Finally, drone collides with airliner? (16 Oct, 2017)

Have your say on today's Aardvark Daily column

Finally, drone collides with airliner? (16 Oct, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:20 am

This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2017/1016.shtml

Why haven't you already heard about the collision between an airliner and a drone in Canada this week?

Perhaps because, despite the predictions of the media and airspace regulators, *NOBODY* was killed (not even a little bit) and the damage to the airliner is reported to be "minor".

Of course that is if the incident actually happened at all. Maybe it was a shopping bag and not a drone?

I also wonder about the timing of this... given that Canada has just closed public submissions on its new proposed (and very stringent) drone laws.

The bottom line however, is that this whole drone-risk thing has been wildly over-hyped by the media and regulators and now reports are starting to prove that we've been bullshirted by these groups. Never the less, they still keep demanding stronger regulations and the media opts to ignore the facts by giving "near miss" incidents huge coverage and ignoring the "actual collision" stories which expose their hype for what it is.

And... what about the birds? OMG! Aren't they the *real* threat? Why aren't we making birds illegal?
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2727
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Finally, drone collides with airliner? (16 Oct, 2017)

Postby phill » Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:38 am

In November 2016, a Canadian airliner with 54 passengers on board had to swerve to avoid an unmanned flying object near Toronto, slightly injuring two cabin crew.

is it just me or does this just sound like a lie made up to excuse a pilots screw up after 2 of his air hoes fell over

cause to me .. range to see and identify it plus reaction time plus planes response to control = gone before we had time to do anything
whereas bullshit to get out of written warning = blame someone else
( ,,,,,,,, ....... A E I O U use em sparingly theres probably not enough )
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Finally, drone collides with airliner? (16 Oct, 2017)

Postby Muz » Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:42 am

In November 2016, a Canadian airliner with 54 passengers on board had to swerve to avoid an unmanned flying object near Toronto, slightly injuring two cabin crew.


To me, it appears that it's only dangerous if you try to avoid the alleged drone.
Muz
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:15 am

Re: Finally, drone collides with airliner? (16 Oct, 2017)

Postby Screw » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:27 am

Muz wrote:To me, it appears that it's only dangerous if you try to avoid the alleged drone.


That's always supposing the pilot could even see a small drone!

Bureaucrats should be made illegal!
Screw
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 3:52 pm

Re: Finally, drone collides with airliner? (16 Oct, 2017)

Postby hagfish » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:29 am

it appears that drones have fallen into the same category as jetskis and man-buns and P-dealers and Google Glass and dangerous dogs and video games and Nazis and spiced-pumpkin lattes. Society at large has decided they're fair game. When it comes to man-buns, fine, but I don't know how drones found themselves in this category. Is it just because they're annoying?
hagfish
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 10:28 am

Re: Finally, drone collides with airliner? (16 Oct, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:36 am

hagfish wrote:Is it just because they're annoying?

Are they annoying? Whenever I fly at the park, nobody even notices my drones because they can't hear them and they're too small for most people to even see against the visual clutter of the trees.
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2727
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Finally, drone collides with airliner? (16 Oct, 2017)

Postby Kiwiiano » Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:50 am

I suspect that the powers-that-be are scared that drones could so easily weaponised and would be very hard to deal with. So create a state of concern to justify draconian regulations.
~ Kiwiiano
“I'm right 98% of the time, so who gives a damn about the other 3%?"
User avatar
Kiwiiano
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 5:36 pm

Re: Finally, drone collides with airliner? (16 Oct, 2017)

Postby phill » Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:17 am

if ' weaponised ' means
take photos of them without them being able to detect it doing stuff they dont want anyone to know about
then
yup
they are terrified they might be weaponised
and lets face it
its what drones can find out not what they can do physically that has the pollies in a cold sweat

only those with something to hide have anything to fear
and most of them are as afraid as hell
( ,,,,,,,, ....... A E I O U use em sparingly theres probably not enough )
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Finally, drone collides with airliner? (16 Oct, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:13 pm

Kiwiiano wrote:I suspect that the powers-that-be are scared that drones could so easily weaponised and would be very hard to deal with. So create a state of concern to justify draconian regulations.

Because nobody could ever weaponise a U-Hall truck by filling it with amonium nitrate and diesel then driving it to a Federal Building and detonating it... nah, that would never happen.

Yet in the USA you can still hire U-Hall trucks, and you can still buy pressure cookers, and hand-guns and rifles and a myriad of other stuff that terrorists have already used to great effect. But a drone -- OMG, it COULD be used by some rag-head to drop 300g of explosives somewhere so we'd better regulate the hell out of them.

I often wonder what colour the sky is in the world of politicians and regulators.
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2727
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Finally, drone collides with airliner? (16 Oct, 2017)

Postby phill » Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:22 pm

im not sure they would know
its very hard to see the sky when your permanently biting a pillow
( ,,,,,,,, ....... A E I O U use em sparingly theres probably not enough )
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Next

Return to Today's column

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

cron