
Drone unlikely to have hit BA plane near Heathrow, government says - fredley
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36159117
======
cm3
So, will the truth be known widely or will the broader population remember
only the drone accusation? Cynic in me thinks this was deliberately suggested
to make passing some drone laws easier.

~~~
eumoria
No one should be able to fly a drone anywhere near an airport. If the law
doesn't exist it should anyway. This also isn't the first time this has
happened / been claimed to happen.

~~~
Cthulhu_
I think the problem is that drones are very accessible for the general public,
which isn't fully aware of all of the rules that the previous generation of RC
aircraft hobbyists is all to aware of (e.g. in order to get a permit to fly
with their club in a certain area)

~~~
rorykoehler
If you can't figure out on your own that flying drones near an airport is not
a good idea then you probably shouldn't be allowed in public at all.

~~~
calgoo
Then how to i get those great pictures of airplanes during takeoff??? /Sarcasm

The issue is that then you have to limit the sale, and add licenses etc to
control that. However, even that does not control the people who just don't
care, or that don't know. You can tell stores around you not to sell to
unlicensed people, but these drones are so easy to get over the internet that
it would have to be blocked at a border level. And then you are basically
outlawing the device, creating even more need to police / monitor.

------
netman21
Airplane drone strikes: 0 Airplane turtle strikes: 198

Source: [http://mashable.com/2015/12/18/turtles-vs-drones-airplane-
hi...](http://mashable.com/2015/12/18/turtles-vs-drones-airplane-
hit/#rPRyFDYXPiqA)

------
Derpdiherp
"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.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
'Drone' has become a fad word. But it has a real meaning - an un-manned aerial
vehicle. So technically even a model helicopter is a drone. I've resisted
using 'drone' carelessly, and always say 'quadcopter' or 'helicopter' or
whatever is appropriate.

~~~
iso-8859-1
If "vehicle" does not require cargo capability, even birds are drones. If
"vehicle" requires cargo, an RC helicopter (which typically has no cargo) is
no drone.

------
tremon
So, if it was confirmed this wasn't a drone, why is the BBC still including a
list of drone near-misses? Do they still believe they have a point to make, or
are they just making excuses?

Furthermore, the other drone incidents involve airplanes at 2000, 2800 and
4000 feet. Those are not hobby drones. Only one of those listed might have
been an amateur drone, at 30ft.

~~~
phicoh
Not sure what you call hobby drones. My guess is that with the more expensive
hobby quadcopters it should be easy to get way to close to landing planes at
2000 feet. Basically at a busy airport you will have one plane every few
minutes taking roughly the same path. So flying close to that path, for
example to make video recordings of the landing planes will eventually result
in a near miss.

~~~
tremon
Yeah, maybe my interpretation of what still classifies as "hobby" needs
brushing up. I was only thinking of cases where flying the drone is the
objective, not of cases where the drone is a tool to further another hobby. So
I was automatically discarding altitudes where you'd no longer be able to see
the drone.

~~~
phicoh
Two things really changed because of the kind of electronics now available and
because of the different community that developed quadcopters.

Electronics make it possible to equip models with cameras and real-time video
links, making first person view flying possible and also making it possible to
review the video footage you are getting. Electronics also provides those
models with various automatic flying modes.

That results in a different community. The goal is no longer being able to
pilot a remote controlled model.

The goal is now, using FPV to fly very complex patterns. Fly in woods, fly
very far.

Or, use the quadcopter as a tool for filming. Because of the stability of a
quadcopter, relative lack of vibrations (compared to a helicopter) and ability
to stay at a fix point in the sky (which planes cannot do) they are ideally
suited for filming from a position up in the air.

------
TillE
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."

~~~
dang
Thanks for pointing this out. The submitted title was "BA plane not actually
hit by drone after all". Submitters: please use the original title except when
it is misleading or linkbait. This is in the HN guidelines:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
makomk
The submitted title seems rather more accurate, given that there's no evidence
the drone in question existed and there never was. The BBC's title and
reporting suffers from the usual unwillingness to admit they were wrong.

------
coldcode
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.

~~~
jessriedel
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...](http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/birds-plane-crashes-
article-1.361189)

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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11425782)

Even their usage/value of drones were kept fixed, then it could make sense to
ban them even if drones only cause one airplane crash per decade. Obviously,
this argument fails when you consider future value, but the point is that the
numbers are not intuitive.

~~~
dingaling
> while the entire yearly value of the drone market is $50M.

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...](http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pressreleases/press-release-
detail/detail/new-airbus-aircraft-list-prices-for-2016/)

~~~
jessriedel
It's the value of everything in the aircraft. For a drone, that's basically
the cost of the drone. For the airliner, it's the $10M per human life.

Apotential ban on drones would allow licenses and exceptions (thereby not
destroying much commercial value), so the primary impact of the ban would be
the amateur market. And for them, the cost of the device gives a good estimate
of the value.

Yes, we could expand our calculation outward and try to capture all the
externalities created by those dead people, or the drone, or the irrational
fear of drones. But this would have quickly diminishing returns.

