6 ms·
If I'm following your argument, you're saying, "drones are currently not that powerful, so they should be viewed as a toy." The problem is, that argument is des
by eykanal 11y ago
If I'm following your argument, you're saying, "drones are currently not that powerful, so they should be viewed as a toy." The problem is, that argument is destined to become false. Drones are only getting more and more capable. Intelligent legislation works not only for the current scenario but also future ones.
Additionally, there are many stories regarding how current drone operators either ignore common sense regarding where to fly, or make mistakes that put planes in danger, or whatever. You can simply google "airline drone near miss" to see examples. Just because people theoretically could act in an intelligent manner doesn't mean we can rely on them to actually do so.
- ctdonath 11y agoNo results found for "airline drone near miss" Ok, that's a bit pedantic - search for "airliner drone near miss". But what are we talking about re: "near miss" here? The phrase itself defines as no actual impact. How many actual problems are we talking about here, vs "close but no harm done"? I'm just trying to bracket the issue.
- mikeash 11y agoGoogle turned up 137,000 results for me for "airline drone near miss." Are you sure you're using it properly? Many of the hits describe the specific near misses, thus answering your question. But the question about how many actual problems we are talking about is missing the point. Drones are at an inflection point. People have been flying them for decades as a hobby (they were called "radio control airplanes" back then) without issue, but they're set to become far more popular, far more available, and far easier to use really rapidly. The question is not so much how many problems there are today, but what it'll look like in five or ten years, and how we can get ahead of any potential problems now.
- sveiss 11y agoA "near miss" in aviation terms would be anything close enough to potentially compromise safety if anything else went wrong. This tends to be taken very seriously – for example, every such reported incident in the UK is investigated and a report issued – even when the distances involved seem very large for a ‘near miss’. The UK investigative authority cites an example where the aircraft involved were 3 miles apart horizontally, and yet it was still handled as a safety issue ( http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/default.aspx?catid=423&pagetype=70&gid=947&faqid=677 http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/default.aspx?catid=423&pagety... ). I expect the absolute distances considered critical for drone operations to be smaller, but still significant. The level of scrutiny involved in aviation safety is very impressive. I’m not actually involved in the field myself, but find the human factors and systems engineering involved in keeping the skies safe to be very interesting. NTSB and CAA incident reports make fascinating reading!
- rfrank 11y ago1. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/12/06/near-collision-with-drone-forces-chp-helicopter-to-abandon-search-for-stolen-car-over-martinez/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/12/06/near-collision-w... 2. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-medical-helicopter-drone-20150812-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-medical-helicopt...
- CountSessine 11y agoBut what are we talking about re: "near miss" here? The phrase itself defines as no actual impact. How many actual problems are we talking about here, vs "close but no harm done"? I'm just trying to bracket the issue. close but no harm done Are you serious? This is an airplane we're talking about. I don't care how close you think you are or aren't when you're flying your toy around the airport. I don't want the pilot of my airplane to be distracted by your asshat-ery no matter how much distance you think you have from the airplane.
- ryanlol 11y agoWhy would a pilot be distracted by a drone?
- sokoloff 11y agoOn my next to last landing at my home airport, I was warned of "remote controlled aircraft" on the final approach path, 1.5 miles from the runway. At that point on a 3* approach path, I'm a little over 400' above the touchdown zone and the land rises slightly in this direction, so I'm a little under 400' above ground. Care to guess whether that was a zero or non-zero distraction as I passed the affected area?