New Drones / Toy Helicopter law coming in 1st August

Forums › Gadgets, robotics, home automation, electronics (including wearables) › New Drones / Toy Helicopter law coming in 1st August

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1403091 9-Oct-2015 14:46

geocom: Its an explosion in the same way that lighting a match is.

Birds also cause there to be metal fragments in the engine as they break the compressor fans on there way in.

Aircraft today are designed to operate with one engine down. One of the better know bird strike incidents is the hudson landing. In this case he hit a flock of birds which went into both engines.

http://gizmodo.com/could-a-jet-engine-withstand-a-drone-1690833795

From your own article though "But even if drones are unlikely to take down an airplane engine, they can still cause expensive damage and delayed flights. And they pose a bigger hazard to smaller planes with smaller engines that may not be able to handle several pounds of plastic or metal".

As you know, most airports don't just have Boeing 777-300s and Airbus A380s, many of them are going to also have little Bombadier Q300 and the like, some of which may react ... a little worse than the jet airliner. Then there's the expensive damage. I'm pretty sure drone operators don't have the insurance to pay the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands to repair a jet turbine after their drone gets sucked up and tears up the inside.

And to top it all off, your own article has a few too many "probably"s for my liking. The battery will "probably" burn up before the volatile contents reach the compression chamber. Something that most airline passengers would rather not chance.

Safety isn't something that we should take chances on just because you want to fly RC planes or whatever. The plane may be designed to be fault tolerant enough that it shouldn't cause any major issues if a drone gets sucked into an engine, but that doesn't mean we should be exposing people's lives to the risk of being that one time out of 1000 that the plane doesn't survive it just because drone operators want to have fun. I don't think that it's too much to ask that drone operators just stay the hell away from airports and flight paths.

geocom

594 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

#1403131 9-Oct-2015 15:49

Kyanar:
geocom: Its an explosion in the same way that lighting a match is.

Birds also cause there to be metal fragments in the engine as they break the compressor fans on there way in.

Aircraft today are designed to operate with one engine down. One of the better know bird strike incidents is the hudson landing. In this case he hit a flock of birds which went into both engines.

http://gizmodo.com/could-a-jet-engine-withstand-a-drone-1690833795

From your own article though "But even if drones are unlikely to take down an airplane engine, they can still cause expensive damage and delayed flights. And they pose a bigger hazard to smaller planes with smaller engines that may not be able to handle several pounds of plastic or metal".

As you know, most airports don't just have Boeing 777-300s and Airbus A380s, many of them are going to also have little Bombadier Q300 and the like, some of which may react ... a little worse than the jet airliner. Then there's the expensive damage. I'm pretty sure drone operators don't have the insurance to pay the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands to repair a jet turbine after their drone gets sucked up and tears up the inside.

And to top it all off, your own article has a few too many "probably"s for my liking. The battery will "probably" burn up before the volatile contents reach the compression chamber. Something that most airline passengers would rather not chance.

Safety isn't something that we should take chances on just because you want to fly RC planes or whatever. The plane may be designed to be fault tolerant enough that it shouldn't cause any major issues if a drone gets sucked into an engine, but that doesn't mean we should be exposing people's lives to the risk of being that one time out of 1000 that the plane doesn't survive it just because drone operators want to have fun. I don't think that it's too much to ask that drone operators just stay the hell away from airports and flight paths.

Im not saying that drone operators should not stay away from airports unless they have approval to be there.
I think CAA could do a better job of allowing approved zones within the 4KM radius of airports for drone use that fall outside of the main corridors used by aircraft and drop the allowed height to lower than 400M(Its is along way up) say like 150M.

What I said was, you should not think that airline safety is any less than it was before drones if anything the computers in the ones today make it safer. I was replying to your comment that if you hit a drone it is game over. which it is not(Unless your in a Hollywood blockbuster).

Geoff E

geocom

594 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

#1403145 9-Oct-2015 16:46

Rappelle:
geocom:
Im not saying that drone operators should not stay away from airports unless they have approval to be there.
I think CAA could do a better job of allowing approved zones within the 4KM radius of airports for drone use that fall outside of the main corridors used by aircraft and drop the allowed height to lower than 400M(Its is along way up) say like 150M.

What I said was, you should not think that airline safety is any less than it was before drones if anything the computers in the ones today make it safer. I was replying to your comment that if you hit a drone it is game over. which it is not(Unless your in a Hollywood blockbuster).

The maximum height is 400 feet which is 121m.

Sorry yep your right.

Geoff E

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1403277 9-Oct-2015 22:39

geocom:
What I said was, you should not think that airline safety is any less than it was before drones if anything the computers in the ones today make it safer. I was replying to your comment that if you hit a drone it is game over. which it is not(Unless your in a Hollywood blockbuster).

No one said that hitting a drone is game over. What I actually said is that we shouldn't create any more risks than we have to.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1403476 10-Oct-2015 14:02

geocom:
Kyanar:
geocom: Its an explosion in the same way that lighting a match is.

Birds also cause there to be metal fragments in the engine as they break the compressor fans on there way in.

Aircraft today are designed to operate with one engine down. One of the better know bird strike incidents is the hudson landing. In this case he hit a flock of birds which went into both engines.

http://gizmodo.com/could-a-jet-engine-withstand-a-drone-1690833795

From your own article though "But even if drones are unlikely to take down an airplane engine, they can still cause expensive damage and delayed flights. And they pose a bigger hazard to smaller planes with smaller engines that may not be able to handle several pounds of plastic or metal".

As you know, most airports don't just have Boeing 777-300s and Airbus A380s, many of them are going to also have little Bombadier Q300 and the like, some of which may react ... a little worse than the jet airliner. Then there's the expensive damage. I'm pretty sure drone operators don't have the insurance to pay the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands to repair a jet turbine after their drone gets sucked up and tears up the inside.

And to top it all off, your own article has a few too many "probably"s for my liking. The battery will "probably" burn up before the volatile contents reach the compression chamber. Something that most airline passengers would rather not chance.

Safety isn't something that we should take chances on just because you want to fly RC planes or whatever. The plane may be designed to be fault tolerant enough that it shouldn't cause any major issues if a drone gets sucked into an engine, but that doesn't mean we should be exposing people's lives to the risk of being that one time out of 1000 that the plane doesn't survive it just because drone operators want to have fun. I don't think that it's too much to ask that drone operators just stay the hell away from airports and flight paths.

Im not saying that drone operators should not stay away from airports unless they have approval to be there.
I think CAA could do a better job of allowing approved zones within the 4KM radius of airports for drone use that fall outside of the main corridors used by aircraft and drop the allowed height to lower than 400M(Its is along way up) say like 150M.

What I said was, you should not think that airline safety is any less than it was before drones if anything the computers in the ones today make it safer. I was replying to your comment that if you hit a drone it is game over. which it is not(Unless your in a Hollywood blockbuster).

Little planes may be safer than big planes. Propellers make a fine spray of things going through them which is just blown backwards in a red haze (in the case of birds) or black haze (parts if it was a drone) and exits behind the plane. give me a bird hitting a propeller any day.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1403891 11-Oct-2015 15:07

Kyanar:
geocom:
What I said was, you should not think that airline safety is any less than it was before drones if anything the computers in the ones today make it safer. I was replying to your comment that if you hit a drone it is game over. which it is not(Unless your in a Hollywood blockbuster).

No one said that hitting a drone is game over. What I actually said is that we shouldn't create any more risks than we have to.

A way to deal to the things:

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1404203 12-Oct-2015 11:10

Fred99:
Kyanar:
geocom:
What I said was, you should not think that airline safety is any less than it was before drones if anything the computers in the ones today make it safer. I was replying to your comment that if you hit a drone it is game over. which it is not(Unless your in a Hollywood blockbuster).

No one said that hitting a drone is game over. What I actually said is that we shouldn't create any more risks than we have to.

A way to deal to the things:

My client has a noisy RF neighbour broadcasting on the 2.4 frequencies so loudly it disrupts his connections 400 metres away. They wont turn it down and it seems he is still within applicable law - regulations.

Now, a lot of drones run using a 2.4 GHz system so .... a disrupter gun could be a lot of fun.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1404990 13-Oct-2015 12:57

nunz:
My client has a noisy RF neighbour broadcasting on the 2.4 frequencies so loudly it disrupts his connections 400 metres away. They wont turn it down and it seems he is still within applicable law - regulations.

Now, a lot of drones run using a 2.4 GHz system so .... a disrupter gun could be a lot of fun.

From what I read of the device above, apart from the cost, it's probably not something you'd want to try at home nor get a license to operate it.
I'm no expert on drones, but from what I've read via google, it sounds like it might not be a trivial exercise to take them out using RF jamming etc. - at least not without getting yourself in to all kinds of legal problems - apart from whatever may ensue from damage to the drone.
A shotgun with bird pellets would be effective, you'd be able to enjoy peace and privacy for a short while, until the armed offenders squad arrived.

Meh. Some more creative solution is needed. Some kind of slingshot/launcher to fling a mass of fine lightweight but tough stringy stuff skywards (think of the reel of polyester tape in an audio cassette and go from there). For longer range, then your own chaser / killer drone - dropping wads of the stuff above the intruder.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1437403 29-Nov-2015 20:58

And the first casualties roll in ...

The small cousin of the quad bike?

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1437412 29-Nov-2015 21:10

Of course when bad things happen someone is bound to be found the scapegoat.

But a child has been needlessly blinded for no good reason.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1437508 30-Nov-2015 08:28

Mark: Yay got to love the Fun Police :-(

People have been mis-using the things: spying on others and crashing into the property of others and flying them too close to airports and flight paths. Similarly, helicopters tend to fly below 3000 feet in urban areas and they also risk colliding with a high-flying drone.

These rules come into place for the usual reason: some IDIOT thought he was being clever and did something REALLY stupid and / or disrepectful of the privacy / property of others.....and everyone else then suffers for it.

Plus now we have the documented example of a guy who attached a 3D-printed gun to a drone and shot stuff with it. So they can be a stealthy murder weapon. You know.....stuff IDIOTS do.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek

#1488017 9-Feb-2016 12:56

Just resurrecting this thread...

Someone in my Neighbourly neighbourhood is saying they have seen a drone cruising slowly over their property a few times recently. They believe it may be burglars casing the joint, trying to see if anyone is home, or if there are weak points where they may be able to break into the house. Police in the UK have warned people that this is definitely happening there, so I guess it's only a matter of time before it happens here too.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1488023 9-Feb-2016 13:07

nunz:
Fred99:
Kyanar:
geocom:
What I said was, you should not think that airline safety is any less than it was before drones if anything the computers in the ones today make it safer. I was replying to your comment that if you hit a drone it is game over. which it is not(Unless your in a Hollywood blockbuster).

No one said that hitting a drone is game over. What I actually said is that we shouldn't create any more risks than we have to.

A way to deal to the things:

My client has a noisy RF neighbour broadcasting on the 2.4 frequencies so loudly it disrupts his connections 400 metres away. They wont turn it down and it seems he is still within applicable law - regulations.

Now, a lot of drones run using a 2.4 GHz system so .... a disrupter gun could be a lot of fun.

If you are found to be using something like that, and for causes damage, the owner could be liable for costs. It is vigilante action that shouldn't be needed. The main people these days that are using drones are real estate agents

Jeeves

301 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1488034 9-Feb-2016 13:24

andrew027:

Just resurrecting this thread...

Someone in my Neighbourly neighbourhood is saying they have seen a drone cruising slowly over their property a few times recently. They believe it may be burglars casing the joint, trying to see if anyone is home, or if there are weak points where they may be able to break into the house. Police in the UK have warned people that this is definitely happening there, so I guess it's only a matter of time before it happens here too.

Paranoia much? Probably just some kid playing about or a neighbour taking photos of his own house.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1488103 9-Feb-2016 14:40

mattwnz:
If you are found to be using something like that, and for causes damage, the owner could be liable for costs. It is vigilante action that shouldn't be needed. The main people these days that are using drones are real estate agents

A parasite on a drone?

Sounds like the best reason yet to blast 'em out of the sky.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9