Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 176 posts

Re: Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

#101

Post by fabulist »

ultramancool wrote: post #84
gregmac wrote: post #39

Wow, this is an elected official? > Transport minister Robert Goodwill admitted authorities had not yet confirmed whether what struck the Airbus A320 > Mr Goodwill also dismissed calls for tighter rules on drone use to protect against terror threats insisting current rules governing drone use were strong enough. He said it would be much easier for terrorists to attack airports on the ground with rucksacks or car bomb…

> He warned that any moves to enforce geo-fencing rules would be vulnerable to being hacked by "somebody who could get round that software". Indeed very impressive that an elected official understands this. Someone with a little reverse engineering talent can patch something like that without much work for near-free (think bypassing those FCC regulations turning up TX power in your router firmware). Someone with a li…

I think the geofencing has the same value as a door lock; it keeps the honest people honest.

Re: Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

#103

Post by fabulist »

dingaling wrote: post #55
TillE wrote: post #25

"there was no actual damage to the plane and there's indeed some speculation that it may have even been a plastic bag or something." This is an amazingly flimsy basis for a headline.

No flimsier than the original drone-claim headline. Contrary to popular conception, most airline pilots are very poor at recognising anything that isn't in their company fleet. A few are aircraft enthusiasts, a few are bird spotters. The remainder have knowledge of unexpected flying objects no better than most laymen and a lot worse than a school-age plane spotter. I used to run aircraft recognition training for a lo…

Aren't they trained to judge size and distance by eye, though?

Re: Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

#104

Post by philovivero »

Ah. It's a drone discussion.

Is there any advance in drone tech to make it quieter? Any time I've been near a drone in operation, the loud buzzing hits a particular psychological frequency (probably the "it's a large flying insect!") that stresses me out.

I don't think I'm alone in this. Other animals seem to dislike drones.

I think most of us animals would mind them less if they were more pleasant-sounding, or closer to silent.

Re: Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

#105

Post by DonaldFisk »

cpncrunch wrote: post #7
HorizonXP wrote: post #2

What a level headed response by the transport minister. I love that he acknowledges that geofencing rules will easily be circumvented. That said, I still think it's a good idea to implement. It will make it easier for casuals like me to quickly be warned when I'm venturing into forbidden areas. Sure, I could ignore it or hack around it, but at least it's an easy to implement safeguard that will keep most people away.

>That said, I still think it's a good idea to implement. It will make it easier for casuals like me to quickly be warned when I'm venturing into forbidden areas. Sure, I could ignore it or hack around it, but at least it's an easy to implement safeguard that will keep most people away. Yes, it's definitely a good idea that will stop casual drone users from being somewhere they shouldn't be flying. Here is a good exam…

They should still know the relevant law instead of relying on technology. There isn't that much you need to know.

In the UK, article 166 and potentially article 167 of the Air Navigation Order (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&m...) are relevant. In any case, the drone should be within line of sight, lower than 400 feet above ground level, and not be in controlled airspace or near an airport (which should be checked on an aeronautical chart - they're only about £25 and look good on your wall).

This gives a quick summary of both articles: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/drone-rules-everything-...

And bear in mind that there are cases where pilots might be flying light aircraft well below 400 feet AGL away from an aerodrome: during ag operations (crop dusting), during a forced landing, or during a practice forced landing under instruction, so even with the ANO rules there's still potential (albeit unlikely) conflict.

Re: Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

#106

Post by ceejayoz »

chipperyman573 wrote: post #66
ceejayoz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First you must put a GPS in each device, I think the cheaper drones don't have one. The cheaper ones are frequently controlled by a smartphone app, which can do the geofencing for it.

That would return the GPS coordinates of your phone, not the drone. It would not help unless you started in an airport.

They can't go more than a couple hundred feet from the phone before the wifi connection craps out.

Re: Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

#107

Post by DonaldFisk »

kawsper wrote: post #12
cpncrunch wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That said, I still think it's a good idea to implement. It will make it easier for casuals like me to quickly be warned when I'm venturing into forbidden areas. Sure, I could ignore it or hack around it, but at least it's an easy to implement safeguard that will keep most people away. Yes, it's definitely a good idea that will stop casual drone users from being somewhere they shouldn't be flying. Here is a good exam…

I fly my quadcopter in the UK. It would be nice to have an app that told me about the airspace I was in based on my current position. However, right now I am not flying higher than 10 meters from the ground.

You mean 33 feet. Height and altitudes below the transition level are in feet, not metres.

Re: Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

#108

Post by gruturo »

SixSigma wrote: post #59
HorizonXP wrote: post #2

What a level headed response by the transport minister. I love that he acknowledges that geofencing rules will easily be circumvented. That said, I still think it's a good idea to implement. It will make it easier for casuals like me to quickly be warned when I'm venturing into forbidden areas. Sure, I could ignore it or hack around it, but at least it's an easy to implement safeguard that will keep most people away.

It is illegal for your drone to be more than 500m away from you laterally and 122m vertically. How would you expect to hit a plane ?

Illegally?

Re: Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

#109

Post by eru »

johansch wrote: post #98
ultramancool wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He warned that any moves to enforce geo-fencing rules would be vulnerable to being hacked by "somebody who could get round that software". Indeed very impressive that an elected official understands this. Someone with a little reverse engineering talent can patch something like that without much work for near-free (think bypassing those FCC regulations turning up TX power in your router firmware). Someone with a li…

Realistically speaking, what it means is that this particular minister somehow managed to employ a "technical expert" who actually is just that. Oh, and that this technical expert is both a) competent, and b) has managed to gain the trust of the minister. The combination is probably easier said than done, so props to whoever that person is :).

I don't really care whether my `competent politician' is actually a single human, or a bunch of people working together.

(Just like people usually attribute speeches to a mythical, composite `Obama' person, even though the roles of performer and speechwriter are done by different people.)

Re: Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

#110

Post by astrange »

Karunamon wrote: post #78
emodendroket wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waze seems like insanely dangerous software in the first place. The whole idea of a "social" driving application that constantly pops up little alerts that the driver is supposed to respond to seems to be inviting distracted, dangerous driving.

"Supposed to respond to?" Yes, by driving. The alerts take the form of "Traffic ahead". "Police ahead", etc. There is no interaction required, or even expected unless you really want to poke the thumbs up "yes, this alert is still valid" button. (And if you can't do that safely, given the size and consistent location of the button, you probably shouldn't have a license anyways)

The alert I see the most with Waze is "Vehicle stopped on shoulder", which is not only distracting when the yellow sign pops down and animates out, but can't possibly be relevant to my life when I'm driving in the left lane.

Most of the rest are fine.

Post reply on HN