Drones Vs Eagles

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Mike Watson

I'm curious to know if you want to outlaw any activity that could potentially cause harm, or just this one?

And just where did I ever state I wanted to outlaw this activity? Really, where? If you look back I don't think you'll find a single occasion.

I did say "it makes sense to try to put (sensible) legislation in place now to limit the problem in the future" - but IMO that is nowhere near saying I want to outlaw all drone usage, end of story. There is no problem with a lot of drone flying - but there have been too many cases now where there has been a problem. The trick is to try to limit the latter (both cases of stupidity and downright criminal intent) whilst allowing the former. That is far from wanting to outlaw drone usage, period, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Mike Watson

Because of this, I assume you are even more staunchly against terrestrial video? Also, against the driving of vehicles, the washing of high-rise windows, the raising of a trash dumpster to empty it, any road work in which someone might be injured... basically anything, yes?

Let's take driving as just one example from the above. No, I am not "staunchly against driving" - but isn't it a good example where the lawmakers fully allow it, but have legislated in many ways to try to reduce risks of injury and accident. Which includes speed limits, drink driving laws, training and licensing of drivers, car specs to aid safety (air bags etc), let alone trying to design road layouts to try to reduce accidents.

It doesn't need to be a "ban it all" versus "no restrictions" black/white choice. It isn't with driving, and it needn't be with drones.

And to take your example of washing high-rise windows, then I think you'll find that for such there is a raft of Health and Safety law which lays down what can and can't be done, and what equipment to be used. And if an employer doesn't go along with it, and an accident happens, their outlook in court is likely to be bleak. Same with pretty well any other industrial process.

So no. I'm not saying I'm against "basically anything". But that's not to say many things shouldn't be subject to controls. It's a question of striking sensible balances.

And classic risk analysis tries to equate risk v reward v probability v severity. Additional to that is who gets any potential "reward" versus who takes any risk. It's one matter if risk and reward apply to the same person (as may be the case for an extreme sportsman) quite another if one person gets the reward, another takes the risk. And in the case of drones, the "reward" is fundamentally to the operator, the "risk" is to others.

So if someone wants to race a car at high speed on a track with others, that's one thing. If they want to race on a public road, it's quite another.

[Brian Drysdale]

Lets just say there are people who'll do dumb or criminal activities with drones, just as they will with laser pointers, Legislation and regulations set the boundaries for the use of these and when you need special clearances to exceed these boundaries.

The new drone users tend to be rather different to the traditional model aircraft operators, who are a small group that invests a lot of time into their hobby. Unfortunately, if you have larger numbers you tend to also have a larger number who lack a sense of responsibility.

[Colin McDonald]

Drone near-misses prompt calls for plane strike research - BBC News

Drone near-misses prompt calls for plane strike research

Pilots are calling for research into what would happen if a drone hit an airliner, after 23 near-misses around UK airports in six months last year.

Reports from the UK Airprox Board reveal the incidents happened between 11 April and 4 October 2015.

In one incident a drone passed within 25m (82ft) of a Boeing 777 near London Heathrow Airport.

Pilots union Balpa wants the government and safety regulator to back research into how serious a strike could be.

The incident at Heathrow was one of 12 that were given an "A" rating by the independent board, meaning there was "a serious risk of collision". It is the most serious risk rating out of five.

Other incidents given the most serious rating include a drone coming within 20m (66ft) of a Embraer 170 jet on its approach to London City Airport above the Houses of Parliament on 13 September.

Engine failure warning

On the same day, a Boeing 737 had a near miss with a drone shortly after take-off from Stansted Airport in Essex.

Regulations set by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) prohibits unmanned aircraft from flying within 50m (164ft) of any vessel, vehicle or structure that is not in the control of the person in charge of the aircraft.

The British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa) wants the Department for Transport and the CAA to back research into the possible consequences of a collision with a passenger jet.

Former RAF and British Airways pilot Steve Landells warned that a drone hitting an airliner could result in an uncontrolled engine failure or a smashed cockpit windscreen.

Mr Landells, Balpa's flight safety specialist, said there was a large amount of data on the effects of bird strikes on planes, but he said specific drone research was needed because "birds don't have a big lump of lithium battery in them".

I think the main point is in the last sentence - the lithium batteries. The presence of a solid object with sharp corners and containing a highly reactive material has not so far been taken sufficiently into the risk assessment as far as aircraft are concerned.

Unlikely to do much harm to a steam locomotive though, and I am not sure how upset genuine enthusiasts would be if an errant drone took out one or two of the idiots who trespass on 125mph main lines to take photographs and end up causing huge delays, as happened the other day. :-)

[Bruce Dempsey]

So hopefully the Eagle is to be warned of the dangers in eating the drone's battery after they have downed their "prey". But alas the battery is probably the only tasty bit.

[Colin McDonald]

Drone hits Flying Scotsman on North Yorkshire Moors (From York Press)

TRANSPORT police are investigating after part of drone collided with the Flying Scotsman on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway.

The device was flying next to the steam train as it passed between Grosmont and Pickering on Sunday when its camera became dislodged after the device struck a tree.

British Transport Police has warned people to keep drones at least 50 metres away from trains or they could face prosecution.

Inspector Bob Moody of British Transport Police said: "While no damage was caused to the train, we would like to point out that the use of drones, or any other small unmanned aircrafts, within 50 metres of a train is prohibited and is an offence due to the fact that they can cause an obstruction and endanger the safety of the train.

“We have identified the person responsible and officers will be speaking to them in due course."

A number of points to note there, relevant for the UK at least. Any doubt about what the attitude of the British Transport Police is to incidents on heritage lines now removed - CAA rules apply.

Wonder if it was the same person as in the video I linked.

[Bruce Dempsey]

reminds me of those roadrunner cartoons where the coyote is not looking where he's going because he's focused on the prey

[Brian Drysdale]

This "Click" (BBC tech programme) is all about drones, including the eagle.

BBC iPlayer - Click - 26/03/2016