Drone hits commercial plane in flight in Canada

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
It's all over the news here..

This hit's pretty close to me (no pun intended) but I remember when 'park flyers' were becoming popular, and that we sanctioned RC pilots (AMA, MAAC, etc..) seemed to no longer require insurance or the bother to 'learn' to fly our models.. They were just toys, and why regulate "toys".. What harm could possibly come from a 'toy'...
me too, but no mention. I rank it as "typical news sensationalizing / fear mongering".. 450m altitude (1500ft), so not a 'toy' per say.. And only 3.3km (2 miles about?) from an international airport. Brains are definitely lacking..

So, new rules coming.. apparently a mandatory age limit, the need to register, and a 'user course' to take.. Hey, almost like we need to do for getting our RC pilot's wings! Or to now drive a boat (Canada requires a boaters licence for any motorized water craft..)

I'm still waiting for regs on owning a dog & having kids!! :D
The math is definitely suspect as the drone was supposedly in that article about 1500' which is only 500' above the legal limit of 90m (aproximately 300') somewhere there is an additional 700' of illegal altitude missing.
Yep, and people (and governments) stupidly think that new "rules" will stop this when current rules and existing laws meant to deal with things like this, laws like reckless endangerment which existed long before drones ever existed, are totally useless against those who willfully disobey laws and rules, like the trained and licensed automobile drivers who violate the rules and kill tens of thousands of their fellow drivers in the US annually.

Meanwhile, in unreported news because it's so common, 13,795 bird strikes were reported to the FAA in 2015 with 6% of those (828) causing a "negative effect on flight" and 5% (690) causing damage. So, every day on average, there are 38 bird strikes reported to the FAA (with who knows how many unnoticed or not reported), over two per day causing a negative effect on an aircraft's flight, and nearly two a day which cause aircraft damage.

Neither in this case nor in the helicopter impact reported elsewhere were there significant consequences and in both cases the RC pilot was willfully violating existing rules.

It's "news" because people can't seem to use their brains to place relative risks in their proper perspective, because such events are rare, and because the technology involved is relatively new and has received so much media attention.
From this, clearly we need laws against birds. The drones are just a distraction from the existential threat of beak and claw.

I don't really have a lot of patience for the "well what about birds" argument. FAA and airports already do a lot of work to manage bird strikes. The simple fact here is that a small minority of drone operators are doing really stupid things (hitting other aircraft, landing on the White House lawn, etc.). That probably means a lot of drone operators are doing kinda stupid things. If drone operators don't get it together to limit the amount of stupid in their ranks, they're going to get regulated. Yes, some people will still do stupid things, but the new regulations will allow FAA to make an example out of them if they do something truly dangerous.

TL;DR This is why we can't have nice things.
Interesting commentary on this and the possible future rules for all flying below 400 feet. BTW, he points out that the radome damage shown in the teaser still image for the video is from a bird strike.:

The fix? More rules that are already being ignored by these idiots? Nope.

As I've already pointed out, use jammer "rifles" which cause the drones to fall to earth or auto-land, thereby depriving the idiots of their expensive drones, or which can cause the drones to auto-return to their launch site, thereby leading authorities directly to these idiots. Each fire and police department in a wildfire prone area should own at least one jammer "rifle".

Some Hobbyists’ Drones Are Interrupting Firefighting Efforts In Northern California, Says FAA

There have been at least two instances of drones getting in the way of firefighting efforts undertaken in Northern California where a massive wildfire is ravaging the area, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said Monday, according to CNBC.

One of the incidents occurred near or in Santa Rosa, Calif., last week, and another was in Petaluma, Calif., sometime Sunday. An arrest ensued from the alleged interference.

“We received two reports of incidents in which people flew drones in fire areas,” Ian Gregor, a spokesman for the FAA’s Pacific Division, told CNBC. “We will look into both.”

Firefighters and other emergency responders have tried to diminish or at least contain the scope of the fire. One method for combatting the fires is surveying the scene from several different drone-enabled perspectives. Also known as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), drones can give emergency officials an eagle-eye view to see the extent of the danger as well as if in any humans or critical infrastructure are in harm’s way. The imagery helps cultivate a comprehensive strategy.

Some drone hobbyists are getting in the way, say certain officials.

“Over the years, we have seen this problem become a trend,” Daniel Berlant, a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, said, according to CNBC. “When drones are flying in the same airspace we’re trying to use firefighting aircraft, like helicopters and air tankers, for the safety of our pilots we’ve got to pull those aircraft out of the sky and land them.”

Authorities reportedly made an arrest for one of the two alleged instances, and the FAA is likely investigating to see if further punishment is warranted.

The FAA and other authorities have fined people before for violating regulations when operating their drones. UAVs and federal UAV rules are relatively nascent but established enough for the FAA to levy a $55,000 penalty against a Minnesota resident who flew his drone to record a public event at the request of the host.

In fact, officials arrested a man in California in July 2016 for flying his drone over a wildfire burning near Sacramento. He is believed to be the first man arrested in the state for such a violation.
Is there something I missed in the articles, I see nothing noting or indicating why they thought it was a drone strike, and no proof of a drone, was there something indicating it was actually a drone?
Is there something I missed in the articles, I see nothing noting or indicating why they thought it was a drone strike, and no proof of a drone, was there something indicating it was actually a drone?

Media said so :facepalm:
This birdstrike actually made the news! Why? Because of the plane involved.

2 storks hit F-35, sending stealth jet to garage
Army says super advanced fighter wasn't damaged, should return to full service in the next few days
17 October 2017


Two storks hit an F-35 fighter jet during a training flight on Tuesday, requiring the plane to undergo maintenance work, the army said.

The birds hit the F-35, called the “Adir” in Hebrew, just before it was due to return to the Nevatim air base in the central Negev desert.

The army said the plane landed normally and that it did not sustain damage.

However, it was sent “for maintenance work as is common after impacts like this,” the IDF said in an email.

The army said the F-35 fighter jet, one of the seven currently in Israel’s possession, is expected to return to service in the next few days.

Israel has agreed to purchase 50 F-35 fighter jets from the United States in order to upgrade the air force’s capabilities.
Video transcript excerpt:

Recent reports about a mid-air collision between a jet and a drone have been misstated or based on pretty tenuous details. Worse, Canada's Marc Renault, their Minister of Transport, has jumped all over the story even issuing a press release long before any real detail has emerged.

So, what do we know? On October 12, 2017 a Sky Jet Beech King Air 100, a turboprop not a jet, was on an IFR flight to the Jean Lesage International Airport in Quebec City, Quebec with eight people onboard. The aircraft was approaching runway 24 and had just passed the final approach fix when the crew claims to have seen a drone at the extremity of the left wing. The aircraft allegedly struck the suspected UAV and an altitude of 1500 feet and the crew declared an emergency.

The aircraft landed safely. Inspections revealed a few scratches and some paint transfer on the top surface of the left wing and scrape marks on the de-icing boot. No one was injured. No physical evidence proving a drone strike has reportedly been found. The report of paint transfer is curious as few drones are painted and no other reports indicate that drone wreckage or an operator has been found.

3.3km is only 2.5-ish miles, at 150mph you would have to be close to the ground to land on the runway in a manner not requiring your passengers to need dental work or chiropractors afterwards. :)
ILS Glide slope is 3° some airports mandate higher glide slopes (London City Airport = 5.5°). Which indicates that if 3.3km is accurate then 1500ft is likely not (and vice versa) - too high rather than too low.
thanks! now I know.. I've been under the approach to Dorval / Montreal Int and at 3.3km they seem to be much much higher..

(And, I remember watching 'the magical roundabout' when I was younger! The anticks of Doogal and his friends.. and The Wombles, and Bazzle Brush.. Rupert and Berano books!)