269 forum posts
Article Here from the forum's favourite news paper
|3164 forum posts|
With apologies to the site's Guardian readers........the Mail's article seems well researched and at least mentions in some detail the legal responsibilities attached to model flying.
Edited By Cuban8 on 12/12/2014 14:26:24
|Former Member||12/12/2014 14:54:08|
|756 forum posts|
[This posting has been removed]
|john stones 1 Moderator||12/12/2014 14:59:06|
11924 forum posts
Fed up with hearing some of the stuff myself Andrew
Do I want to distance myself from people who fly them perfectly legally and safely ? Absolutely not
Best edit that it do's not read how I meant it. The ones who don't fly legally and safely I can do little about.
Edited By john stones 1 on 12/12/2014 15:30:50
|6946 forum posts|
It rather suggests people should shoot them down with a shotgun!.......
|Dave Hopkin||12/12/2014 15:02:38|
|3672 forum posts|
Ye Gods! I must be getting old! I find myself in agreement with the Daily Wail............
Especially the last line "Now where did I put my shotgun"
269 forum posts
That will be the two of us...
|Dai Fledermaus||12/12/2014 15:45:10|
1077 forum posts
There was another near miss with a drone at Heathrow today, LINK
|Mark a||12/12/2014 16:12:20|
|321 forum posts|
These idiots flying drones near airports need their heads looking at, god forbid they damage an aircraft or bring one down it could well spell the end to model flying in this country.
|ken anderson.||12/12/2014 17:06:38|
8859 forum posts
the BBC have just reported the ins and outs of drone's again this afternoon....
ken Anderson...ne...1 drone dept.
|ken anderson.||12/12/2014 17:08:34|
8859 forum posts
|Martin Whybrow||12/12/2014 19:41:51|
884 forum posts
There is some idiotic behaviour mentioned in that article, particularly this:
"And sometimes they simply end up causing accidents. In New York this week, a TGI Friday’s restaurant used a hovering drone dangling a piece of mistletoe to encourage dining couples to kiss each other. Unfortunately, after colliding with one woman’s hand, it took a lump out of her nose."
There's also a mention of a restaurant / bar in Manchester doing much the same thing.
|John Tee||12/12/2014 20:45:29|
|951 forum posts|
With regards the near mises at Heathrow etc. My licence issued in the late 60's stated that I wasn't allowed to fly within 3 miles of an airfield (big or small) surely that still applies even though we don't have to have licences nowadays. Common sense should also make people think about flying near active airfields, But some think that they above being sensible these days.
|1220 forum posts|
As far as we, the aeromodelling community is concerned I don't think we have anything to worry about. The media have jumped on this latest band wagon, which will burn itself out within 12months.
Anyone with an ounce of thought or intelligence will see that a muli-rota couldn't be used for a 'terrorist attack' due to the amount of payload capacity.
Society and the media see 'drones' as exactly that. Should we keep it that like that?..Yes I think we should. If you're flying your multi-rota at your club field in accordance with club and CAA rules, then not a problem. But as far as society is concerned 'drones' should stay as 'drones' and leave the old fuddy duddy balsa wood bashers to their funny ways. The minute the two become blurred is the time to worry.
1753 forum posts
|Phillip Powell||13/12/2014 11:54:06|
|12 forum posts|
Hi I see from the posts about this subject that some wish to as usual bury their heads in the sand while others seem to patronise those who enjoy fuddy duddy aeromodelling whatever that is.
Insulting or what!!
The fact is there are those who will use any excuse to stop the enjoyment of those of us who engage in the activity of model flying.
To pursue the argument of drones staying drones is an interesting one as they are not models at all as a drone is of any size and shape a quick look at Youtube will confirm this, these are not models we are talking about but full size devices!
I have read with interest the report published by the BBC about a near miss and I have doubts about the facts in the case 700 feet yes possible of course in FPV or using computer control.
But this must have been a large drone to have the control authority to be able to stay stable in this most hostile airspace which is the landing approach to a busy airport like Heathrow.
I have lived under the approach to the north runway for some years and I can tell you the disturbance that the aircraft produce is damaging I have seen it snap the tops off large trees and pull the tiles off of houses a 2 foot hole in mine.
A Jumbo jet creates so much air disturbance the gap between it and the following plane is 3 miles
So this drone if it flew within 20 feet of the wing is toast the vortex would see to that.
That having been said to even contemplate the possible tragedy that would have ensued had a passenger plane been brought down is horrifying.
But on a lighter note we can be assured that the powers that be will come up with something that is unsuitable and unusable to control drones such is the intelligence of our elected leaders.
|Martin Harris - Moderator||13/12/2014 12:35:59|
9800 forum posts
I don't think the alleged SUA would have been affected as you describe, Phillip. The airflow over a wing is of necessity, very smooth - unless the wing is stalled. Wing vortices are extremely powerful - and have caused the loss of smaller aircraft flying into them - but are generated at the tips due to the mixing of the outward flows from top and bottom surfaces - the reason many airliners now have vertical tips to reduce this drag-producing effect.
Edited By Martin Harris on 13/12/2014 12:37:28
|Paul Jefferies||13/12/2014 13:33:47|
|254 forum posts|
Martin, as a former pilot I can assure you that the wake votex of even relatively small aircraft would be enough to send a drone out of control and the wake of a "heavy" is enough to flip a 737 on it's side if you are too close behind and in still air or light winds that vortex can hang around for several minutes. And Philip, I don't recall reading that the drone survived the incident!
As so often happens, I fear that the irresposible actions of a few will spoil it for the many. I am deeply opposed to regulation but I fear that if some idiots continue to do stupid things with these "drones", some form of regulation is going to become necessary...... and that will open a real can of worms.
1753 forum posts
Good point Paul
As you point out , the wake vortex isn't particularly relevant in terms of the reported incident, as there's no indication that the "drone" survived the encounter. It also wouldn't be relevant in presenting ingestion of a "drone" into an engine, or through the windscreen.
|Dave Hopkin||13/12/2014 14:12:54|
|3672 forum posts|
Whether the drone survived or not, was affected by votexes or not is utterly irrelevant, it was recorded by the CAA as a "Near Miss" - that is the key point,!
The CAA and BALPA will be concerned, we have heard calls from BALPA several times for tightened controls (though actually what is needed is enforcement of the existing rules) - every incident puts more fuel on the media fire I am afriad
I wonder if its possible to have a scanner on 2.4Ghz that can isolate a radio control protocol from the rest of the traffic on 2.4 and should it be detected within the a no fly zone shoot the beggar down?
Please login to post a reply.
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!