216 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

Still looks easy to me.  An accident would be tougher, for sure.

[lanforod]

Still looks easy to me.  An accident would be tougher, for sure.

 

Easier on any highrise balcony.

[Bingo]

Rogue drones are increasingly becoming a problem around the country, creating a nuisance for both regulated airspace and private entities as well.

According to The Washington Post  this is a growing concern among Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials.
As there has been an increase in reports about drones flying close to airports, Michael P. Huerta, FAA chief, tells the Post that he's "definitely getting much more concerned about it. Four airline crews reported Sunday that they spotted drones while flying into the Newark (N.J.) Liberty International Airport, USA Today reports. There were similar reports at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York in late July. One pilot said that a drone traveled right underneath the nose of the plane at 800 feet.
Under FAA rules, drone operators are supposed to acquire clearance to fly within five miles of an airport.

More;     http://www.newsmax.c...8/11/id/669617/

 

and

OLIVER, B.C. -- The intrusion of a small drone into the airspace above an uncontained wildfire near Oliver grounded the entire fleet of aircraft working on the blaze for most of Sunday afternoon.

Eight helicopters and an air tanker team were all put out of action when the drone flew close to the Testalinden Creek fire at about 12:45 p.m. Sunday.

Read more: http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz3j5AjpMU8

 

Drones have proved there worth in searching the woods for lost hikers and for certain commercial enterprises like real estate.

What more do we need in the way of guidelines for the control of this growing air force?

 

[LJ]

^Well if they keep on interfering with fire fighting operations you can bet it is going to be very restricted. I can see the day when you will need a transponder that can be traced to you.

[Kikadee]

It doesn't specify in the Vancouver Sun article . . . . Can someone explain how a tiny 35-pound flying toy can ground an entire fleet of helicopters? What's it going to do: bump into one? Get smashed to pieces in the rotating blades? It just seems like the drone would come out the loser in any airborne encounter.

[VicHockeyFan]

It doesn't specify in the Vancouver Sun article . . . . Can someone explain how a tiny 35-pound flying toy can ground an entire fleet of helicopters? What's it going to do: bump into one? Get smashed to pieces in the rotating blades? It just seems like the drone would come out the loser in any airborne encounter.

 

And very few are 35 pounds.  I sort of thought the same, aren't birds more dangerous and unpredictable?

[Mike K.]

It was a tiny piece of metal that brought down a Concorde.

 

If something is in the air space that shouldn't be there it presents a danger far too great to just brush off. Even a 20lb object like a drone could cause serious damage to a rotor moving at thousands of RPM's or the delicate air frame of a fixed wing aircraft.

 

Whoever flew that thing in that air space is an idiot and since he got caught now he can't post that viral video he was hoping to make.

[sebberry]

It doesn't specify in the Vancouver Sun article . . . . Can someone explain how a tiny 35-pound flying toy can ground an entire fleet of helicopters? What's it going to do: bump into one? Get smashed to pieces in the rotating blades? It just seems like the drone would come out the loser in any airborne encounter.

 

As my friend who works in aerospace said, considering that a bird can bring down an aircraft (Hudson) imagine the damage something more substantial can cause.  A drone can cause substantial damage being pulled into the intake or colliding with the tail rotor.  Consider that a helicopter is carrying 2,000lb of fuel, that could be quite catastrophic.  Aircraft are actually quite fragile and not designed to withstand collisions with solid objects.

[lanforod]

Fly above it and dump water on it or jam the transmission if it's a remote controlled one and not a preprogrammed one.

[Bingo]

As my friend who works in aerospace said, considering that a bird can bring down an aircraft (Hudson) imagine the damage something more substantial can cause.  A drone can cause substantial damage being pulled into the intake or colliding with the tail rotor.  Consider that a helicopter is carrying 2,000lb of fuel, that could be quite catastrophic.  Aircraft are actually quite fragile and not designed to withstand collisions with solid objects.

 

I am sure the terrorists are well aware of the possibilities of drones, so until something major happens drones will be able to fly willy nilly.

[North Shore]

It doesn't specify in the Vancouver Sun article . . . . Can someone explain how a tiny 35-pound flying toy can ground an entire fleet of helicopters? What's it going to do: bump into one? Get smashed to pieces in the rotating blades? It just seems like the drone would come out the loser in any airborne encounter.

At the altitudes that aircraft are operating over a fire, a collision causing damage that might otherwise be recoverable if there was a bit more altitude to play with might well be fatal.  For fixed-wing aircraft, propellors, windscreens, and engine intakes are a concern - any collision is going to happen at speeds over 160kmh at minimum...

I think that many people take the attitude: "What's the problem?  It's just like another bird.." without thinking that drones are made of carbon fiber and unobtanium, and can thus cause way more damage than a bird.

Besides that, it's generally been my experience that apart from seagulls (how on earth those things muster the brainpower to walk, let alone fly, is beyond me!) birds give fires a wide berth, and aren't that much of a threat around a fire.  Also, they have a self-preservation instinct, and will attempt evasive actions, unlike a drone..

Edited by North Shore, 18 August 2015 - 01:29 PM.

[VicHockeyFan]

Why not equip the helo with two locals and a pair of shotguns. Take the drone out?

[North Shore]

Oh, great, rednecks in aircraft with shotguns - what could possibly go wrong? Lol

[LJ]

At the altitudes that aircraft are operating over a fire, a collision causing damage that might otherwise be recoverable if there was a bit more altitude to play with might well be fatal.  For fixed-wing aircraft, propellors, windscreens, and engine intakes are a concern - any collision is going to happen at speeds over 160kmh at minimum...

I think that many people take the attitude: "What's the problem?  It's just like another bird.." without thinking that drones are made of carbon fiber and unobtanium, and can thus cause way more damage than a bird.

Besides that, it's generally been my experience that apart from seagulls (how on earth those things muster the brainpower to walk, let alone fly, is beyond me!) birds give fires a wide berth, and aren't that much of a threat around a fire.  Also, they have a self-preservation instinct, and will attempt evasive actions, unlike a drone..

Also the airspace is closed around fire fighting areas so that only aircraft that are supposed to be there are present freeing up the pilot to concentrate on his bombing run rather than be on the lookout for drones. It is just plain stupid to fly around airports or any other area where aircraft are operating.

[HB]

Why not equip the helo with two locals and a pair of shotguns. Take the drone out?

Because you have to be very close to take one out with a shotgun. A small calibre long such as a .22 would suffice

However a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with a 1oz slug would work pretty good from the ground

Edited by HB, 18 August 2015 - 07:20 PM.

[North Shore]

Because you have to be very close to take one out with a shotgun. A small calibre long such as a .22 would suffice

However a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with a 1oz slug would work pretty good from the ground

Taking a page out of the book of the guy in Kentucky who actually did this a few weeks back, it seems that #8 birdshot is best, as you don't really have to worry about the shot coming back down.  Unlike a slug, which would/could cause serious damage...

[Bingo]

KIRO TV in Seattle reports that two men were ticketed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for violating a protected species when they flew their drones close to a pod of orcas to record a video.

US law states boats must keep a certain distance from killer whales, but it seems that law also applies to drones.

The law states vessels and "other objects" must stay at least 200 yards away.

http://www.cfax1070....oo-close-to-wha

 

 

 

[lanforod]

Is there a similar law in Canada? What if the pod heads towards you?

 

I saw several pods on BCF a couple weeks ago, 2 pods on the way to Vancouver and 1 on the way back. The small pod, maybe 4 whales, on the way back was very close to the ferry, maybe 50 yards and closing, crossed over the wake.

[Bingo]

Is there a similar law in Canada? What if the pod heads towards you?

 

In that case you could move your vessel further away from them, and leave your "drone at home", or in this case inside the boat.

[Bingo]

That has a ring to it, so perhaps a movie is required.  "Drone Home Alone"