41–50 of 79 posts
You changed the title to something that is simply not true. Please don't do that. "Air accident investigators said they had not ruled out a drone but had no evidence to support the suggestion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
(From the submission guidelines.)
Planes are hit by drones all the time especially while landing and taking off. Of course they are called birds. Suck a few geese into your engines and you have to land in a river. I doubt a drone is as dangerous as a goose at 200 knots.
Yes, and the damage from birds is large: "Experts say bird strikes...cause an estimated $600 million a year in damage to planes." http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/birds-plane-crashes-arti... The cost of a single downed passenger plane is ~$1B, while the entire yearly value of the drone market is $50M. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11425782 Even their usage/value of drones were kept fixed, then it could make…
That's purely a total-airframe valuation estimate, excluding revenue being generated by commercial use of drones.
If you want to use that type of valuation then the loss of an A320 ( as reported in the original story ) would be around $98 million.
http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pressreleases/press-releas...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
"Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." (From the submission guidelines.)
Customized titles should be the exception and not the rule. In truth, HN should really hit the page and grab the and, if it's changed, flag it so that a moderator can vet it.
I really dislike the use of the word "drone" here. It really implies something that it's not - in that case it was a helicopter, in most other cases they use that term it's an RC quadcopter.
Unless we're going to start calling everything that's RC a drone.
"A small drone helicopter passed within 30ft of the cockpit of an A319 plane while on the approach to Heathrow" I really dislike the use of the word "drone" here. It really implies something that it's not - in that case it was a helicopter, in most other cases they use that term it's an RC quadcopter. Unless we're going to start calling everything that's RC a drone.
You changed the title to something that is simply not true. Please don't do that. "Air accident investigators said they had not ruled out a drone but had no evidence to support the suggestion."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a problem with people and their memory, not the news outlet. The headline at the moment literally says it was unlikely to be a drone, but that still doesn't rule it out completely. Following your rules, that wouldn't make it as a story because it isn't factually proven.
News should not report stuff they don't know is true. Otherwise it's just reddit on TV and we wouldn't need the profession called journalism.
Unless you're going to pass a law requiring all news organizations to behave this way (and when did government control of news ever go bad?) it's never going to happen.
"A small drone helicopter passed within 30ft of the cockpit of an A319 plane while on the approach to Heathrow" I really dislike the use of the word "drone" here. It really implies something that it's not - in that case it was a helicopter, in most other cases they use that term it's an RC quadcopter. Unless we're going to start calling everything that's RC a drone.
Agreed however that not all quadcopters are drones, just as not all drones are quadcopters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1: "Thing" is developed which enjoys benign use amongst small subset of geeks 2: Military discover "Thing" and develop a way to use it for evil and/or killing That ordering is not correct.
In the case of multicopters, it is.
"A small drone helicopter passed within 30ft of the cockpit of an A319 plane while on the approach to Heathrow" I really dislike the use of the word "drone" here. It really implies something that it's not - in that case it was a helicopter, in most other cases they use that term it's an RC quadcopter. Unless we're going to start calling everything that's RC a drone.
They always feature DJI phantoms as the "example drone" on the beeb - and given that they can fly autonomously, follow waypoints, etc. "drone" is a fair moniker. Agreed however that not all quadcopters are drones, just as not all drones are quadcopters.
It just seems to be being used as a catch all scare mongering term for all RC aircraft though - and given how long they've been around with a perfectly fine track record, it's becoming a bugbear.