17 ms·
Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'
- HorizonXP 11y agoWhat a level headed response by the transport minister. I love that he acknowledges that geofencing rules will easily be circumvented. That said, I still think it's a good idea to implement. It will make it easier for casuals like me to quickly be warned when I'm venturing into forbidden areas. Sure, I could ignore it or hack around it, but at least it's an easy to implement safeguard that will keep most people away.
- Zigurd 11y agoGeofencing has a downside, too. While you might think it enhances aviation safety, it may not do so at all. Planes spend so little time within flying/control range of commonplace drones that, when you read about a "possible drone strike" always bet against it. Instead it will enable mission creep as more places get banned because embarrassing things, like protesters getting beaten, happen there.
- ddispaltro 11y agoYeah mission creep would be the best way to describe what I'd be afraid of with geofencing.
- blakeyrat 11y agoI'm not sure I agree with geofencing, but it's also true that drone operators appear to be, by and large, acting like complete jerks and someone needs to get the message across somehow.
- EdHominem 11y agoA jerk owns a drone? Better pick on the non-jerks! A bad guy used encryption? ...
- icebraining 11y agoThe message shows be sent by levying fines, mandating community work and putting restrictions from operating drones for X years for anyone caught being a jerk.
- cpncrunch 11y ago>Planes spend so little time within flying/control range of commonplace drones that It depends where you're talking about. Close to airports is the major issue. 2nm from the runway planes will be at 600ft, which is well within the range of drones. >Instead it will enable mission creep as more places get banned because embarrassing things, like protesters getting beaten, happen there. We're talking about voluntary geofencing here, by the companies themselves.
- nitrogen 11y agoWe're talking about voluntary geofencing here, by the companies themselves. Much as I like the idea of keeping drones away from planes, just look at how governments have abused other "voluntary" restriction systems. For example, ISPs install filters for ostensibly noble causes, then governments commandeer them for more questionable uses.
- cpncrunch 11y agoSounds like a slippery slope argument. Which governments of civilized, democratic countries have commandeered ISP's filters for questionable uses? If you're talking about the UK porn filter, it is the other way around: government has instituted a law saying they have to do it. Even if it were a law, I don't see the issue that you are arguing. You're essentially saying "I don't want a law that says drones are banned by default from controlled airspace, because the government might change it's mind and also ban drones from places that embarrass the government", which is just another slippery slope argument. Are you saying you don't want any laws at all, and people should just be able to do anything they want?
- EdHominem 11y ago> Sounds like a slippery slope argument. [...] it is the other way around: government has instituted a law saying they have to do it. Yeah, that's the point. When the technology has been demonstrated to work (even if badly) in some areas it's suddenly mandated in other areas. Now we have a technology that was so-so at blocking unwanted porn being used for everything from catching pedophiles to checking for intel leaks. A false-positive in porn blocking was annoying, in pedo-detection it can ruin lives. Worse, when functioning properly it can prop up repressive regimes. > Are you saying you don't want any laws at all, and people should just be able to do anything they want? Is that the only choice? Egregious laws that harm innocents and don't actually solve the issue versus no law at all? Well in that case, it's clear. No law is better than being stuck with bad law that doesn't actually help... But thankfully those aren't the only options. We can push back against bad laws (useless, abusive, etc) and accept the good ones. > "I don't want a law that says drones are banned by default from controlled airspace, because the government might change it's mind and also ban drones from places that embarrass the government", which is just another slippery slope argument. No, we don't want useless technological measures mandated that claim to block drones from airports, but fail to actually help in a real security context. Because those useless security rules have only one real purpose - banning civilians from inconvenient things. Laws, like lines of code, have a distinct cost and we should only add the ones that will actually help.
- gus_massa 11y agoIt doesn't look so easy. First you must put a GPS in each device, I think the cheaper drones don't have one. Also, the forbidden areas may vary, so they have to provide a way to update it.
- cpncrunch 11y ago>First you must put a GPS in each device A gps costs under $1 today: http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/gps-chip-price.html http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/gps-chip-price.html >Also, the forbidden areas may vary It's mostly airports that we need to worry about, and they don't tend to change much. Sure, TMA boundaries might vary occasionally, but that's not really much of a worry, because most drones won't be up at 1000+ ft.
- amelius 11y agoWhat about its weight?
- EdHominem 11y agoMore importantly, what failure modes does it have? Do you have to have GPS lock to takeoff? What if you lose it while flying? At DEFCON someone demonstrated dropping drones from the sky by spoofing GPS coordinates to inside an airport. Funny, but it guarantees I won't be buying one of them because of the potential for harm to my camera, etc.
- cpncrunch 11y agoI don't know, but Phantom have been doing it for years, so you could see how they do it.
- caffinatedmonk 11y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CzURm7OpAA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CzURm7OpAA
- cpncrunch 11y ago
- cpncrunch 11y ago>That said, I still think it's a good idea to implement. It will make it easier for casuals like me to quickly be warned when I'm venturing into forbidden areas. Sure, I could ignore it or hack around it, but at least it's an easy to implement safeguard that will keep most people away. Yes, it's definitely a good idea that will stop casual drone users from being somewhere they shouldn't be flying. Here is a good example (see the description): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH7y8-gkkN0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH7y8-gkkN0 The vast majority of drone users won't bother looking up the aviation charts to see if they are inside a control zone or other controlled airspace, and won't have any idea how far away they are from an airport.
- Zigurd 11y agoAs soon as drones are required to have geofencing, you will find they become useless for monitoring the police, factory farms, pollution, "black" sites, etc. Humans die because of those things, while no practical benefit to aviation safety has been proven. And yeah, controlled airspace has been used to prevent monitoring of police, in Ferguson, for example.
- sosborn 11y agoIf we argue that regulations don't stop criminals (DRM etc) then doesn't it also hold true that regulations wouldn't stop do-gooders? (sorry, not the best word).
- iamnothere 11y agoIt wouldn't stop activists from filming "restricted" areas, no, but it could give authorities a way to tack on additional charges ("terroristic disabling of an aviation safety device" or the like) when they inevitably find the person who leaked the video.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- cpncrunch 11y ago
- Splines 11y agoThere's a danger to this though; if drone pilots are universally expected to be warned when they fly in dangerous areas, then pilots will start flying "to the edge" and expect the technology to always keep them in line. I would be surprised if restricted areas were stable enough that drones could store a database of no-go areas and keep it up to date easily. It would be more straightforward to set clear policy and provide a way for drone pilots to know where not to fly (e.g., provide an online map and require altitude telemetry to the controller at all times). Include a link to this information with every drone purchase. My guess of what will happen if we go down the GPS route: Some incident with a drone will occur, and the pilot will say something like "the drone didn't warn me that I was in a restricted area".
- hirsin 11y agoThat's actually good precedent to bring up - has e.g. Google Maps or more infamously, Apple Maps, ever been held liable for bad directions? I believe it's still seen as the end user's responsibility to obey the laws, especially when the safeguards fail.
- Jtsummers 11y agoA friend recently (several months ago) was fined because he trusted Google Maps to be accurate and drove into an otherwise unmarked (by the route he took into it) wilderness protection area. He got the minimal fine because he demonstrated that he'd tried to obey the law (showed that Google Maps marked the areas, but marked them incorrectly), but he was still fined.
- ryanlol 11y agoDid he contest that fine in court? If not, why is this story relevant?
- Jtsummers 11y agoHe did. Because it's a demonstration of how the court system (at least in the US) generally works. Pleading ignorance of the law when violating it, even when you use tools that are supposed to prevent that violation, doesn't always work. Anyone using these systems should still be aware of what they're doing and where they're allowed to go and should consider them mitigators, at best, when they get caught in violation of air space.
- deckar01 11y agoDJI products quite effectively indicate and restrict access to no fly zones. My controller starts to beep if I get within a few hundred feet of a border to a no fly zone. I haven't tested it, but I think it is supposed to come home and land if you somehow get into a no fly zone. That said, 1,700ft is so high, no fly zones don't really mean much anymore.
- SixSigma 11y agoDrones are already forbidden by law from flying higher than 400ft.
- jsmthrowaway 11y agoThey aren't, actually, and people parrot this falsehood all the time. If we assume you're referring to the United States, don't conflate proposed rules, rules, guidelines, and law, nor circumstances that require you to seek FAA authorization for the flight (which is different than "forbidden by law," itself inaccurate). You are talking about Advisory Circular 91-57 (Model Aircraft Operating Standards) from June 1981. Not law, just standards for their airspace. Certainly not forbiddance by law.
- SixSigma 11y agoThe FAA doesn't have jurisdiction in the UK The CAA sets the laws here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30387107 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30387107
- matheweis 11y agoWhere? In the US it is still legal to fly over 400' for hobby purposes when flying under the safety guidelines of a community based organization.
- SixSigma 11y agoIn the UK, where this incident happened.
- SixSigma 11y agoIt is illegal for your drone to be more than 500m away from you laterally and 122m vertically. How would you expect to hit a plane ?
- gruturo 11y agoIllegally?
- elcct 11y agoMaybe the bag was protesting being essentially a 5p class citizen.
- awinter-py 11y agoIs 'plastic bag' not a derogatory term for drones anymore?
- djsumdog 11y agofucking toasters
- TillE 11y ago"there was no actual damage to the plane and there's indeed some speculation that it may have even been a plastic bag or something." This is an amazingly flimsy basis for a headline.
- dingaling 11y agoNo flimsier than the original drone-claim headline. Contrary to popular conception, most airline pilots are very poor at recognising anything that isn't in their company fleet. A few are aircraft enthusiasts, a few are bird spotters. The remainder have knowledge of unexpected flying objects no better than most laymen and a lot worse than a school-age plane spotter. I used to run aircraft recognition training for a local cadet squadron. The 'pro-pilots' were uniformly awful.
- fabulist 11y agoAren't they trained to judge size and distance by eye, though?
- andygates 11y agoThis is a moral panic! Flimsy is rock-solid compared to satanic abuse rings and penis thieves.
- k-mcgrady 11y agoSlightly misleading headline. Basically they haven't confirmed it's a drone so they can't rule anything out, or as he puts it "it could have been a plastic bag or something". They don't seem to have any evidence suggesting it's a plastic bag and not a drone (and vice versa).
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago...or any evidence that it existed at all? That's certainly news.
- jobu 11y agoIt's unclear to me why they think it was a drone or a bag instead of a bird. This whole thing seems overblown. They have no idea what they hit, and it didn't cause any damage to the plane.
- stupidcar 11y agoUm, the whole point of the article was that "they" don't think it was a drone. The idea that it was a drone seems to have come entirely from a single tweet by the local police force, which the media jumped on.
- 21 11y agoPlanes should have a camera in the front/nose (like newer Airbuses have in the tail).
- leecarraher 11y agodamn kids flying their plastic bags near the airport... there should be a law.
- gregmac 11y agoWow, this is an elected official? > Transport minister Robert Goodwill admitted authorities had not yet confirmed whether what struck the Airbus A320 > Mr Goodwill also dismissed calls for tighter rules on drone use to protect against terror threats insisting current rules governing drone use were strong enough. He said it would be much easier for terrorists to attack airports on the ground with rucksacks or car bombs than orchestrate the attack from a drone aircraft. > He warned that any moves to enforce geo-fencing rules would be vulnerable to being hacked by "somebody who could get round that software". > "And indeed the early reports of a dent in the front of the plane were not confirmed - there was no actual damage to the plane" > "the pilot has a lot of other things to concentrate [while landing] on so we're not quite sure what they saw so I think we should maybe not overreact too much." This is a sane, rational response.. I am just not used to hearing it come from government officials. This should be a model for the type of responses that government officials have to these types of situations.
- d33 11y agoNonetheless, the amount of hype in the original news clearly show the state of paranoia the contemporary society is in.
- LeifCarrotson 11y agoNo, that shows the state of paranoia that the original news wants to convey to sell more media.
- dmix 11y agoThe media is part of contemporary society. As are the police who originally tweeted the drone hitting plane angle, the media for reporting on it, and the consumers who love a good fear-ridden headline. The culture of fear is a widespread human fallibility, not an evil corporate invention. The fact rationality, and how to perceive the world without tripping over our human biases/fallacies, is not taught with any priority in society is the real issue. That is the root cause of the anti-intellectualism that's so widespread IMO. No-one in the chain approached the topic with any level of skepticism. Just retweeting and reblogging a story without any solid evidence, giving it more and more credibility.
- aaron695 11y agoIf you weren't calling bullshit on the original articles you really need your view of the world examined. This is just D&D is the devil panaroia for 2016 1000s of 'near misses' and no hits is a industry that plane lies.
- pj_mukh 11y agoIf airports/pilots are really that paranoid perhaps they should install sensor system (low range radar?) to capture particular drones (and birds). For drones, they have systems now that they can deploy to take them down immediately. http://www.skysafe.io/ http://www.skysafe.io/ And please, leave the rest of us who live/visit nowhere near airports alone.
- dredmorbius 11y agoTo what end? It's all but impossible to take evasive action, you'd have a second or two warning, and quite likely many false alarms. Rain, bags, random ground echos. Too many targets.
- smoyer 11y agoI'm happy that they're backing off the drone regulation but it's going to be pretty inconvenient for the locals when plastic bags are banned within 2km of an airport.
- techterrier 11y agoThat's 5p we'll never see again. What a waste.
- f_allwein 11y agowould be ironic since the number of plastic bags in the UK decreased dramatically since a 5p charge was introduced in October: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/12034574/Plastic-bag-5p-charge-cuts-usage-by-almost-80-per-cent-first-data-shows.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/12034574/P...
- philovivero 11y agoAh. It's a drone discussion. Is there any advance in drone tech to make it quieter? Any time I've been near a drone in operation, the loud buzzing hits a particular psychological frequency (probably the "it's a large flying insect!") that stresses me out. I don't think I'm alone in this. Other animals seem to dislike drones. I think most of us animals would mind them less if they were more pleasant-sounding, or closer to silent.
- petra 11y agoThere's a way to spin each propeller at 180 degree phase so they would cancel/reduce each others noise.
- danieltiIlett 11y agoHow difficult is it to do while adjusting each propeller's speed for steering etc?
- petra 11y agoI've only heard about for wing based uav's , not quadcopters. Maybe this is a good sign for Google's drones, which use wings, but rotate their rotors for landing.
- awinter-py 11y agoThis wouldn't be a problem in california http://plasticbaglaws.org/legislation/state-laws/ http://plasticbaglaws.org/legislation/state-laws/
- CrazyCatDog 11y agoAwesome RC pilot here(1). Hitting a commercial jetliner with an off the shelf drone is impossible--especially at that altitude. With $8K it becomes feasible, but I'd put the level of difficulty at about the same as driving a Bugatti Veyron at 70mph in reverse and executing a j-turn (think Hollywood 180 spin) into a tight spot between two SUV's at the grocery store--3 times in a row. As rare as plastic bags are at 1700 feet, if it was a sunny day in London in an area with a lot of jet traffic, then it was in all likelihood a bag that was kicked up by a car, caught a massive thermal and managed to get blown around by jet traffic. (1) Fly fixed wing RC in excess of 180mph weekly and have flown quads for 3 years.
- ageofwant 11y agoPlastic bags, not thats one thing I won't mind being banned...
- chippy 11y ago...they should charge people to buy them in the supermarkets instead of giving them away for free.
- MKais 11y agoFAA issues new rules stating all plastic bag owners must register each bag with the FAA
- MrPatan 11y agoNow I want to see all those blowhards calling for a crackdown on the Drone Menace for a crackdown on the Plastic Bag Menace. Disgusting.
- pete622 11y agoWhat next? Were the geese Sully's plane nailed actually newspapers?