Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Drones

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
    Would you care to explain what that means ?
    The term ''circle of trust'', though figurative, should be fairly self explanatory.

    It will take more (much more) than one short post for Gabriel to be in the circle of trust to make brief posts.

    Regarding the ''Fokker'' movie series, they make a big and humorous deal out of ''The circle of trust'' and additionally bolster the concept.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #32
      An example of proper use of a drone. Designed for use in remote areas. I can think of a couple of occasions in the past in England where I had to walk a couple of miles as a paramedic attending a patient where this would have been useful to deliver extra equipment / medications.

      If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

      Comment


      • #33
        That's neat!

        It's interesting that even though it apparently was in free-fall for about 28 seconds, the payload doesn't seem like it achieved a very high speed. I suppose it could have been lowered on some sort of line but none was visible in the video. Barring that, I'd say the package must have been extremely lightweight.
        Be alert! America needs more lerts.

        Eric Law

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          There are news on this case:



          Finally they caught one!!! (no word yet on the type of drone or its size or weight)
          Yes, it´s great that they caught one.
          And we will be waiting for the same for the nuts with lasers pointed to cockpits during final approaches.
          Regardless the size of the drone and their “ability” to damage the plane, both drones and lasers can result in potential catastrophic events.
          There is no way to accept such interferences in flight paths, no matter if we are talking commercial/private flights, small/big planes, small/big drones

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            ...makes me wonder if there won't be some black box wizardry such as a universal kill frequency or built in altitude restrictions???
            If we are all done getting our FEELINGS on the table about whether this is a big problem or small problem, or the probabilities of a scratch that needs to be buffed out, an expensive engine replacement, or a total air disaster, would anyone care to parlour talk about the near future and things that might happen in regards to prevention?

            I have enjoyed Brian's posts which discuss the issue analytically.

            Drones are extremely similar to model, RC airplanes (except that they tend to require much less cowboy stick and rudder skills, and perhaps that makes them appeal more to idiots). And there's even precedence of mid-air collisions with model RC airplanes.

            Of course, drones tend to have autonomous computer controllers that can be programmed in all sorts of neat ways.

            Maybe you have drones for dummys that can't fly higher than 50 feet and that are susceptible to a "kill signal" that is generated on airport property (or can be broadcast from a 'public safety helicopter'.

            Then you have high dollar photographic, professional drones for which you need a license, and which requires an identified login and which records highly accurate GPS positions that must be downloaded to a big brother database which will bust the pilots rear end if the GPS data indicates it went where it shouldn't...That helicopter could also be programmed to respond to "kill signals".

            Brian brought up the question if a bad person could fake it, jump through all the hoops and do some sort of bad terrorist attack using a drone...that strikes me as a valid fear, it seems that terrorists always seem to have some way to trick the system.

            I'm not sure, but I think Drone safety will catch some more attention and that we may see some changes and regulations in the next few years.
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #36
              I may be repeating myself here but I believe that most users of drones or lasers have no knowledge of the restrictions on their use. Where are the public service announcements, warnings on devices, and other readily available publicity on the rules of use.

              I know these rules since I follow web sites such as this one and employed in the aerospace industry but it is rare that I see warnings on TV or in newspapers.

              In the USA the FAA should use social media to constantly remind drone/laser users of rules and penalties.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by elaw View Post
                I suppose it could have been lowered on some sort of line but none was visible in the video.
                Not the line itself, but you can see the black... thingie attached to the box as it descends, and coming back to the drone after the box reaches the floor.
                "I know that at times I can be a little over the top." -ITS

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Not_Karl View Post
                  Not the line itself, but you can see the black... thingie attached to the box as it descends, and coming back to the drone after the box reaches the floor.
                  The box was on a thin line, probably a thin wire. The black piece was most likely an electromagnet which could be de-energised to release the box and wound back up.
                  If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Sully Sullenberger: Drones likely to cause airplane accidents

                    The increasing availability of drones is all but certain to cause an airplane accident, in part because it's difficult to catch people in the act of flying the small unmanned devices, CBS News aviation and safety expert Chesley Sullenberger said Sunday.

                    "We've seen what a six-pound or an eight-pound bird can do to bring down an airplane," Sullenberger said on "Face the Nation," a nod to the flock of birds that knocked out both of his engines and forced him to land a plane in the Hudson River in 2009. "Imagine what a device containing hard parts like batteries and motors can do that might weigh 25 or possibly up to 55 pounds to bring down an airplane. It's not a matter of if it will happen. It's a matter of when it will happen."

                    There has been a dramatic increase in the number of unmanned aircraft flying near commercial planes, and in some cases, pilots have had to alter their courses to avoid a collision. Sullenberger said the devices are becoming ubiquitous because they are relatively cheap and easy to procure, but that it "allows people to do stupid, reckless, dangerous things with abandon."

                    "I'm heartened that the aviation and the legal authorities have raised the penalties for doing these things. Unfortunately, the essential element that's still missing is the certainty of prosecution because it's been difficult to catch them in the act. This must stop," he said.

                    "We shouldn't make too many judgments about one single piece of debris any more than we would expect to discover why an entire house fell down by looking at one piece of lumber," Sullenberger said. But he added that a century of knowledge about metals and structures would allow investigators to draw some conclusions about what kind of forces affected the metal and the speed and energy of the impact.

                    He said investigators are "writing a true life, non-fiction detective story of hundreds of pages. And right now, we're probably on page five."
                    AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

                    Originally posted by orangehuggy
                    the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by James Bond View Post
                      Sully Sullenberger: Drones likely to cause airplane accidents
                      ...because making a mediocre ditching and having some TV flair[see footnote] gives one insight into drone-aircraft collisions...

                      Footnote: Gabriel says his landing was far from Genius Controlmanship.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        ...because making a mediocre ditching and having some TV flair[see footnote] gives one insight into drone-aircraft collisions...

                        Footnote: Gabriel says his landing was far from Genius Controlmanship.
                        I think parlour talk is getting a bit out-of-hand there. With very little time to manage an impossible situation over the most densely populated terrain you could ever hope for, I think he did alright. Not perfect, but mediocre? Really?

                        That said, I think he is mistaken about 55lb consumer drones. It would require a serious set of rotor blades to lift that kind of weight, limb-severing size, with a lot of power behind them, which I doubt are on sale at Best Buy. The largest I've seen are about 8lbs with the camera. Anything over 10lbs should require a registration # and a experimental pilot's license. And that's still lighter than a healthy goose.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          I think parlour talk is getting a bit out-of-hand there. With very little time to manage an impossible situation over the most densely populated terrain you could ever hope for, I think he did alright. Not perfect, but mediocre? Really?
                          It's been a few months.

                          From studying the final report, Gabirel comments that Sully flared a bit too soon and wound up a bit too slow and a bit too high and smacked the water a bit harder than ideal...

                          ...HOWEVER, Gabriel is much more liberal in praising the decision to ditch as ballsy, solid, and amazing given the amount of time.

                          (If I misrepresented Gabriel's general analyses, apologies).

                          Bottom line- I generally try to avoid arguing with Gabriel, except to give him friendly harassent...He will usually provide a hard-to-refute argument of some length.

                          Nevertheless, neither of these is much of a qualification to comment on drone-airliner traffic conflicts...sorta not exactly related-although ingesting a couple of geese might have some paralell to eating a drone with an engine.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            3WE, I don't know if you've ever been to that part of the world but Sully had no place else, as in zip, zero and nada else place to go. There are no other open spaces for miles along that route. The river was his only option.
                            Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                              It's been a few months.

                              From studying the final report, Gabirel comments that Sully flared a bit too soon and wound up a bit too slow and a bit too high and smacked the water a bit harder than ideal...
                              He should have let it float until it settled more gently on the waves, that's how they tell you to do it ON OPEN WATER. On a limited 'runway' such as the Hudson, I believe the 'SOP' might be similar to any limited runway, plant it firmly as soon as possible. What his critics fail to see is the view out the windscreen of ferry and boat traffic below 42nd St. So, that has to be taken into consideration as a possible reason for his actions. But again, there is no SOP for landing without power on an occupied water runway...

                              Your point, that he is not necessarilly an expert on all things airplane, is taken. He's become a sort of go-to media aviation expert when in fact he may just be a very experienced pilot with nerves of steel.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
                                The river was his only option.
                                Post-game commentary from certain experts (perhaps the final report - can't recall just now) concluded that he could have made the return to LGA or to Newark but I still think he did the right thing by not risking a much higher death toll if he calculated wrong.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X