SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A Canadian passenger plane landed safely after it was hit by a drone in the first case of its kind in the country, a cabinet minister said Sunday.
With increasing numbers of unmanned aerial devices in the skies, collisions are still rare, but authorities around the world are looking at ways to keep jetliners out of harm's way.
The Canadian incident happened last Thursday when a drone collided with a domestic Skyjet plane approaching Jean-Lesage International Airport in Quebec City, Transport Minister Marc Garneau said in a statement.
"This is the first time a drone has hit a commercial aircraft in Canada and I am extremely relieved that the aircraft only sustained minor damage and was able to land safely," said the minister, a former astronaut.
The aircraft, carrying six passengers and two crew, was struck on its right wing at an altitude of about 450 meters (about 500 yards) and roughly three kilometers (two miles) from the airport, according to Le Journal de Quebec newspaper.
Well, don't keep us in suspense! Who won, the locomotive or the bumblebee?
(Score: 4, Funny) by YeaWhatevs on Monday October 16 2017, @08:37PM (19 children)
It's funny how they like to blame the drone. I'm pretty sure the drone was hovering relatively peacefully, minding itself when this giant airliner came from nowhere and smashed it to pieces. In a panic, the airliner blamed the drone and tried to sue it for the little scratch it got. Poor drone though. Nobody cares about the drone.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday October 16 2017, @08:44PM (17 children)
Flight paths are dictated by airport approach control.
Apparently ATC couldn't see this drone, whether hovering or not. It was flying much higher than is legally allowed in that area.
Skyjet isn't even an airline listed on the Airport's site, and the passenger and crew count suggests a private/rental business jet rather than a scheduled airline.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @09:26PM (10 children)
Even without missiles onboard, I find it hard to believe that a circling drone would have been that difficult to see with the naked eye when flying so low.
If the story is being misreported and referring to a quadcopter as a drone, the owner of the quadcopter needs a good smack upside the head for flying it so high. I find it hard to believe a little plastic quadcopter would have been operationally visible to the operator if it was 450m up. FOD is a real danger if something like that were to be sucked into an engine.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday October 16 2017, @09:56PM (4 children)
It seems anything that isn't obviously a "traditional" remote controlled 'plane or helicopter is now called a drone by reporters.
Actual drones like the Reaper or Predator may not have civilian transponders, but should be large enough to show on radar, of they are flying in designated flight paths.
Quad/hexa/octocopters are usually pretty small, and probably won't show up on radar.
Flying even at approach speed, coming in to land, it is completely believable the pilots didn't see it until just before they hit it.
There are already pretty severe penalties for flying rc craft near airports - if they catch you.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Monday October 16 2017, @10:15PM
And anyone who can type is a "hacker." And anyone who's been spectacularly and consistently wrong on a subject for at least a decade is an "expert."
There are actually a handful of real reporters left in this world. Let's not insult them by using the same term to refer to the stenographers with which they've been mostly replaced.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday October 16 2017, @10:38PM (1 child)
People who fly RC craft near commercial airports are fucking douchebags who should be strung up in a noose with a quadcopter large enough to dangle their hanging body 10 or so feet off the ground and around the airport perimeter as a warning to others who are considering trying to get close to commercial aircraft with their own drones.
Don't get me wrong, I love flying drones and shooting the shit with the old-skool RC plane guys (we have a facility in Lakeside dedicated to RC, BMX-style dirt racetrack for cars and a proper runway and helipad for airplanes and helicopters/modern quadcopters) but as with a lot of cool hobbies you get those 1 or 2 dickheads that fuck things up for the rest of us.
We should be able to fly RC aircraft without having to pay out the ass for licensing and registration, but you bet your ass that's exactly what will happen if dickheads keep flying near commercial airports or higher than the legal ceiling (400 ft there, because a lot of smaller aircraft including stunt planes also fly in that airspace, albeit at a higher altitude).
Finally, I don't know shit about military drones but I am going to assume that the Predator and Reapers have civilian transponders(or a "civilian" subsystem in their military transponders) they can shut off in combat or other surveillance situations.
(Score: 2) by Weasley on Tuesday October 17 2017, @02:33PM
I wouldn't exactly say two miles is "near" to the airport. Sure, it's near for a jet, but it's not near in the sense you used it.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:08PM
Even if they did somehow spot it, chances are it would be too late to react in any way that would not bring about worse consequences.
(Score: 5, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 16 2017, @10:39PM (4 children)
Try a thought experiment: get in your car and drive as fast as you legally can in your area, then put a hovering target somewhere down the road - how small would it have to be for you to not see it in time for evasive action? Pretty easy? Now try having your vision blocked by a vehicle in front of you, how many seconds following distance do you need in order to avoid a pothole in the road? Remember: at highway speeds.
O.K. - now, push that speed up to ~200mph, and increase the area you're going to have to visually scan by a factor of 10 or more - remember: flying is a 3D exercise. How many seconds do you need to pick up a relatively small, nearly stationary target against the background? 5, maybe 10? 10 seconds at 200mph is about 3000 feet, over 1/2 mile. Tell me you can spot a hovering drone at 1/2 mile, especially if it happens to more or less blend into the background. Maybe you can spot it at 1/4 mile - do you think you can assess the decision of whether evasive action is beneficial or not, and effectively take that action, within 5 seconds?
Remember, you're on landing approach with a whole checklist of things to take care of like gear down, tower clearance, chatting with the passengers, etc.
To me, it's very surprising that the drone was hovering on the glide path to the runway, not surprising at all that it got hit while hovering there.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday October 16 2017, @11:15PM
Now consider a smaller airport with a heavy amount of flight-school (inexperienced) pilots and, otherwise, planes with only one propeller-driven engine. There comes a point in flight school where newbies have their first solo flights or would have to have their first landing in fog or other poor-visibility environments.
Economics is a huge factor with aviation and to a disturbing degree, in terms of fuel cost and packing as many landings at busy airports in as short a timespan as possible. I've seen ATC fuck up and bring in 2 back to back landings in such a short timespan that the second aircraft had to abort their landing and loop around until it was safe to land.
Though it is cool seeing the occasional pusher [imgur.com] at the smaller airports.
Not really an airport freak, but with the gazillion airports around here (I dunno, 7-ish civilian airports + Lindbergh International airport and that's not including all the military airports) it's impossible not to see planes in the sky at any given moment. Lindbergh is particularly dangerous, as airline pilots have to fly over a hill and then drop altitude like a motherfucker all the way down to sea-level. We had a controversy years ago in which some greedy land developers tried to squeeze and extra few stories into a condo complex sitting at the top of the hill (and potentially in the flight path of incoming airliners).
If you fly into San Diego a lot then you've had at least a few rough-landings as a result.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday October 17 2017, @01:33AM
In my experience many people are unable to see motorcycles or sometimes, even other cars. I predict a 100% drone smash-rate in your thought experiment.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 17 2017, @02:26PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 17 2017, @04:34PM
Yeah, what he said... a car has rubber on the road, airplanes are (typically) bigger, heavier, and pushing against air to change their direction.
I've been in a 2 seater private plane when the pilot took evasive action from another private plane that was coming at us with ~200mph relative speed, you're going to want more than 5 seconds for that kind of action to take effect - even with small and light aircraft. It's sort of like pushing asteroids away from impact with Earth - a little push a long time before collision is much preferable to a last minute dodge attempt.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @09:32PM (5 children)
ATC can't see the Canada geese, whether hovering or not. They fly much higher than is legally allowed in that area.
If we're going to restrict drones, we should also restrict geese: Any found outside of a zoo get shot. We leave poison bait. We hunt them with dogs. We spray viruses from properly-behaving drones.
While we're at it: vultures, eagles, pelicans, owls, storks, cranes...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @10:21PM
https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/trump-eagle-03a.gif?w=1260 [wordpress.com]
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday October 16 2017, @11:21PM (2 children)
The USAF handles the problem, among other means, by periodically firing gunshots (automated, using blank ammo) around the airport to scare the fuckers away.
Bird strikes at jet-flight speeds are no-joke, they'll crack your canopies and blow out your engines.
Fun-fact: the USAF uses a Chicken Gun [wikipedia.org] to simulate high-speed bird strikes during R&D.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @11:59PM
Wikipedia took all the fun out of it, specifically, the urban myth about the frozen chickens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCQ2oZtVNpg [youtube.com]
http://www.snopes.com/science/cannon.asp [snopes.com]
(Score: 2) by Post-Nihilist on Tuesday October 17 2017, @12:53AM
Sadly most corvid, get used to it.
Be like us, be different, be a nihilist!!!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 17 2017, @04:38PM
After Sully went down in the East River they did restrict the geese (and other birds), with shotguns - lots and lots of shotguns.
Bird culling on airport property has always been a thing, that particular event ramped it up by a significant factor (like 3x, I've heard).
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 16 2017, @10:29PM
Don't know about Canadian regulations, by US regulations that drone was at 3x it's legal altitude ceiling, and probably too close to the airport too.
Even in the US, I took some FPV of a crop duster flying UNDER our RC aircraft - private property, we had full permission, were flying at about 350' altitude, etc. etc., but between the time we heard the crop duster approaching and him flying under our plane there simply wasn't time for evasive. Pilot turned his head to look at the plane - it was a pretty big foamy.
🌻🌻 [google.com]