
Lufthansa flight has near-miss with drone near Warsaw - muddyrivers
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/07/21/uk-airlines-drones-lufthansa-idUKKCN0PV1EE20150721
======
jrockway
Remember the Penny Arcade comic where "normal person + anonymity + audience =
total fuckwad" [1]? I think what we have here is "normal person + anonymity +
airplane = airspace incursions".

[1] [http://www.penny-arcade.com/S=0/comic/2004/03/19](http://www.penny-
arcade.com/S=0/comic/2004/03/19)

Drones take away the risk of consequences for your actions. It's kind of like
bicycle/car accidents. Driver hits a bicyclist. Bicyclist leaves the scene of
the accident in a body bag. Driver drives away with some scratches on the car.
With that kind of outcome, there isn't much incentive for the driver to drive
safer -- his ass is not on the line.

Drones are the same way. Crash your drone into an aircraft and kill 300 people
you've never heard of? Oh well, you just walk away. Much easier than learning
the rules for navigating controlled airspace.

~~~
jameshart
There's something about drones that seems to engender this - it's like people
think the word 'drone' means 'thing which is outside the normal scope of
consequences'. Like, for example, people are actually _shooting other people
's drones down_[1]. And when Amazon talk about using drones for delivery, the
first response in any discussion is "what's to stop people stealing the
drones?"

You're right, drones are like the internet of the sky.

[1]
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/06/29/court_rul...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/06/29/court_rules_that_neighbor_has_to_pay_for_drone_he_shot_down.html)

~~~
Phlarp
I wonder where people could have gotten it into their minds that "drones"
operate above the law, or that their operators can kill whomever they please
without consequence.

------
lukev
I wonder why "drones" have recently gained so much mindshare.

It is true that _autonomous_ drones are a new thing. But 90% of the reporting
I see on "drones" is about small radio-controlled aircraft, which have been
around since well before the computer.

Is it just that the possibility of a "smart" drone is drawing attention to the
other kind, as well? Or is there something specifically about quadcopters that
captures the public imagination?

~~~
eterm
A large part of it is their ability to keep themselves stable. That opens up a
huge range of uses that weren't there previously, as well as reducing the
chance you'll break it the first time out flying it.

~~~
jameshart
I was thinking about this recently; seems like affordable consumer quadcopters
are a consequence of the availability of cheap, lightweight solid-state
accelerometers. Why are accelerometer chips cheap? Because they're ubiquitous
in phones. Why are they ubiquitous in phones? Because Steve Jobs wanted the
original iPhone to be able to tell which way up you were holding it.

(also, due credit to laptop hard drive 'freefall sensors' as another
contributor).

Combine that with the cheap lithium battery and digital radio communication
chipsets, also driven by phone volumes, and that's why 'radio controlled
helicopters' are no longer a niche hobby, and instead a danger to aviation.

~~~
jjwiseman
Chris Anderson talks a lot about the smartphone-drone connection here: "How I
Accidentally Kickstarted the Domestic Drone Boom"
[http://www.wired.com/2012/06/ff_drones/](http://www.wired.com/2012/06/ff_drones/)

------
tbabb
This article needs to be more specific about what they mean by "drone". I
thought this meant a military drone until about halfway through the article,
and I only inferred that it was talking about a quadcopter or hobby RC/UAV
plane from context.

~~~
jonchang
Pro tip: Whenever you read "drone" in a news article you can almost always
safely replace it with "unmanned aerial vehicle" with no loss of information.
Journalists currently do not make the distinction between (semi-)autonomous
military "drones" and hobbyist "drones".

~~~
privong
> Pro tip: Whenever you read "drone" in a news article you can almost always
> safely replace it with "unmanned aerial vehicle" with no loss of
> information.

I don't think that replacement _adds_ any additional information, though. As
someone who doesn't follow drone/UAV stuff too closely, your suggested
substitution does not really clarify the identity of the subject for me.

------
ajuc
Police caught the guy. Probably. He admited to fly his drone in that region at
the time, but had no idea he was so close to the airport.

The uav has gps and logs position and time, so they will know for sure
eventually. It's illegal to operate drones there, the guy can go to prison for
up to 8 years.

Source (in Polish) [http://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/news-incydent-z-dronem-
zatrzymano-...](http://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/news-incydent-z-dronem-zatrzymano-
mezczyzne-ktory-prawdopodobnie-,nId,1856592)

------
snissn
Do drones really pose that large of a threat to a commercial aircraft?

~~~
simcop2387
They can. From what I've read the real problem is much like birds. If they get
sucked into the jet engine then they can do a huge amount of damage. More than
a bird even because of the fact that you've usually got a good bit of metal
and a lithium battery or two. That's enough to take out the engine just like a
bird but with the lithium battery that's going to get splattered around
there's an increased chance of fire starting that could make even losing one
engine a really bad prospect. Combine that with the fact that the plane is
likely to be at a low altitude and it's unlikely that the plane will be able
to glide somewhere it can safely crash land at either an airport or long
stretch of road.

~~~
kordless
> More than a bird even

A lithium battery is going to get chopped up and spit out the rear of the
engine - if it manages to get in the intake to begin with, which is a huge
_if_. There's ZERO chance any of that lithium would stick around long enough
to cause a 'fire', whatever that means. It's not called a 'jet' engine for
nothing.

~~~
Phlarp
How much experience do you have with the lithium polymer batteries commonly
used on hobbyist drones?

I've been flying for a little over a year now and personally seen some pretty
gnarly LiPo failures in that time.

I would _not_ want to be flying on a plane with one of those hitting the
turbines. Would you?

~~~
astrodust
I think the worst thing is not the fire, but what happens if the wiring gets
gummed up on some blades and unbalances the engine. These things turn at a
crazy number of RPM, so even a small amount of weight off-balance could cause
them to vibrate and self-destruct catastrophically if it hit the right
harmonic.

~~~
simcop2387
Given the speeds I'm not even sure it'd take that. The debris being sucked in
I think would be enough to break/bend a blade or two which would unbalance it
just as easily. Making even more debris for the rest of the engine.

~~~
kordless
Those blades are crazy tough and the battery is the least of your worries when
ingesting a drone. I'd be more concerned about the motors doing the damage to
the blades.

------
dmitrygr
Just like laser pointers in cockpit - find the culprits and charge them with
$MANY counts of reckless endangerment. This endangers the lives of every
passenger and lots of people on the ground!

------
callesgg
Engines on planes are made to chuck a flock of birds without exploding, i
think the plane would have been "fine" (aka no human casualties) even if it
did hit the drone.

Assuming it was a quad-copter not an actual military drone.

~~~
nly
Speaking of which, why do we keep calling hobbyist quadcopters and such
"drones"? Using the same word for unmanned military bombers and (relatively)
harmless toys seems a bit counter-productive.

~~~
mikeash
Same reason my 550lb glider and a 100-ton B-52 are both "airplanes." It's a
general word that encompasses a lot.

The problem isn't so much the use of the word "drones" but the lack of any
further qualifiers on it. Sometimes it's evident from context (an article
about military drone strikes isn't talking about a 2lb quadcopter, for
example) but sometimes it's not, and I think writers need to be a little more
careful with it.

------
chmike
Is it possible to get a description of the drone ? It's size, behaviour,
speed, etc.

I was very surprised to learn that the "drone" seen above nuclear power plants
in France has been discribed by a witness as to be ~7 meter in diameter,
flowing at an altitude of ~200 meter, at slow speed and silently.

~~~
anigbrowl
There are firms that build them specifically for industrial inspection
purposes, eg Blue Bear Research Systems in the UK. Unless the witness was
qualified (eg a pilot or surveyor or similar) I would take size/height
estimates with a giant pinch of salt, most people are awful at estimating
those things.

------
b_emery
Couple months ago, I was looking out the window on approach to LAX and spotted
a metallic helium balloon, maybe 200-400 meters past the end of the wing. As
far as I can tell it was not a threat, and I've not been able to find an
instance of one causing engine problems, but it was a bit unnerving.

~~~
mikeash
I've spotted a few balloons at altitude while flying. Once I saw a red and
blue balloon tangled together which had somehow got to spinning. From a
distance it looked like a strobing light. Neat effect.

Anyway, I definitely wouldn't worry about those. They'll shred to pieces
before they cause any damage. A couple of pounds of heavier-than-air drone
hardware is a different matter.

------
anigbrowl
By the way, although 100 meters may sound like a comfortable margin bear in
mind that at 100 knots (just around stall speed for a small jet coming in to
land) that distance will be closed in under 2 seconds.

------
thedangler
So did they hit?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKdvTecYAM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKdvTecYAM)

~~~
VT_Drew
came here to say this.

------
Aldo_MX
This is strange, in my country you are forbidden by law to fly a drone near an
airport (which I find as an appropriate law).

~~~
ajuc
It is forbidden, they caught him, guy says he didn't knew he flew so close.
Faces up to 8 years in prison.

------
baby
How can a commercial drone take down a plane? Isn't that sensationalism?

~~~
mikeyouse
Moderate sized birds can take down airplanes and helicopters _and have done so
in the very recent past_. Why is everyone so loathe to admit that flying these
near aircraft is insanely dangerous?

~~~
mikeash
I personally think it's an over-reaction to the over-reaction to 9/11.

We were presented with, "Terrorism is unbelievably dangerous! The slightest
provocation can take down an airliner. We're all gonna die unless we take
extreme measures!"

A lot of people pushed back so hard the other way that they got to, "Air
travel is totally safe no matter what and there is never any danger from
anything."

For someone without much domain knowledge, "We need to keep drones away from
airports so an airliner doesn't get brought down in a collision" probably
sounds about the same as "We need to ban all liquids in containers larger than
3.3oz, unless it's contact lens solution in which case it's totally cool."

~~~
astrodust
Things flying into the engines of operating aircraft, _especially_ during
take-off and landing, is an extreme hazard that has been documented in many,
many cases. Anything airborne poses a serious hazard to aircraft, even tiny
particles of ash.

This is nothing at all like the threat posed by liquids. That's a response to
binary explosives and is misguided at best. Powder mixtures can do just as
much damage and they don't screen for those at all.

~~~
mikeash
Yes, I know. I'm explaining why I think people might believe they're similar,
not trying to actually say that they _are_ similar.

