
Lufthansa jet and drone nearly collide near LAX - prostoalex
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-drone-near-miss-lax-20160318-story.html
======
Animats
Yesterday, we had this article on YC [1], from some economist at the anti-
regulation Mercatus Institute, claiming that a drone strike was very, very
unlikely. That guy assumed that drones are distributed randomly across
airspace. In practice, they tend to be near where people live, which means
cities and airports. I posted the FAA's list of drone sightings near LAX
yesterday. Today, this.

The pilot of the aircraft, a Lufthansa A380-800, reported seeing the drone
_above_ him. The reported near miss distance of 200 feet is very close for an
aircraft with a 260 foot wingspan and a tail tip 60 feet above the pilot.

WTF is someone doing flying a drone at 5000 feet over downtown LA in the LAX
approach path? That drone operator needs to be found and arrested.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11290674](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11290674)

~~~
iofj
Keep in mind that there are definitions for these terms.

"near miss" means coming up on 200 meters distance between two objects if >
400 meters up, otherwise it means whatever the tower decides it means (and
presumably for them it means being in controlled airspace at all, e.g. having
a drone above the airport building itself)

~~~
funkyy
No. Any distance of up to 1,000 meters is "near miss" for uncontrolled (by
tower) object around the passenger plane. There is no "but I was far enough"
bs. Person than do not flight A LOT or do not pilot PASSENGER planes will
never understand of the risks, stress and increasing field for error. Pilot,
when preparing for landing is suppose to be 99% concentrated on whats below
him.

------
beachstartup
for those of you who don't know the geography of los angeles, LAX is basically
surrounded on 3 sides by dense urban buildup, and then the ocean. the flight
path for landing goes over the entire city including downtown, and the runways
are sandwiched by freeways and major boulevards on all sides. the approach at
night is quite dramatic visually, if you're lucky enough to snag a window
seat. i very much enjoy trying to identify everything as i fly over.

it truly is "the motherboard". people who have never flown in before are
shocked to see it. it's something else. the only thing that compares in the US
is probably chicago, but it's not the same scale, and LA also has geography
which adds to the visual drama. tokyo is similar but not quite the same kind
of approach. i don't recall any airport in europe even approaching the visual
appeal of the LAX approach. i've never flown into mexico city, from looking at
maps it's probably close, but physically it's nowhere near as large as the LA
metro (including IE, OC, etc.). LA is huge. yuuuuuge.

it is bounded by office highrises, datacenters, hotels, and housing. in my
opinion it's likely the most dangerous airport in the US in terms of potential
damage from a non-terrorist crash. i can't think of any airports in the US
that are quite the same. it's currently the global #5 volume airport but the
insane amount of traffic from asia will probably make it #1 within a few
years. there is a major expansion and renovation project happening right now.

------
chx
A few more of this and realistic or not and the FAA will ban any drones in a
significant radius of any aerodome effectively ending most drone activity.

The Canadians already did.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/3h2e8t/for_all_o...](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/3h2e8t/for_all_of_the_responsible_droneuav_pilots_out/)
you want to fly a drone here in Vancouver, you better get a permit. The fines
start at $1000 and they are finding people.

------
szx
This might be a naive question, but what _would_ happen if a hobby drone
collided with a jet? As long as it doesn't hit the engines, wouldn't the
damage be negligible?

~~~
cptskippy
I would imagine hitting the engine is probably the safest thing that could
happen. The engines are made of titanium alloys and designed to not fail
catastrophically. The rest of the aircraft is made of soft materials by
comparison.

~~~
tanishq1
And even in the event of an engine failure, they could still probably land
safely.

~~~
vectorjohn
"probably" sounds _really_ good for a commercial airliner. For some idiot to
fly a drone around an airport.

------
mchahn
> at an elevation of 5,000 feet

That is not a hobby drone. I could never get mine to that height.

~~~
Animats
There are videos of a Phantom 2 drone, which is under $500 used ($1300 new)
reaching almost 11,000 feet.[1]

[1] [http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/11000ft-dji-drone-flight-record-
att...](http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/11000ft-dji-drone-flight-record-attempt-
slammed-idiotic-dangerous-by-uav-hobbyists-1548057)

------
newman314
I think drones are cool and would love to get one.

However, I think there are too many entitled asses that pretty much think they
can do whatever they want. You wouldn't believe th number of drones they now
have flying at cars and coffee events. I'm also fairly certain that none of
these drone operators have insurance so imagine the scenario of drone operator
(likely without a whole lot of experience) + many expensive cars (but that's
not the point). Not gonna end well.

Sooner or later, a drone strike will happen if left unchecked.

------
joelrunyon
Is there anything preventing manufacturers from limiting the height drones can
fly?

I'm not particularly pro-regulation, but this seems like a scenario where it
seems quite necessary.

~~~
cjhveal
If I recall correctly, GPS receivers for non-military use are specifically
designed not to operate over 60,000 feet altitude or 1,000 knots velocity. So
it's not un-precedented.

~~~
Veratyr
And like GPS receivers, anyone who DIYs can get around those restrictions
themselves:
[http://www.aholme.co.uk/GPS/Main.htm](http://www.aholme.co.uk/GPS/Main.htm)

