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

141–150 of 176 posts

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

#141

Post by jle17 »

cpncrunch wrote: post #24
Zigurd wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as drones are required to have geofencing, you will find they become useless for monitoring the police, factory farms, pollution, "black" sites, etc. Humans die because of those things, while no practical benefit to aviation safety has been proven. And yeah, controlled airspace has been used to prevent monitoring of police, in Ferguson, for example.

Another slippery slope argument. We're talking purely about controlled airspace here. Those things you mention have never been controlled airspace.

It's a common tactic used by governments to push a restriction under a (often emotional) motive that looks legitimate at first and then extend it further.

"We need to do this or that because terrorism and won't somebody please think of the children."

"Well, now that it's in place, it would be a shame not to use it against illegal ."

And usually they manage to design laws so that diverting their use doesn't require passing through parliament again.

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

#143

Post by takno »

ekianjo wrote: post #117
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.

He's interested in transport, so he's the kind of guy who is useful as a transport minister. Otherwise he mostly just votes with the whips and doesn't seem to have much focus on anything. I'm not sure that's really who you want for president

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

#144

Post by madaxe_again »

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.

Without any certification or registration, yes - if you're CAA registered then the limits are quite different.

Additionally, if you're flying FPV the ceiling is 1000ft, not 400ft, although you must have a spotter who can maintain unassisted line of sight. Get friends with good eyes, fly further!

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

#145

Post by lawlessone »

madaxe_again wrote: post #134
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…

Yeah, the hysterical response has come from the public this time. I fly drones, perfectly legally, and this week have had people variously tell me that I'm either a terrorist or I'm "helping the terrorists" or I'm am idiot or "Isn't that dangerous for my children" - even stood in a field, people wander >100m over from the canal towpath to complain at me. Popular opinion in the pub is that they're dangerous and should…

are they even drones? RC quadcopters. Thats what people are afraid of RC copters.

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

#146

Post by enzanki_ars »

madaxe_again wrote: post #135
adrusi wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, as opposed to also worrying about a careless teenager flying their drone too close to an airport to get a sick camera angle of a landing plane.

Why worry about something that hasn't happened? Why not worry about a careless teenager wanting to get a sick Camera angle of the inside of your fridge? It's as valid a concern.

But people flying drones over airports has happened: https://youtu.be/QGMDQ-vaV9Y

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

#147

Post by enzanki_ars »

emodendroket wrote: post #94
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)

> unless you really want to poke the thumbs up "yes, this alert is still valid" button. Which is precisely what the app encourages people to do.

You are encuraged to use the "hands free" option of reporting in the app by waving your hand over your phone.

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

#148

Post by enzanki_ars »

emodendroket wrote: post #94
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)

> unless you really want to poke the thumbs up "yes, this alert is still valid" button. Which is precisely what the app encourages people to do.

You are encouraged to use the "hands free" option of reporting in the app by waving your hand over your phone.

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

#150

Post by emodendroket »

enzanki_ars wrote: post #148
emodendroket wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unless you really want to poke the thumbs up "yes, this alert is still valid" button. Which is precisely what the app encourages people to do.

You are encouraged to use the "hands free" option of reporting in the app by waving your hand over your phone.

"Hands free" technology is intuitively appealing but in reality it's about as distracting as regular operation.
Post reply on HN