. If you look in the FAA registration database, you'll see a number of UAVs *with* N-numbers....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Ah but the court specifically said UAVs are aircraft not part 103 air vehicles. As aircraft in theory they have a right to use the airspace, or at least to ask and wait until it is possible... Hilarious. I love me some unintended consequences, was it worth bending the law past stupid to bust one guy?:rofl:
 
Of course, a number of the radio comms indicate that pilots couldn't tell what it was, and that it might have been a balloon. I've had numerous "encounters" with balloons, should I call CNN?
 
Lindberg said:
What "devastating damage" is one of those little quadcopters going to do to an airliner? They'd almost certainly just splat in any collision. Would anything happen if one went though an engine other than shredded quadcopter?
Click to expand...
Well if they are flying around with more then 3 ounces of fluid.:mad2:
 
Lindberg said:
What "devastating damage" is one of those little quadcopters going to do to an airliner? They'd almost certainly just splat in any collision. Would anything happen if one went though an engine other than shredded quadcopter?
Click to expand...

Never seen any footage or read the stories of what birds can do?
 
Only a matter of time before some idiot gets someone killed. THEN all "drones" will be regulated into oblivion.
 
Lindberg said:
What "devastating damage" is one of those little quadcopters going to do to an airliner? They'd almost certainly just splat in any collision. Would anything happen if one went though an engine other than shredded quadcopter?
Click to expand...

My first thought is taking out an engine, or in a one-in-a-billion chance a control surface gets jammed when pieces from the impact get stuck.

Both incredibly low chances of happening, but it's not impossible.
 
Lindberg said:
What "devastating damage" is one of those little quadcopters going to do to an airliner? They'd almost certainly just splat in any collision. Would anything happen if one went though an engine other than shredded quadcopter?
Click to expand...
Plenty, made of metal and plastic, I would imagine they would do more damage than birds do. Ask Captain Sullenberger what birds can do...
Additionally, imagine hitting several pounds of metal at 100 knots in a light aircraft, plastic windshields and paper thin leading edges probably don't take too kindly to that.
 
It's all fun untill someone gets hurt. Not worried about an airliner,how about us little guys.
 
Aeric said:
Plenty, made of metal and plastic, I would imagine they would do more damage than birds do. Ask Captain Sullenberger what birds can do...
Additionally, imagine hitting several pounds of metal at 100 knots in a light aircraft, plastic windshields and paper thin leading edges probably don't take too kindly to that.
Click to expand...

Eh, maybe.

But those geese Sully hit were substantially heavier than a couple of pounds, and he very well may have hit a lot more than just two of them. And he was probably doing close to 200 knots when he hit them. A 152 on climb-out isn't going faster than 70. Damage goes as V^2.

As for "taking down" a light aircraft, collisions between geese and 152s are documented on occasion, and they seldom result in more than expensive repairs. Worst I've seen is a badly dented leading edge. Worst I've heard of is a windshield penetration and scary but safe landing covered in goose guts.

I doubt there would be much damage from a quadcopter. Now, a Global Hawk would do a lot of damage, but that's just a size thing. They are dozens of times larger, and several times faster, than your 150. Those things are BIG.
 
Last edited:
It's hard to predict but you only need to recall the history of Lawn Darts to imagine what might happen.

In that case one Dad got them completely banned from sale or distribution in the United States after his nine year old daughter took one in the skull.

Of course that was the Consumer Product Safety Commission which deals mostly with you killing yourself with a product while not breaking any laws whatsoever. In the case of drones, if there is ever a catastrophic aviation accident caused by one the consequences will most likely be much farther reaching and complex. We can see already that there is a jurisdiction battle, not one where oversight power is being sought but more like a hot potato getting tossed around.

Nobody really wants to take charge of this.
 
MAKG1 said:
...I doubt there would be much damage from a quadcopter...
Click to expand...

You really think that hitting a one kilo GoPro toting Quadcopter at 120 kts in your Cessna is not gonna do much damage?
 
Silvaire said:
You really think that hitting a one kilo GoPro toting Quadcopter at 120 kts in your Cessna is not gonna do much damage?
Click to expand...

Considering I saw the results of a 1 kilo seagull last week, no, the mass alone is not enough. That collision caused no more damage than a rather disgusting cleanup job. Apparently it hit the prop tip right after takeoff and sprayed seagull guts all over the front of the airplane. Collision speed with THAT was probably close to the speed of sound. The engine didn't miss a stroke and wasn't torn down. The pilot flew a normal pattern and returned.

It's only 120 knots, not orbital speed.

Yeah, a hardened camera could give you a nasty dent. No, it's not likely to kill you or cause a crash. So, let's not go overboard or no one is going to take it seriously.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
and several times faster, than your 150.
Click to expand...
Even you pick on little 150's :wink2:.
But seriously, you mention mass, I don't think it's so much an argument over mass as it is the type of material involved. Bird flesh has been known to go right through turbine engines, often times with minimal damage. I really doubt that the same could be said if a turbofan ingested several pounds of steel and aluminum, batteries and titanium motor assemblies. Also, I've seen a video where a Cessna hit a bird, and it went right through the windshield. I hate to think of substituting a Quad for that bird, not to mention what the aforementioned assembly of non-flesh materials might do to an aluminum prop spinning at 2400 rpm.
 
Lindberg said:
What "devastating damage" is one of those little quadcopters going to do to an airliner? They'd almost certainly just splat in any collision. Would anything happen if one went though an engine other than shredded quadcopter?
Click to expand...

There are a lot of variables there. In all likelihood, the engine wouldn't even notice, especially if it hit the spinner or outside of the core. If it went through the core, there's always the possibility for it causing some sort of damage in there. It would just go through the fan, but might leave a mark on it. Could also dent the engine nacelle just because of the high difference in speed.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
There are a lot of variables there. In all likelihood, the engine wouldn't even notice...
Click to expand...

Oh it'll notice alright and nobody is flying again with a PW4077 that just ingested somebodies $200 Quadcopter.

Another thing about birds, at least in regards to typical GA aircraft, they are sentient beings with eyes and ears and an innate survival instinct. They are also far, far more capable flyers. A Quadcopter is just going to get hit, won't even know you were coming.
 
I'm calling BS on the captain who claimed to be within 1 foot of the quadcopter. The turbulence would have shredded the quad. I've seen quads flying in formation knock each other out of the sky from their own turbulence.

Suck a quad into an engine, any engine, and you can kiss the engine goodbye. Crack open that LiPo in the quad, and you have your very own mini-nuke. They burn ferociously hot.
 
Something smells like last week's fish dinner. Both of these events were at night. Maybe he saw something. Maybe he didn't. I doubt he could identify exactly what.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top