Jump to content

Drones And Planes


Dropzone
 Share

Recommended Posts

You can smell the mid-air coming between a commercial aircraft and a heavy drone but this variation on the home-made drone, while taking significant skill and application, takes the problem of drones into a new area.

According to this guy, 1 in a 38 million chance for a smaller model airplane/drone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this interesting Because I have flown Model aircraft up to 1/4 scale albeit not over residential areas but DIRECTLY UNDER the downwind flight path to the North runway at pearson (5 I believe) for years. I would be quite capable of getting a model in to the danger area if I so decided. If I really wanted to be a rebel I could fly it off my residential street. I was required to carry liability insurance on the aircraft and no one ever bothered to quote air regs to me or anything. Now it has become a "Major Issue" I do understant the privacy issues and in some cases even noise isssues in residential areas but enacting regulation like the FAA is (eventually) doing may be going too far.

As for the assault weapon on a Drone. The Drone would need to weigh in the order 0f 70 pounds before adding the weapon to take any of the recoil at all. Even the it would be good for a single round before needing to re aim and fire again. If the purpose was to indiscriminantly rain lead then OK I can see it but you could never stay on target with automatic fire.

Think about the A-10 Warthog. In a dive while firing with the throttles up it DECELERATES. The recoil of the GE Cannon is greater that the thrust of the engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if someone did in fact want to build an Assault weapon carrying drone then the technical data required is readily available as to the impact of firing a weapon. For example the Recoil.

http://www.saami.org/PubResources/GunRecoilFormulae.pdf

With that data in hand one could plausibly build a platform to support the weapon in question. I do know this has been done with a handgun. I believe it was a Mythbusters episode but the gun had to fire straight down due to the recoil forces. While the Quad Copter drone is a very stable platform it is also a very light platform so any outside influence would affect that stability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why guns? These things are modern stealth weapons. They can be homemade, inexpensive, GPS guided and able to deliver a load of high explosives pretty much anywhere anytime while remaining virtually undetectable.

Some sober second thinking is going to be required when it comes to the regulation of these devices. Considering the advances in propulsion technology, I'm surprised the crazies haven't started using RC models for their nasty purposes....yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an idea...why don't we discuss this subject further, I'm sure some nut case will latch on to all the good ideas, :glare: put forward on this public forum, and this topic will further encourage the crazies to gather more information and perhaps give it a try.

Just my opinion, but wouldn't it be best to drop the issue entirely??

And 'puleese...I know almost all information of how to create destruction is available on the Web but why water the seed and encourage growth in some of the nut-bars that seem to be prevalent...... no matter where we look,.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kip

I have some appreciation for your thoughts, but if our collective fear of crazies comes to restrict open discussion on public web sites to issues that only radiate sunshine; where will we be heading as a society?

I think you misunderstood my comment. I do not have any qualms about discussions and debates over just about every subject known to man-kind but when forum members put forward ideas, perhaps new ideas, to the not well balanced individuals concerning different/new ways to wreak havoc with over the counter goods.........well ...............I don't think it is a subject that should be pursued. :closedeyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting the link, cavok.

It's pretty, but how effective is it? I expect that this isn't just advice from TC and that the flowchart has the force of law behind it?

If not the law, then it's just naive "be nice to others" suggestions. Those who would fly their UAV in annoying or unsafe ways will just thumb whatever's handy at the "advice" and carry on.

If it's law, what are the realities regarding staffing, contact numbers when one has a UAV hovering over one's house; What due process is in place? Who is going to drive out to check the reports of flight outside of the Exemptions and the "Do Not" 's, or check the qualifications of the "pilot"? What is the definition of "Built-up"? If the UAV must remain within sight of the "pilot" and one doesn't find anyone around with a transceiver obviously controlling the device, can one take reasonable action under this "advice/law"?

We live in a forested area that, from experience flying a 2kg helicopter, eats UAVs so unless its satellites peering directly down, I doubt if we'll see pilot-controlled UAVs any time soon. However, UAVs that "see-and-avoid" obstacles and which can navigate using GPS, (I know that GPS accuracy can be done to within centimetres), the trees may soon go hungry as the local real estate agent or tax collector launches yet another New-and-Improved Orwell Machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just in...

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=18295

Press Release – DOT and FAA Propose New Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
For Immediate Release

February 15, 2015
Contact: DOT Contact: Suzi Emmerling Phone: 202-365-1763 FAA Contact: Laura J Brown Phone: 202-359-3680

Regulations will facilitate integration of small UAS into U.S. aviation system

WASHINGTON – The Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration today proposed a framework of regulations that would allow routine use of certain small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in today’s aviation system, while maintaining flexibility to accommodate future technological innovations.

The FAA proposal offers safety rules for small UAS (under 55 pounds) conducting non-recreational operations. The rule would limit flights to daylight and visual-line-of-sight operations. It also addresses height restrictions, operator certification, optional use of a visual observer, aircraft registration and marking, and operational limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty good video for sure. one Question though. What are the rules about flying a Drone across international borders? Clearly that drone flew from the Canadian side of the river to the US side to get the footage of the american falls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty good video for sure. one Question though. What are the rules about flying a Drone across international borders? Clearly that drone flew from the Canadian side of the river to the US side to get the footage of the american falls.

but would the almighty CBC care? :Grin-Nod:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

ckl, in re the post, http://theairlinewebsite.com/topic/406014-drones-and-planes/?p=1647405, and the guy in the video who claims that the chance of an airliner hitting a drone is 1-in-38,000,000:

http://avherald.com/h?article=48750f6f&opt=0

An Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190, registration C-FNAI performing flight AC-1125 from Toronto,ON to Saskatoon,SK (Canada), was in the initial climb out of Toronto's runway 05 when the aircraft encountered a yellow/black unmanned aerial vehicle about 1.5nm past the end of the runway. The crew performed an evasive maneouver and continued the flight for a safe landing in Saskatoon.

On Jun 3rd 2015 the Canadian TSB reported, the UAV was in flight for about one minute at a time, located about 1.5nm past the end of the runway on the extended runway center line. Departing aircraft deviated from the standard instrument departure route to avoid the UAV which was at 2200 feet ASL at times. The occurrence was rated "non-reportable" with no further classification. On Jun 4th 2015 the TSB changed the classification to "risk of collision" and "incident reportable".

NAV Canada reported police and personnel of the Greater Toronto Airport Authority responded and went to an area southwest of Dixie/Derry Road.

As others have already pointed out, drones are not soft and mushy like birds; the damage that can be done by a drone weighing the equivalent of an owl or a seagull has to be far greater, particularly to engines.

I don't take the gentleman's notion of statistics seriously. I don't think he knows very much about aviation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...