7 ms·

Drone hobbyists find flaws in “close call” reports to FAA from other aircraft

54 points by Varcht 11y ago

paublyrne 11y ago
If there is misreporting for political reasons, that is unfortunate. How and where drones can be operated is a real concern and will become only more and more of an issue as they become cheaper, better, and more common.
dirktheman 11y ago
Sigh. I'm a "drone hobbyist" myself, although I mostly refer to the hobby as "RC model flying". Nothing new, because the RC flying hobby has been around for decades. Part of me applauds the stricter rules. It's just so easy for some knucklehead to buy a quadcopter from China and fly it around the White House or an airport or over someone's backyard. Unfortunately, these people destroy the hobby, giving it a bad name. On the other hand, the rules we have had for decades (don't fly near airports or restricted zones, don't fly too high, don't fly over crowds, etc.) are perfectly fine and reasonable. We don't need stricter rules and regulations, we need common sense from drone pilots. Secretly I hope that drones are really a fad, and the interest will fade away. That leaves the hobby for the real enthousiasts.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  "Common sense" isn't common. Lay down clear rules and get people to follow them.
  - masklinn 11y ago
    Yup. If you expect a nebulous and undefined "common sense" to prevail after your hobby has entered its eternal september what you'll end up getting is a severe crackdown when shit inevitably hits the fan. "Common sense" is mostly social norms (usually starts out as "hard-earned wisdom" until the culture forgets how it was acquired), when there's a huge continuous influx of new participants the "old culture" can't keep up, neither can its "common sense". Doubly so when a hobby lends itself to nefarious uses and mindless fuckups as much as drones do.
  - vwcx 11y ago
    But in a lot of cases, isn't this the same as the people who film themselves climbing tall buildings, bridges, etc? For many people, drones will always have the exhibitionist grandeur attached to them. Sure, they know they aren't allowed to fly near Point A, but the sunset is just so perfect, they can already smell the 4000 upvotes they'll get that night posting on Reddit.
- ourmandave 11y ago
  If it is a fad, now is the time to ride the inevitable tsunami that's coming. Use your expertise to start a club with exorbitant fees or teach exclusive weekend beginner classes (Bring Your Own Drone). AKA: Start selling pick axes to the new gold miners.
- ascagnel_ 11y ago
  A simple licensing process would work here; a written test that verifies that pilots have read and understand the rules (similar to a written driver's license test) would likely be enough.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
I want to know more about this drone that was supposedly pestering an aircraft during firefighting operations. 10,000 ft altitude is quite high; if it was a quad-copter type thing, I've got my doubts that it could make it to that altitude at all, much less maintain that altitude for any length of time. I'm going to assume that anything flying higher than ~15,000 ft is a military drone, and the FAA using these particular sightings to cast aspersions at private individuals is dishonest. Including incidents involving drones operated by the police is also pretty sketchy. Media are parroting this crap uncritically; I hope more of them find some gumption and ask a question or two. I can see where drones are potentially a problem, especially considering that they are only getting better/cheaper; but this sham-press release thing from the FAA appears to be scaremongering and it deserves ridicule. Links to both the FAA's press release and the AMA's response in this AMA blog post. http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2015/09/14/ama-responds-to-the-faas-drone-sighting-report/ http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2015/09/14/ama-respo...
- lsaferite 11y ago
  I don't doubt a quad copter could hit 10k feet, but I do doubt many people would go that high. The only way to control that would be via a remote telemetry and/or video link or via strict autonomous programming. A standard 250 class quad could likely hit that 3km in 1.5-3 minutes under full power. I know from my time build and flying that a flight time for a quad hovered (hah) around 15-20 minutes on average. That leaves 9-12 minutes of loiter time as max. Then you need to factor in the power cost of stabilizing the aircraft at the height. The wind will be shoving it around so the FC will need to be constantly fighting for position hold. I'd really love to see the math on the probability of a tiny quad intersecting the flight path of a firefighting aircraft at 3km altitude though. They are small and that's a LOT of open space. I can barely spot one against the open sky at a few hundred feet up. If these guys spotted one they must have amazing superhuman vision or amazing luck to have come within a very close distance. Personally I put most of the sightings into the mass-hysteria camp. I know there are idiots out there flying in controlled space, but I also think things are being blown way out of proportion. Edit: I found a site that did the speed/climd rate calculations. My numbers are bit off. The DJI, a common platform, could hit 3km in about 5.5 minutes and a 250 racing quad could do it in about 5. With about 20 minutes of battery power that leaves maybe 5-10 minutes of loiter time. DJI Phantom 2 Vision+: flight speed of 17 m/s (61 km/h) and a maximum climbing rate of 9 m/s 250 FPV Racing Quad: maximum flight speed of 18.5 m/s (67 km/h) and a maximum climbing rate of 10 m/s source: http://bpmsg.com/flight-speed-of-a-quadcopter/ http://bpmsg.com/flight-speed-of-a-quadcopter/
wheaties 11y ago
As someone taking off from a runway the other day and having to actually dodge a stupid camera tied to balloons, we don't always report all that stuff. I, for one, welcome the rules. I also understand that not everyone will follow them. Welcome to the world.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  That stupid camera tied to balloons wasn't by chance a permitted-in-advance activity was it? We have that at my local airport. A few times per year a prof from a nearby uni sends a balloon up mostly for the benefit of his students. You ought to hear the Saturday morning FBO free-coffee-drinkers club whine about the inconvenience of it. All GA pilots may not always report everything, but there are a few who report everything they see and everything they imagine they saw.
  - jonnycowboy 11y ago
    Usually the balloon flyers must post a NOTAM (notice to air men) which pilots request from the local tower prior to takeoff or landing.
- dirktheman 11y ago
  I also welcome the rules. People flying stuff (balloons, RC aircraft, drones, kites, etc.) near airports should be punished. It's just that I don't think even stricter rules are the answer.
peterwwillis 11y ago
Near miss? It's a near hit! A collision is a near miss! sound of explosions "Aw, will you look at that, Dave. They nearly missed." "Yes. But not quite!" -- George Carlin
- mikeash 11y ago
  I greatly enjoy that bit, but it's also totally wrong. "Near" is not the same as "nearly." It's "near" as opposed to "far." It's a miss which is near.
  - throwaway1967 11y ago
    That is correct, but the frog died in the process. :)
  - peterwwillis 11y ago
    I don't buy it. What if the miss wasn't near? Would it be a far miss? An average miss? What exactly is the point at which you go from colliding to a near miss, to any other kind of miss? It's redundant language.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Sure, if you miss by a huge amount it could be a "far miss" or a "distant miss" or similar. The point where you go from colliding to a near miss is the point where the two things don't touch. There's no exact point where you go from a near miss to a regular sort of miss, since it's not a precision term.
      - peterwwillis 11y ago
        But they don't far miss or distant miss. They weren't aiming for each other. "Near miss" is the only way you would ever refer to planes almost colliding with the word "miss", so the "near" part is redundant. They missed. If you wanted to say they were close, you could say they almost hit, which is not only more accurate, it's not redundant, because you can't take out either word and still express the same idea. This isn't just to be pedantic; there's lots of redundant or incorrect language out there which Carlin talks about at length.
rasz_pl 11y ago
TLDR: the big “close call” list consist of every mere mention of a word Drone by a pilot, not the actual near misses.

54 points by Varcht 11y ago

If there is misreporting for political reasons, that is unfortunate. How and where drones can be operated is a real concern and will become only more and more of an issue as they become cheaper, better, and more common.

dirktheman 11y ago

Sigh. I'm a "drone hobbyist" myself, although I mostly refer to the hobby as "RC model flying". Nothing new, because the RC flying hobby has been around for decades. Part of me applauds the stricter rules. It's just so easy for some knucklehead to buy a quadcopter from China and fly it around the White House or an airport or over someone's backyard. Unfortunately, these people destroy the hobby, giving it a bad name. On the other hand, the rules we have had for decades (don't fly near airports or restricted zones, don't fly too high, don't fly over crowds, etc.) are perfectly fine and reasonable. We don't need stricter rules and regulations, we need common sense from drone pilots. Secretly I hope that drones are really a fad, and the interest will fade away. That leaves the hobby for the real enthousiasts.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
"Common sense" isn't common. Lay down clear rules and get people to follow them.
- masklinn 11y ago
  Yup. If you expect a nebulous and undefined "common sense" to prevail after your hobby has entered its eternal september what you'll end up getting is a severe crackdown when shit inevitably hits the fan. "Common sense" is mostly social norms (usually starts out as "hard-earned wisdom" until the culture forgets how it was acquired), when there's a huge continuous influx of new participants the "old culture" can't keep up, neither can its "common sense". Doubly so when a hobby lends itself to nefarious uses and mindless fuckups as much as drones do.
- vwcx 11y ago
  But in a lot of cases, isn't this the same as the people who film themselves climbing tall buildings, bridges, etc? For many people, drones will always have the exhibitionist grandeur attached to them. Sure, they know they aren't allowed to fly near Point A, but the sunset is just so perfect, they can already smell the 4000 upvotes they'll get that night posting on Reddit.
ourmandave 11y ago
If it is a fad, now is the time to ride the inevitable tsunami that's coming. Use your expertise to start a club with exorbitant fees or teach exclusive weekend beginner classes (Bring Your Own Drone). AKA: Start selling pick axes to the new gold miners.
ascagnel_ 11y ago
A simple licensing process would work here; a written test that verifies that pilots have read and understand the rules (similar to a written driver's license test) would likely be enough.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

I want to know more about this drone that was supposedly pestering an aircraft during firefighting operations. 10,000 ft altitude is quite high; if it was a quad-copter type thing, I've got my doubts that it could make it to that altitude at all, much less maintain that altitude for any length of time. I'm going to assume that anything flying higher than ~15,000 ft is a military drone, and the FAA using these particular sightings to cast aspersions at private individuals is dishonest. Including incidents involving drones operated by the police is also pretty sketchy. Media are parroting this crap uncritically; I hope more of them find some gumption and ask a question or two. I can see where drones are potentially a problem, especially considering that they are only getting better/cheaper; but this sham-press release thing from the FAA appears to be scaremongering and it deserves ridicule. Links to both the FAA's press release and the AMA's response in this AMA blog post. http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2015/09/14/ama-responds-to-the-faas-drone-sighting-report/ http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2015/09/14/ama-respo...

lsaferite 11y ago
I don't doubt a quad copter could hit 10k feet, but I do doubt many people would go that high. The only way to control that would be via a remote telemetry and/or video link or via strict autonomous programming. A standard 250 class quad could likely hit that 3km in 1.5-3 minutes under full power. I know from my time build and flying that a flight time for a quad hovered (hah) around 15-20 minutes on average. That leaves 9-12 minutes of loiter time as max. Then you need to factor in the power cost of stabilizing the aircraft at the height. The wind will be shoving it around so the FC will need to be constantly fighting for position hold. I'd really love to see the math on the probability of a tiny quad intersecting the flight path of a firefighting aircraft at 3km altitude though. They are small and that's a LOT of open space. I can barely spot one against the open sky at a few hundred feet up. If these guys spotted one they must have amazing superhuman vision or amazing luck to have come within a very close distance. Personally I put most of the sightings into the mass-hysteria camp. I know there are idiots out there flying in controlled space, but I also think things are being blown way out of proportion. Edit: I found a site that did the speed/climd rate calculations. My numbers are bit off. The DJI, a common platform, could hit 3km in about 5.5 minutes and a 250 racing quad could do it in about 5. With about 20 minutes of battery power that leaves maybe 5-10 minutes of loiter time. DJI Phantom 2 Vision+: flight speed of 17 m/s (61 km/h) and a maximum climbing rate of 9 m/s 250 FPV Racing Quad: maximum flight speed of 18.5 m/s (67 km/h) and a maximum climbing rate of 10 m/s source: http://bpmsg.com/flight-speed-of-a-quadcopter/ http://bpmsg.com/flight-speed-of-a-quadcopter/

wheaties 11y ago

As someone taking off from a runway the other day and having to actually dodge a stupid camera tied to balloons, we don't always report all that stuff. I, for one, welcome the rules. I also understand that not everyone will follow them. Welcome to the world.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
That stupid camera tied to balloons wasn't by chance a permitted-in-advance activity was it? We have that at my local airport. A few times per year a prof from a nearby uni sends a balloon up mostly for the benefit of his students. You ought to hear the Saturday morning FBO free-coffee-drinkers club whine about the inconvenience of it. All GA pilots may not always report everything, but there are a few who report everything they see and everything they imagine they saw.
- jonnycowboy 11y ago
  Usually the balloon flyers must post a NOTAM (notice to air men) which pilots request from the local tower prior to takeoff or landing.
dirktheman 11y ago
I also welcome the rules. People flying stuff (balloons, RC aircraft, drones, kites, etc.) near airports should be punished. It's just that I don't think even stricter rules are the answer.

peterwwillis 11y ago

Near miss? It's a near hit! A collision is a near miss! sound of explosions "Aw, will you look at that, Dave. They nearly missed." "Yes. But not quite!" -- George Carlin

mikeash 11y ago
I greatly enjoy that bit, but it's also totally wrong. "Near" is not the same as "nearly." It's "near" as opposed to "far." It's a miss which is near.
- throwaway1967 11y ago
  That is correct, but the frog died in the process. :)
- peterwwillis 11y ago
  I don't buy it. What if the miss wasn't near? Would it be a far miss? An average miss? What exactly is the point at which you go from colliding to a near miss, to any other kind of miss? It's redundant language.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Sure, if you miss by a huge amount it could be a "far miss" or a "distant miss" or similar. The point where you go from colliding to a near miss is the point where the two things don't touch. There's no exact point where you go from a near miss to a regular sort of miss, since it's not a precision term.
    - peterwwillis 11y ago
      But they don't far miss or distant miss. They weren't aiming for each other. "Near miss" is the only way you would ever refer to planes almost colliding with the word "miss", so the "near" part is redundant. They missed. If you wanted to say they were close, you could say they almost hit, which is not only more accurate, it's not redundant, because you can't take out either word and still express the same idea. This isn't just to be pedantic; there's lots of redundant or incorrect language out there which Carlin talks about at length.

rasz_pl 11y ago

TLDR: the big “close call” list consist of every mere mention of a word Drone by a pilot, not the actual near misses.