Drone smacks commercial passenger plane in Canada

Re: How is it different

That's the common misunderstanding of how 'darwinism', or rather natural selection, works. For what you said to be true there would need to be something which is compelling the geese to fly in front of aircraft. Instead, it's unfortunate timing, which natural selection does not 'solve'.

Re: How is it different

That's whataboutism and you know it.

If you don't know it, then you're even worse.

Re: How is it different

All I'm telling you is that no matter how much you're going to twist your panties something that we have absolutely no control over - birds - present significantly higher risks and eliminating smaller risk while doing absolutely nothing about higher makes absolutely no difference to safety.

Ah, so because there is already a risk that we can't do anything about, it is perfectly OK to add more risks? Do you really, really don't see the problem here? In that case, I hope you never get a driving license.

Re: How is it different

eliminating smaller risk while doing absolutely nothing about higher makes absolutely no difference to safety.

"Daddy, should you be driving? You've had a lot to drink."

"Do...donworry, cardiovascular disease kills mahr peopl then car accada..accadents."

THUNK-THUNK

"Hab a goo day a school hu...hungey."

Re: How is it different

Surely the highest risk is still the human factor. Be that human error from flight crew, ATC, maintenance crews etc. Probably just safer all round if we stop putting people inside tin cans and propelling them through the air.

On a more serious note, clearly the 'drone' operator in this case was being stupid flying too high and too close to an airport. The positive side is that it's proven a quadcopter/drone strike on an aircraft won't automatically result in the plane coming down in flames with mass causalities as the media would have you believe. This was a small aircraft too so probably more vulnerable than a large airliner.

I do think everyone flying a model aircraft should have 3rd party insurance (it's cheap, why wouldn't you) and fly safely within the existing regulations. That said the authorities should work on enforcing existing regulations, particularity around airports, and catching idiots like this rather than introducing additional regulation which they still won't be able to enforce.

Re: How is it different

I guess we need hawks trained to attack drone operators, just like they are used to keep other birds away.

Now THAT would be a solution. Hawks trained to work out who operates a drone and taking them out instead of the drone itself. I like your thinking.

I'm not quite sure how they'd take them out (hawk mounted laser, maybe, on account of sharks having some trouble with the whole flying concept, or just carry a suitably large brick, or maybe use swallows and coconuts), but the concept itself is excellent.

:)

_{(sorry, but that was just too tempting :p )}

Re: How is it different

the same applies to drones. They're small, slow and bloody hard to see - which is why I take all reported sightings with a large dose of cynicism

So the question is if those sightings were collaborated by sightings from people on the ground who are both stationary and less occupied with other rather vital operations. Good question to ask IMHO.

That said, it is in my opinion brutally academic if these are drones or not - it still holds that (a) we still see idiots fly drones near airports and (b) flying drones near where planes land and take off is quite simply a stupid, risky idea for which the drone owner should be fined into oblivion or locked up for wilful endangerment. If you're a pilot you know the enormous efforts put into risk avoidance and reduction, so idiots adding a risk factor just for giggles is not acceptable. There is no excuse for it.