JohnBurke

You're an "airplane enthusiast," but not a pilot, then?

No proof? Hardly.

There's no paranoia. They're a security concern and a safety hazard, and there's nothing "spreading across the pond." The problem has been ongoing, but it's just had a bit more publicity of late.

Increasingly over the past five or six years, we've had numerous cases every year in aerial firefighting in which unmanned aircraft intruded in operations, and the air ops had to be shut down. That puts lives in danger in flight and on the ground, and costs ground resources valuable air support. It's not new and it's not a fad, this issue, but with the ever-increasing numbers of those playing with these toys, the problem also continues to increase, and you're going to see more and more attention drawn to it. For every person that elects to fly one across an airport boundary or into the final approach course of an airport, or that has to get their pictures of an emergency such as a fire or car crash, there will be increased scrutiny and eventually more regulation and loss of privilege.

For those who keep doing it, by all means, have at it; sooner than later you'll find yourself constrained to a gynmasium with real legal consequences.

awax

If this is true, why don't we shut down airports when birds are reported in the area? It seems like Sully was elevated to hero status, not the emotional scar of a nation.

EasternATC

Other than reports of drone sightings, no evidence exists there was ever any actual drone threat at ELGW in mid-December. This despite significant involvement by law enforcement and the military to identify and nullify the supposed threat.



If it was a hoax or plot of some sort, it seems to me it was accomplished not with drones, but simply by reporting that drones had been seen in the vicinity. Paranoia and overreaction did the rest.


Also, James, I've been retired a couple of years now, but I did work on the front lines at DCA and PCT for 34 years as a controller and supervisor. I probably did a thousand hours on the DEN. I am well aware of the anomalies that occur in the system; I was involved somehow or another in hundreds of them, many of which made the news. What's naive is for you come on this forum and present yourself as the only person with a valid opinion on the subject.

JamesNoBrakes

I read the same stories, police interviewed several "credible witnesses" according to the story. I freely admit that eyewitnesses aren't the best "evidence", but according to investigators, there was enough of a perceived threat to take the action they took and investigate.

Drone next to aircraft

Don't take my word for it, do your own research.

Like John says, this is happening with increased frequency:

EasternATC

Perceived threat. I think you are right on about this.



Any objective after-action report on the incident would disclose that their perceptions lead them to make very poor decisions.

Excargodog

What I think is coming is that all UAVs are ultimately going to need ADS-B out individually coded to the owner. It’s easily achievable:

https://www.nwuav.com/products-uavio...SAAEgJaN_D_BwE

And anyone caught flying without ADS-B on, or if their UAV is detected in an area and altitude where flying is illegal, winds up losing the UAV, some money, and three or four months of their personal freedom.

Excargodog

Risk management. The reality is that more people die of bee stings than they do from snakebites or shark attacks, but the PERCEIVED risk by the general public is what matters. Most homeowners associations won’t bat an eye if you put an apiary in your backyard. And improbable or not, nobody wants to be a fish’s dinner.

Politicians don’t react to ACTUAL threat risk, they react to perceived threat risk.

JamesNoBrakes

Because birds aren't made of metal. The can also "see and avoid", not that it works every time though.

Super27

What's gotten out of hand is the number of people flying drones that have absolutely zero clue what they are doing. It is a VERY real hazard to public safety, and if anything I believe that it is not being taken seriously enough. Like everything else in aviation safety, it's probably going to take a serious accident before these devices are regulated to the extent that they need to be, with real safeguards in place to protect the public.

That said, I understand your position, and appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to learn the regulations and obtain a Part 107 certificate. I totally get that you don't like seeing your hobby trash talked and threatened. Unfortunately, there are a TON of people that aren't doing things the right way, and they are the ones that are causing problems.

In a perfect world, it would be illegal to purchase a UAS over 0.55 lbs without already holding a Part 107 certificate. That would protect access for folks who do things the right way, and eliminate the "rogue" operators. I don't see that ever happening, though, so it's up to the FAA and industry to work together on this to try and prevent a tragedy from occurring.

rickair7777

Yup, build the boundaries into the device.

Also need to institute draconian penalties for operating home-built devices without the limiters... those would probably be crooks best case, or terrorists worst case, so not unreasonable.

How do you account for RC airplane hobbyists? I don't know.