Drones: Waiting for the Disaster

[iflyatiger]

petrolero..
Thank you for your replies in this thread.. I agree with everything you wrote..

I can't understand what these pilots are thinking ( not sure if they are all pilots ?) I can only think of a few reasons to completely downplay this risk.. Either you fly your drone toy more than a real airplane, you have some financial interest in drones or you are scared to speak against them for fear that drones will win a us vs them fight

Why is so hard to picture people flying their drones as close to airplanes as possible to get that one of a kind video and risk a collision when doing that..

Death is a very real possibility but not a certainty. Damage, however, is a certainty.

But that, apparently, is not anything to worry about. Nothing to see here.

That attitude is what will get drones severely regulated or banned. Just let that scenario happen to a non-GA aircraft.

 

[yhuubert]

It's a sure thing there will be soon more drones than airplanes out there. When pushed for regulations, the drone companies will get mightier and stronger. Most of the public will probably take the side of toy and drone companies, telling common sense should allow kids to fly drones anywhere.

There is a big possibility that the regulations will start limiting GA and other aviation, to keep planes out from where people want to fly their drones. No GA flights in uncontrolled airspace. Or no flying below 1000 or 2000 ft or whatever drone fliers consider safe for airplanes not to disturb their drones and cause accidents.

"We were here first" probably will not stand.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Drones: Getting Worse - Latest Terrorist Tool?

Are we trying to solve an actual problem or the fear of a problem?

Drones are not rare, now.

Take a few steps back, and evaluate where we really are.

(1) How many people have been killed by drones?

(2) How many aircraft have been damaged by drones?

(3) Extrapolate the last two 5 years in the future.

Then, you make rules to mitigate that.

That would be an informed reaction. Otherwise, you fix things that aren't problems and may never become problems. And you make new problems, which undermines the legitimacy of the rules you made earlier.

Fear may be a powerful motivator, but it is also powerfully stupid. It is to be specifically excluded from serious discussions of risk analysis. That it is not excluded here means this discussion is not serious.

MAKG - You miss the point. Far from "powerfully stupid", one great ability of the human race is its ability to think. We should not have to wait until danger is a "Fact" (airliner or GA planes go down) to act. We are smart. Commercial pilots are reporting frequent encounters. How long until an encounter causes an accicent? 2 years, 1 year, a week, today?

And so we wait because we know it's coming.

And consider this: it now appears terrorists have "discovered" drones as cheap and effective ways to deliver their payloads. How long until:
* A drone explodes over a crowded stadium with thousands of people below?
* A drone explodes over a high profile event like the Academy Awards?

No, I am not afraid. Life has risks and for me personally, a heart attack is probably riskier than a drone incident.

But I do have a brain...a really good one at that. And my brain tells me that there's a real issue here that needs discussion, and the sooner the better. I don't pretend to have the answers. But I do know there's a problem now that's going to grow in the future.

I'd like to think that we can all engage in productive discussion so that just maybe, just maybe, we can reduce future drone damage to our country.

If not, well OK. If some folks believe we need "proof" the danger is real, so be it. We'll wait for a bad accident. There's not a shread of doubt in my mind that we'll be having the discussion anyway. Why not have it now?

This is not about stupid fear. It's about human wisdom and intelligence.

 

[yetti]

Re: Drones: Getting Worse - Latest Terrorist Tool?

How long until:
* A drone explodes over a crowded stadium with thousands of people below?
* A drone explodes over a high profile event like the Academy Awards?

.

You mean like a firework? Unless it was wrapped in a chemical agent, nothing would really happen. The payload of most of the UAV is about a pound or a couple of pounds. They would not carry a JDAM. What if someone violated the TFR and flew their small plane into the stadium?

 

[petrolero]

Re: Drones: Getting Worse - Latest Terrorist Tool?

You mean like a firework? Unless it was wrapped in a chemical agent, nothing would really happen. The payload of most of the UAV is about a pound or a couple of pounds. They would not carry a JDAM. What if someone violated the TFR and flew their small plane into the stadium?

Unless enforced with anti-aircraft weaponry of some variety, TFRs are meaningless.

There is no end of ways a determined terrorist who is willing to die can kill others. We'll never harden all the targets - not even most.

Flying drones is easy, perfectly safe, and anonymous. If someone wants to use them to kill others, he'll certainly find a way. 1 pound of explosive detonated in a stadium would be simple to accomplish, would not require a suicide, and would sow massive terror - which would be the goal. It wouldn't need to kill very many people to be effective terrorism. Why hasn't this been done?

A terrorist who's willing to die could just as easily check out a Cessna from the local flight school and fly it into a stadium or even a building (not very effective, not very effective).

A terrorist could attempt to park his drone on final approach and down an airliner (much easier said than done unless the drone were quite large). It might not crash the airliner but it would cause damage and would succeed in causing terror.

A terrorist could also waltz into a shopping mall and detonate something or start shooting.

All these are reasons to keep fighting and surveilling terrorists abroad and to keep hunting them at home. Find the terrorists' cells and deal with them before they enact one of the myriad ways to kill.

So terrorism, to me, is a cat out of the bag. No amount of drone rules will matter to a terrorist. No TFR or "No guns allowed" sign will either. Preventing terrorist attacks requires other strategies and tactics.

What may be preventable with rules and education and even, perhaps, drone technology itself, is the negligent but unintentional mid-air collision. I'm thinking of ignorant and careless users. I'm thinking of simple apps to locate nearby airports. I'm thinking of drones self-limiting their altitude and which possess databases of exclusion zones and even algorithms that return it to the user if comm is lost.

I also think the drone industry can come up with such things on its own very quickly and cheaply without the need for massive and inflexible government intervention. Indeed at least one drone mfr has already begun programming exclusion zones into one of its machines after one crashed near the White House.

 

[yetti]

That was my point. Worry about the things that matter. I was talking to the FSDO and was saying that right now everyone is just speculating. My suggestion was why don't we have Texas A&M (has a UAS permit) go a head and start crashing UAS into things and see what happens. Toss one into some running engines, bounce it off some wings and radar domes. They have a whole ex airfield to crash trucks and busses so break some airplane stuff. Then create smart rules based on data.

 

[dans2992]

There's also a big difference between a 5 lb drone and a 55 lb drone, but the FAA seems to lump them in a single category.

 

[Silvaire]

There's also a big difference between a 5 lb drone and a 55 lb drone, but the FAA seems to lump them in a single category.

Doesn't seem much different than all airplanes under six and a quarter tons being in the same category.

 

[Lindberg]

Then create smart rules based on data.

The hell you say. There's no time for contemplation and analysis. Let's just make rules based on intuition and suspeculation. We must do something! For the children!

 

[Stewartb]

Mid-air collisions are a problem with airplanes. How come you guys aren't screaming about that? There's real data and real history there yet you anticipate drones with a doomsday attitude.

 

[dans2992]

I think I actually may want to build a drone just for fun! (Fixed wing, not quad copter).

So, I'd hate to see them unnecessarily restricted.

 

[yetti]

Oh there are children involved? Well that changes everything. Please speculate and make up hogwash and drivel to your hearts content.

 

[JimNtexas]

That was my point. Worry about the things that matter. I was talking to the FSDO and was saying that right now everyone is just speculating. ....

This is not speculation.


People are doing this kind of thing everyday, right now.

I do speculate that drones will be used by terrorists to deliver complementary child porn along with crack.

 

[petrolero]

Mid-air collisions are a problem with airplanes. How come you guys aren't screaming about that? There's real data and real history there yet you anticipate drones with a doomsday attitude.

Plenty of people scream about mid-airs with existing aircraft - there are entire organizations and publications dedicated to discussion and training around aircraft safety. The FAA, which develops airmanship standards and issues certificates to pilots, owes its very existence to that topic. So many people have been 'screaming' about that topic and others that apparently it has become a background din to some people.

UAS safety is a novel and incremental problem above and beyond aircraft mid-airs.

 

[Lindberg]

This is not speculation.


People are doing this kind of thing everyday, right now.

He was a hazard to nothing.

 

[JimNtexas]

He was a hazard to nothing.

Really? A drone in IMC in Dallas Class B isn't a hazard???????????????????

Thanks for clearing that up!!

 

[bflynn]

Mid-air collisions are a problem with airplanes. How come you guys aren't screaming about that? There's real data and real history there yet you anticipate drones with a doomsday attitude.

I think perhaps there is more tolerance of a pilot having a collision than there is if a drone operator making one. the pilot has eyes there and can see. The drone operator isn't entirely blind, but they can't see nearly as well and they're the new kid.

There's also a difference because the operator has no skin in the game if he makes a mistake he says oops, my bad. The pilot can be killed. Who has more incentive to avoid collisions?

 

[Stewartb]

You're projecting a lot of imagination into your emotional argument. Mid-air collisions between airplanes are a problem now and have been for some time. Deal with reality first. If you can't fix the current problem you have no chance of managing the coming one. That sounds a little like Medicare and Obamacare!

 

[bflynn]

You're projecting a lot of imagination into your emotional argument. Mid-air collisions between airplanes are a problem now and have been for some time. Deal with reality first. If you can't fix the current problem you have no chance of managing the coming one. That sounds a little like Medicare and Obamacare!

Would adding blind pilots make the problem better or worse?

 

[Palmpilot]

You're projecting a lot of imagination into your emotional argument.

You're projecting what you're imagining as well. Are all safety concerns that haven't resulted in accidents yet "emotional"?

People often call the FAA a "tombstone agency," because of a tendency to wait until someone dies before taking action. Do you feel that trying to prevent accidents before someone dies is a bad idea?

Mid-air collisions between airplanes are a problem now and have been for some time. Deal with reality first. If you can't fix the current problem you have no chance of managing the coming one. That sounds a little like Medicare and Obamacare!

It also sounds like Afghanistan and Bush II's war in Iraq.

 

[yetti]

I think perhaps there is more tolerance of a pilot having a collision than there is if a drone operator making one. the pilot has eyes there and can see. The drone operator isn't entirely blind, but they can't see nearly as well and they're the new kid.

But they can hear the plane much further away than you can see a plane. Usually about 3-5 miles away, which is farther than you can see a plane. It is not just see and avoid with a UAV, it is see hear and avoid.

and yes it is kind of funny when they crash cause no one got hurt.

 

[Lindberg]

Really? A drone in IMC in Dallas Class B isn't a hazard???????????????????

Thanks for clearing that up!!

Correct. He's at like 700 AGL within a mile of CBD and over a heavily populated area. There are no airplanes there, and they'd be breaking the law if they were.

 

[JimNtexas]

Correct. He's at like 700 AGL within a mile of CBD and over a heavily populated area. There are no airplanes there, and they'd be breaking the law if they were.

I'm glad you psychic powers enable you to determine that an IMC drone in among the light traffic associated with the DFW area was not a threat to aviation.

So drone guys, launch into the clouds! Lindberg says nothing can go wrong.

 

[RyanShort1]

If my calculations are correct, that area is lined up with a runway at RBD, and a runway with DAL. Not cool.

 

[janikpilot]

Correct. He's at like 700 AGL within a mile of CBD and over a heavily populated area. There are no airplanes there, and they'd be breaking the law if they were.

It doesn't matter where this one was. Drones should not be flying in anything other than class G. That should be the rule.

There should be no debate here. Flying IFR is safe until theres obstacles we can't detect anymore. See and avoid works great until you realize seeing a drone against the ground is next to impossible, as most are built with skinny structures and colors that blend in with the ground.

 

[Palmpilot]

Correct. He's at like 700 AGL within a mile of CBD and over a heavily populated area. There are no airplanes there, and they'd be breaking the law if they were.

How far was he from the nearest instrument approach? And what about helicopters?

 

[Lindberg]

I'm glad you psychic powers enable you to determine that an IMC drone in among the light traffic associated with the DFW area was not a threat to aviation.

So drone guys, launch into the clouds! Lindberg says nothing can go wrong.

It doesn't take psychic powers. Just a willingness to calmly analyze facts while keeping my knees from jerking. Based on the view of the buildings, I figure he was probably in or near the red dot. Maybe even closer to the CBD, but not likely further away. The building on the right is 920+ AGL, and he is well below it. The pointed building on the far left is 708 AGL, and he's below that, too. So 700 AGL is actually a high estimate.

36/18 at DAL is permanently closed (and chopped up, so there wouldn't even be emergency traffic to it), so if he was further NW, he'd be even more out of the way.

He was definitely west of 35E, so he wouldn't be on any approach to DAL. Are there instrument approaches to 17 at RBD that have you at 700' 8 miles from the runway? I don't know, but it seems unlikely. I can maybe see him being somewhere near a Careflight bird inbound to Methodist or Southwestern.

You used this as an example of the kind of thing that's happening with drones right now, and I pointed out that it wasn't a hazard, and then everyone started speculating again. But maybe you can explain why you think this was hazardous.

I don't have a dog in this fight, other than the usual hating to see onerous government regulations that accomplish absolutely zero, but are heralded by the public because of irrational fears.

 

[JimNtexas]

You seem to think this idiot got a chart out and figured out a way to safely fly his drone IMC in DFW airspace. You're wrong about that. You eyeball the part of the video he shows, not the whole thing.

There is NO WAY to just launch a drone into IMC in class B airspace in a way that is safe.

This is not 'speculation'. This is not 'fear mongering'. This the reality we are flying with right now.

All your little chart work does is encourage the next idiot to think that it is somehow safe to fly a drone in IMC.

Read the comments on this guys video. He was showered with praise, TV stations begged to use the footage.

Stick your head in the sand all you want. I hope it's not your family or mine that killed by the next idiot with a drone.

When you rationalize this hyper-irresponsible behavior it you, not I, who are going to convince the government that these things need heavy regulation.

 

[Lindberg]

You seem to think this idiot got a chart out and figured out a way to safely fly his drone IMC in DFW airspace. You're wrong about that. You eyeball the part of the video he shows, not the whole thing.

What happened in the part I didn't see?

There is NO WAY to just launch a drone into IMC in class B airspace in a way that is safe.

He didn't crash into anyone, and no near misses, so I'd say it's possible. You only want to seem to talk about what could have happened, which is where we get into speculation.

This is not 'speculation'. This is not 'fear mongering'. This the reality we are flying with right now.

Yes, the reality we're flying with right now is that there are thousands of "drones" flying out there and zero incidents of anything bad happening that you can point to. So if you want to support regulations based on your speculation, I'd invite you to explain how the FAA's proposed regs actually make anyone safer. Because it seems to me that they are just an excuse to crawl up your relator's ass with a microscope when she posts a video of your house online.

Read the comments on this guys video. He was showered with praise, TV stations begged to use the footage.

And you want to ban it. Who do you think there are more of, "drone" operators and fans or GA pilots?

a) I live under the B surface area. Following all the FAA proposed rules, I can fly a drone up to 400' above my house any time I want.

b) But if my realtor wants to fly a drone 30' over my house, she'll have to get clearance from approach control. Before that, she'll have to get an FAA license, be vetted by TSA, allow the FAA to inspect and test the "drone" on demand, and register it and put an N number on it. Oh, she also has to be English proficient (why boggles the mind) and report an "accident" to the FAA if she crashes the thing into my roof and takes out a shingle. (She still can't fly above 500'.)

Why is it perfectly safe if I do it, but it's not safe for my realtor to do it without jumping through all of those hoops? What are you afraid of, and what do these rules do to address it?

To support these new rules, the FAA is trying to sell them as a compromise by claiming the current rules actually require these gizmos to have an airworthiness certificate and you to have a pilot's license to fly one. They pat themselves on the back for using discretion and not enforcing the draconian regulations they say are currently in place. Do you buy that?

 

[JimNtexas]

To support these new rules, the FAA is trying to sell them as a compromise by claiming the current rules actually require these gizmos to have an airworthiness certificate and you to have a pilot's license to fly one. They pat themselves on the back for using discretion and not enforcing the draconian regulations they say are currently in place. Do you buy that?

I used to think these drones could be flown safely outside of RC model airports, but you have convinced that there are so many idiots flying them that even the RC-AMA rules are too liberal.

Keep your toy indoors!

 

[janikpilot]

b) But if my realtor wants to fly a drone 30' over my house, she'll have to get clearance from approach control. Before that, she'll have to get an FAA license, be vetted by TSA, allow the FAA to inspect and test the "drone" on demand, and register it and put an N number on it. Oh, she also has to be English proficient (why boggles the mind) and report an "accident" to the FAA if she crashes the thing into my roof and takes out a shingle. (She still can't fly above 500'.)

Yes, she will.

And what problem is that?

Because as far as I understand it, drones do not offer anything to the public we actually need. Our airspace was safer without them. Now we have them, airspace is only getting more dangerous, and the return to the public is merely, "oh that was cool!"

 

[Palmpilot]

Yes, she will.

And what problem is that?

Because as far as I understand it, drones do not offer anything to the public we actually need. Our airspace was safer without them. Now we have them, airspace is only getting more dangerous, and the return to the public is merely, "oh that was cool!"

The drones that have become available to consumers have made it affordable to accomplish tasks that used to require hiring a manned aircraft. The puzzle we have to struggle with is how to safely incorporate them into the airspace system without excessively onerous requirements.

 

[Lindberg]

Yes, she will.

And what problem is that?

Many seem to take the position that we should accept regulations unless someone can prove they cause problems. Whereas I take the position that we should oppose any regulation unless the proponents can prove it is necessary to solve a problem. Looking at the current size of the USC and CFR, those in the first camp are clearly winning. It's just surprising to see so many pilots, who are frequently abused by this philosophy, are in that camp.

 

[Palmpilot]

Many seem to take the position that we should accept regulations unless someone can prove they cause problems. Whereas I take the position that we should oppose any regulation unless the proponents can prove it is necessary to solve a problem. Looking at the current size of the USC and CFR, those in the first camp are clearly winning. It's just surprising to see so many pilots, who are frequently abused by this philosophy, are in that camp.

I see this debate being more centered on people's differences of opinion on how big the problem is, for example, how significant the hazards are.

 

[JimNtexas]

I didn't even mention regulations I just pointed to the hazards caused by the way current drone 'pilots' are using them.

@Lindberg, I'm serious. Your incredibly crazy argument that any random person can safely fly a drone IMC over Dallas has convinced me that even the proposed drone regulations are too liberal.

 

[Lindberg]

Your incredibly crazy argument that any random person can safely fly a drone IMC over Dallas has convinced me that even the proposed drone regulations are too liberal.

So where did I say anything like that? I said was that in your example, the drone was not a hazard, and I gave a detailed explanation of why. You say it was a hazard, and it apparently has you freaked out, but you haven't said why. So, without speculating, can you explain why what he did where he did it was hazardous and to whom? I'd also be very interested in knowing how you expect the proposed regs will reduce that hazard.