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

111–120 of 176 posts

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

#111

Post by jsmthrowaway »

SixSigma wrote: post #60
deckar01 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DJI products quite effectively indicate and restrict access to no fly zones. My controller starts to beep if I get within a few hundred feet of a border to a no fly zone. I haven't tested it, but I think it is supposed to come home and land if you somehow get into a no fly zone. That said, 1,700ft is so high, no fly zones don't really mean much anymore.

Drones are already forbidden by law from flying higher than 400ft.

They aren't, actually, and people parrot this falsehood all the time.

If we assume you're referring to the United States, don't conflate proposed rules, rules, guidelines, and law, nor circumstances that require you to seek FAA authorization for the flight (which is different than "forbidden by law," itself inaccurate).

You are talking about Advisory Circular 91-57 (Model Aircraft Operating Standards) from June 1981. Not law, just standards for their airspace. Certainly not forbiddance by law.

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

#112

Post by dredmorbius »

pj_mukh wrote: post #76

If airports/pilots are really that paranoid perhaps they should install sensor system (low range radar?) to capture particular drones (and birds). For drones, they have systems now that they can deploy to take them down immediately. http://www.skysafe.io/ And please, leave the rest of us who live/visit nowhere near airports alone.

To what end?

It's all but impossible to take evasive action, you'd have a second or two warning, and quite likely many false alarms.

Rain, bags, random ground echos. Too many targets.

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

#113

Post by dmix »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #83
d33 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonetheless, the amount of hype in the original news clearly show the state of paranoia the contemporary society is in.

No, that shows the state of paranoia that the original news wants to convey to sell more media.

The media is part of contemporary society. As are the police who originally tweeted the drone hitting plane angle, the media for reporting on it, and the consumers who love a good fear-ridden headline.

The culture of fear is a widespread human fallibility, not an evil corporate invention.

The fact rationality, and how to perceive the world without tripping over our human biases/fallacies, is not taught with any priority in society is the real issue. That is the root cause of the anti-intellectualism that's so widespread IMO. No-one in the chain approached the topic with any level of skepticism. Just retweeting and reblogging a story without any solid evidence, giving it more and more credibility.

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

#114

Post by holyoly »

astrange wrote: post #110
Karunamon wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

You can turn on and off each individual notification. And it also has voice commands built in to control the app. You don't even need the phone's screen on. It can be in your pocket while driving.

And it is relevant to you no matter what lane you are in. If there is a car on the shoulder, someone in the right lane could be not paying attention, and swerve into you to avoid that car. Though you should be always on high alert while driving, having a little extra notification and awareness could save your life.

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

#115

Post by petra »

philovivero wrote: post #104

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 close…

There's a way to spin each propeller at 180 degree phase so they would cancel/reduce each others noise.

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

#116

Post by bbcbasic »

nathancahill wrote: post #68
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

X and Y are dominating the space? Good, there's a proven market.

Oh dear, it's worse than I thought.

Nothing can go wrong. And if it does: Pivot.

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

#117

Post by ekianjo »

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…

This is the kind of guy you need for president.

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

#119

Post by Caprinicus »

fabulist wrote: post #101
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…

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

So we'll only really have to worry about dishonest terrorists and or plastic bags

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

#120

Post by maxcan »

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…

Propaganda aside, geofencing isn't about stopping a sophisticated group from launching an attack. Its about making sure all my friends around here keep their DJI Phantoms away from SFO arrivals and departures..
Post reply on HN