Federal Aviation Authority?
Federal Aviation ADMINISTRATION (Obviously this article was not peer-reviewed!)
It sounds like the British Government is trying to present a fait accompli on drone usage, while not letting pesky facts get in the way.
The Department for Transport has rejected calls from drone makers DJI, Parrot and GoPro to release details of its drone testing methodology on the grounds of "security". The drone builders had challenged the government to show its working for a test it commissioned and cited as evidence for the mandatory drone registration …
So the foxes were goading the badgers into volunteering to get two car batteries strapped to them and then fired at an airliner?
Yeah - they told them that the airliner contained squirrels. And, as everyone knows, badgers *hate* squirrels[2]. Damn small grey furry things, coming over here, scampering up our trees and eating our nuts[1]. Shoulda be law against it!
[1] Ooh-er missus!
[2] Except the ginger ones. They are OK. As are out-of-order subnotes.
"Some of the most alarming findings in DfT's summary are based on an object that resembles a javelin more than a drone,"
So ... it does not resemble a stick, a pole, or a spear - but a javelin, eh?
Could this finally be the long awaited the London 2012 Olympics Legacy we were promised?
I hear they shoot whole chickens (after being plucked and butchered, no live chickens were harmed in this kind of testing, dammit, because I wanted to watch the fun) at airplane windshields in order to test them. And of course, an urban legend says someone tried this with FROZEN chickens and blew a hole through an aircraft doing it. (and maybe the mythbusters tested it, because they did have a chicken gun handy for some reason...)
Anyway, keep the drones below 1000 feet, and the planes above that, and we'll be fine. That's what the fAA regs already say. And keep drones out of the controlled airspace around airports. Then we'll all "get along".
Anyway, keep the drones below 1000 feet, and the planes above that, and we'll be fine
Might make it hard to land the planes though. And I suspect the passengers would object to being pushed out the door, with or without a parachute[1].
I used to live in Wootten Bassett during the time that the Hercs were flying out of Lyneham. I had a go in a microlight aircraft and the pilot was most insistent that we observed the rules on flight heights in the area. Small 100kg aircraft vs 34 tonne Herc isn't really a fair contest..
[1] Parachute status depends on profession.. Just don't say that you are a lawyer or politician.
It's true that safely simulating the impact is a problem. This is why the test requires a chicken gun, which I expect was why they had to remove some of the rotors.
"It's true that safely simulating the impact is a problem. "
Don't we any of those rocket sled on rails things any more? ISTR that sort of contraption being used to test ejector seats in the past. That would give a more realistic result including the correct airflow patterns. Not cheap, of course, but a lot cheaper than having aircraft dropping out of the sky like what is not happening anywhere in the world right now.
'..You know, drop the small object onto the big object from a great height.'
Ah, don't forget, the rules of Government sponsored research.
First you waste 60% of the allocated budget on a pointless feasibility study, oh, like dropping the big object from a great height...
Then, of course, you need to waste a further 25% of the budget visiting foreign climes to see at first hand why they don't do it the way you're investigating in your feasibility study (Of course, the added justification here would be that there's the off chance that the UK could become the pioneering world leader in the exciting field of doing things arse about face..and who knows where this could lead?, one day we could be building aircraft carriers designed for jets we don't actually have yet...oh, wait )
That leaves you with 15% of your budget to play with, oh, silly me, almost forgot, 10% for admin costs sounds just about right....
Ah, don't forget, the rules of Government sponsored research
<SNIP>
That leaves you with 15% of your budget to play with, oh, silly me, almost forgot, 10% for admin costs sounds just about right....
Sounds like you work for the Research Councils. Except there's no mention of pointless reorganisation anywhere in your mission statement.
Except there's no mention of pointless reorganisation anywhere in your mission statement.
Eh?, sorry, must have been distracted there for a moment...let's see, what have we got left?, ah yes, I think we can safely allocate 4% of the budget for the dance of the eternally pointless reorganisation..
'Sounds like you work for the Research Councils.'
FSM no! (I like to think that I've some standards left),
I have, however, had dealings with the buggers over the years...
it is not based on the level of threat as determined by an expert group, it is about control.
Expert groups are commissioned to produce a report that the government will ignore if it is detrimental to what they want. Yet still lends credence to a decision because an expert group was commissioned to advise government.
There is only cake when we get rid of the last bad guy/gal... Unfortunately that would leave us without enough MP's to form a government.
Regardless of the Party that may be allegedly running the country, ministries have a time honoured method for picking experts in a particular field.
Whether it's ag, aviation or the ministry of silly walks they find a siily old sod who may have been quite bright in his day but now has a knighthood and a nurse to remind him to unzip before peeing.
The ministry tell him the results they require and he tells the people who compile the report, accurate research or testing is not required because the attitude is " But we're the bloody government, they can't question us."
So, the drone report is a resounding success because it says the things they wanted it to.
... I fully expect there to be a gantt chart provided, which provides nothing useful bar a crowbar to get some metrics later for massive dollars.
QQ are shit at this - their Malvern place is full of Cyber words on the wall, but they wouldn't know a pentest if it shat on their hat.
Posted anonymously - not that it matters, as they're basically the dim brother of the doughnut-shaped place down the road in Cheltenham.
So I have this idea for a great drone. Let's take several dozen long metal rods arranged in a tube, and alternatively weld the ends together like any consumer hobbyist would. Then let's fill it with an explosive charge that fires the rods outward in a circular pattern, because that's what social media is into, annular blast patterns. Obviously this would be highly hazardous to nearby airframes so lets put a rocket motor on it so it can go very fast somewhere else (NIMBY!) and some guidance systems so that it's a drone and not just a, projectile or something.
Holy hell this thing is a menace to aircraft! Time for regulation!
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/jul/24/flying-drones-in-the-uk-wild-places
Andrew Gilchrist drives all the way up to Skye (likely from London) or flew to Edinburgh, then drove 250 miles up the A9 to Skye, (the A9 has 100 miles of continuous ANPR Average Speed/Surveillance Cameras on route). Not an Error for American readers, this is modern Surveillance Britain - 100 miles continuous Automatic Number Plate Recognition Surveillance Cameras (We're just waiting to erect the sign at Heathrow that says "Welcome to Britains' Open Prison, have a nice stay")
He then goes to the far end of Skye (it's not a tourist location on Skye by any means), to climb a munro (a munro is a mountain - 1000m/3000ft) called Sgurr Alasdair.
This munro to anyone that has done it, is often shrouded in mist, is a narrow steep scree gully up. It can also be howling a gale, so you can hardly hear yourself think, let alone hear the noise of a drone. Which from my own experience is closer to the sound of Hummingbird near your head, than anything close to a dentist's drill (as he described it), FFS.
The London Centric Guardian Journo then moans that a high-pitched whine drone is on "his" route/path, hovering above him, to scream "I was effectively on CCTV." (shock/horror in Britains' Open Prison).
What it shows is how accepted the modern car is in society. How many people did he disturb on his 250 mile trip on his way up to Skye by car? How many people did he film with his Dashcam? Speeding past cyclists/walkers - those people having to take to verges, as he past. Maybe none, maybe 50.
It's the sheer lack of tolerance here, with complete ignorance to how his own actions affect others which is so fcuking annoying. The guy can't see his own actions have consequence too.
Also, its the acceptance that State Surveillance is somehow fine "justifiable in all instances", that we shouldn't worry our little head regarding how this data is being used to track indivduals, yet immediately a drone is seen nearby, it must be seen in a negative light as having a non-legitimate nature/purpose. So much stereotyping, so much unjustified pre-judgment.
Yes, a drone can be a bit irritating, but no worse than someone using a mobile (shouting I'm at the top of X) at the top of Munro, while you're trying to quietly eat your lunch. It's called tolerance, other people have every right to be there too, you're in a public place. Yes, its Isolated, remote, you feel almost yourself alone there, but its still public space.
The problem I have is there is a real sub-text at work here in this Guardian Article and it's total utter nymbyish shite.
It's the pitchfork approach that says, wherever you are in the UK (you can be as far off the beaten track such as climbing Sgurr Alasdair - so remote, it's pretty much the last place legally (pubicly) you still can fly a drone) the subtext that drones are unwelcome and need to be banned. Even though 364/365 days a year, this guy would be lucky to see another person climbing that route, let alone a drone, or even a view from the top.
The Anti-Drone agenda by mainstream media is palpable and when you have Governments refusing to release drone test data on the grounds of "security", it's when you realise, that is an full blown anti-drone agenda at work by the Powers that be, here in the UK.
It might be drones today, but one day we're going to wake up and realise we're all in virtual digital shackles, controlling everything we do, as said I'm waiting for the sign "Welcome to Britains' Open Prison".
Conclusion - if a test cannot mange to launch an actual drone at the windscreen of a non-flying aircraft, the chances are that real drones messing with real aircraft are pretty slim (speed, size, air turbulence...).
Instead, we must surely outlaw hastily cobbled together fake "drones".
The problem is in getting a drone up to the speeds which it is expected to impact an aircraft screen at. Don't forget that, in real life, the aircraft is travelling at 200+mph, to which you have to add the airspeed of the drone (somewhere around 50-60mph), so the combined impact velocity is going to be somewhere north of 250mph.
4 kilo multi rotor doing 60 mph with a gimbal capable of swinging a DSLR hanging off it. pull the other one its got bells on. any thing that size is not built for speed, totally the opposite its a camera platform, slow , steady and stable. Any thing capable of pulling that sort of speed is going to be a small racing "drone" probably in the sub 500 gram territory with around 4 minutes of run time per charge. Gonna be tricky to get one those from the ground into the line of flight of an airliner traveling at 200+mph.
....and what is the official definition of a drone anyway? Best official description seems to cover any remotely operated vehicle. so why are they only firing mashed up multi rotors. Where are all the planes, heli's, balloons etc?