Drone collides with passenger plane

[Spidey]

Well.... it happened. A pilot friend of mine sent me this link. He's had a few close calls with drones and predicted this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/garneau-airport-drone-quebec-1.4355792


Looks like regulations are coming on line soon, as referenced in the article. Curious to hear people's thoughts on the new rules.

"The updated rules will include a minimum age for drone operators, a mandatory written test and users will be required to register their names and addresses on the drone itself.

As it stands, anyone found to have endangered the safety of an aircraft could face a $25,000 fine or prison time.

Garneau's office stated in a release that 1,596 drone incidents have been reported to Transport Canada in 2017, 131 of which were deemed aviation safety concerns."

[260 Rem]

I hope they find the boso responsible and impose the max penalty. Don’t know if the new regs require it, but should have a provision to insure drone owner/operators can be identified...maybe like registering a vehicle...a license ID required on the machine, insurance.

[Ken07AOVette]

What an idiot (whoever was flying the drone). Giving Garneau more ammunition.

Did anyone else read where there was no damage? I actually talked to Transport Canada Enforcement division about this. They have flown drones through jet engines, zero damage.

[bobinthesky]

Pretty sure the regulations are already in place.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-opssvs/Infographic_-_New_rules_for_recreational_drone_users_EN_2.pdf

[bobinthesky]

What an idiot (whoever was flying the drone). Giving Garneau more ammunition.

Did anyone else read where there was no damage? I actually talked to Transport Canada Enforcement division about this. They have flown drones through jet engines, zero damage.



Firing frozen chickens into jet engines on test beds during development is standard practice and a drone is likely no different however, I've known live (and unfrozen) birds to be ingested into jet engines and cause complete engine failures so this doesn't really make it alright to fly drones into the path of aircraft. Besides, take a bird or drone through the windshield and it's more dangerous than having an engine failure when the pilot or pilots are incapacitated.

[Reddin]

It was just a matter of when.

[Selkirk]

Pretty sure the regulations are already in place.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-opssvs/Infographic_-_New_rules_for_recreational_drone_users_EN_2.pdf

Those are just the interim rules as they stand now. The hammer drops (more extensive/stricter rules) sometime next year.

I think I'll just stick to flying my kite :lol:


Selkirk

[bobinthesky]

Those are just the interim rules as they stand now. The hammer drops (more extensive/stricter rules) sometime next year.

I think I'll just stick to flying my kite :lol:


Selkirk


True, but they are still orders of the court awaiting passage into law, you best have deep pockets if you wish to fight them.

[Ken07AOVette]

Firing frozen chickens into jet engines on test beds during development is standard practice and a drone is likely no different however, I've known live (and unfrozen) birds to be ingested into jet engines and cause complete engine failures so this doesn't really make it alright to fly drones into the path of aircraft. Besides, take a bird or drone through the windshield and it's more dangerous than having an engine failure when the pilot or pilots are incapacitated.

Transport Canada says there are no recreational drones that will damage a commercial jet.

[roper1]

Transport Canada says there are no recreational drones that will damage a commercial jet.

Why would TC have a 5.5 km buffer where drones can't fly.....?

[Mackinaw]

Transport Canada says there are no recreational drones that will damage a commercial jet.

not so. I'm concerned that it could be catastrophic," Aaron McCrorie, an aviation enforcement official with Transport Canada, told CBC News.

"We don't have definitive information, but I am concerned it could cause an airplane to crash

Drone collision could cause engine failure in commercial jets - Technology & Science - CBC News - CBC.ca

www.cbc.ca › news › technology › dron...

mack

[lannie]

Why would TC have a 5.5 km buffer where drones can't fly.....?

Exactly.

[260 Rem]

Why would TC have a 5.5 km buffer where drones can't fly.....?

Because they could cause an aircraft to crash and kill people.

[260 Rem]

Transport Canada says there are no recreational drones that will damage a commercial jet.
Commercial jets are not the only aircraft that use airports. Lots of other vulnerable spots on aircraft besides the engines. Ingesting a drone could result in in some very expensive repairs even if the result was not catastrophic.
I have family flying commercial. Would cry no tears if they were banned 10 miles from an airport....and required to carry millions in PL & PD.

[dfarms11]

Exactly.

Wow! Using that philosòphy I guess trudeau must be absolutely correct that all corporations are tax evadors and must be taxed more too!

[sikwhiskey]

Just a matter of time before some nut job puts explosives on a drone and flies it into wherever.......

[58thecat]

Yup and that's why things are regulated to the hilt...because of idiots!

[58thecat]

What an idiot (whoever was flying the drone). Giving Garneau more ammunition.

Did anyone else read where there was no damage? I actually talked to Transport Canada Enforcement division about this. They have flown drones through jet engines, zero damage.

Blade nicks, melted plastic etc, compressor/stator blades will or could be damaged or the damage is in the amount of downtime to inspect, repair, replace the engine....trust me did this for a living repairing, overhauling, test cell running jet engines for 20 years....the sad thing is that this meathead has now put drones under a higher magnifying glass for all the wrong reasons.

[elkhunter11]

Give the idiot the $25,000 fine, make him pay all costs for any inspections/delays that resulted from the incident, and ban him from operating drones for life. That may send a message to the other idiots that won't obey the regulations.

[Mackinaw]

Blade nicks, melted plastic etc, compressor/stator blades will or could be damaged or the damage is in the amount of downtime to inspect, repair, replace the engine....trust me did this for a living repairing, overhauling, test cell running jet engines for 20 years....the sad thing is that this meathead has now put drones under a higher magnifying glass for all the wrong reasons.

you are right unfortunately it is like a gun it is not the product at fault but the user.

mack

[bobinthesky]

Transport Canada says there are no recreational drones that will damage a commercial jet.



If TC says it's true then feel free to believe them!

[bobinthesky]

Give the idiot the $25,000 fine, make him pay all costs for any inspections/delays that resulted from the incident, and ban him from operating drones for life. That may send a message to the other idiots that won't obey the regulations.



The $25k fine would be nothing in comparison to the repair bill and the downtime! In many cases these costs will be in the millions!

[elkhunter11]

The $25k fine would be nothing in comparison to the repair bill and the downtime! In many cases these costs will be in the millions!

Then let the idiot be financially ruined for his stupidity. Perhaps other people that hear about this will be more inclined to obey the regulations.

[guysmiley]

If the offender was willing to disobey the regulations regarding flying near an airport, what makes anybody think they followed the rules regarding having their name and phone number on the drone?

I would be surprised if they found out who was flying it.

[260 Rem]

Then let the idiot be financially ruined for his stupidity. Perhaps other people that hear about this will be more inclined to obey the regulations.
The trouble will be in identifying ... so like with vehicles...will require a system of owner registration, transfer, PL & PD insurance, and pilot licensing.

[260 Rem]

The $25k fine would be nothing in comparison to the repair bill and the downtime! In many cases these costs will be in the millions!
About 20yrs ago, my son hit a bird with a C130 going into an airport in Chile. Five crew on the ground for 5 days while a replacement engine was flown in and installed. Wonder what the bill would have been.

[bobinthesky]

Then let the idiot be financially ruined for his stupidity. Perhaps other people that hear about this will be more inclined to obey the regulations.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

[bobinthesky]

About 20yrs ago, my son hit a bird with a C130 going into an airport in Chile. Five crew on the ground for 5 days while a replacement engine was flown in and installed. Wonder what the bill would have been.


I wouldn't want to guess on the C-130 but I'm aware of a Hawker biz Jet a few years ago that ingested a bird into one of it's TPE-331 engines and that repair bill was around 1 million.

[Sundancefisher]

Transport Canada says there are no recreational drones that will damage a commercial jet.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/drones/a24467/drone-plane-collision/

Have you read this?

"Birds can disintegrate relatively easily...you get something like a very viscous bulk of fluid on the other side" says Bayandor. "A drone can be like a rock going through the engine."

[1899b]

What an idiot (whoever was flying the drone). Giving Garneau more ammunition.

Did anyone else read where there was no damage? I actually talked to Transport Canada Enforcement division about this. They have flown drones through jet engines, zero damage.

But a Canada Goose will put down an airliner into the Hudson River?

[bobinthesky]

What an idiot (whoever was flying the drone). Giving Garneau more ammunition.

Did anyone else read where there was no damage? I actually talked to Transport Canada Enforcement division about this. They have flown drones through jet engines, zero damage.


I don't believe that Transport Canada does this kind of testing.

[3blade]

Cost/benefit analysis does not favor continued recreational drone use

Cost: potential plane crash, vehicle crash, invasion of privacy, poaching, robbery scouting, personal injury

Benefit: 'haha I had fun' 'look at my picture I took' - That ain't gonna cut it.

While drones have many beneficial commercial applications, id not be surprised to see the recreational side become very heavily regulated.

[tacomama]

[/B]


I don't believe that Transport Canada does this kind of testing.

I have been in aviation for the last 15 years.
TC does not do this kind of testing, if anything it would be the different powerplant manufacturers.

I call BS on the "zero damage" from and engine ingesting a drone, there would be some damage 100%.

[Ken07AOVette]

I have been in aviation for the last 15 years.
TC does not do this kind of testing, if anything it would be the different powerplant manufacturers.

I call BS on the "zero damage" from and engine ingesting a drone, there would be some damage 100%.

Call it what you want, the manager of Civil Enforcement division is where I got the information.
So call me or him a liar, I don't care just repeating what I was told.

[bobinthesky]

I have been in aviation for the last 15 years.
TC does not do this kind of testing, if anything it would be the different powerplant manufacturers.

I call BS on the "zero damage" from and engine ingesting a drone, there would be some damage 100%.



Well, I only have 31 years in aviation but who's counting!:thinking-006:

[bobinthesky]

Call it what you want, the manager of Civil Enforcement division is where I got the information.
So call me or him a liar, I don't care just repeating what I was told.


Ken, those TC people live in a different world than the rest of us... just sayin.

[roper1]

Call it what you want, the manager of Civil Enforcement division is where I got the information.
So call me or him a liar, I don't care just repeating what I was told.

One of the obstacles facing the drone flying community is credibility, posts like this certainly don't help. As with any new & divisive technology, just sticking to the facts gets you way more street cred....

[Big Racks]

But a Canada Goose will put down an airliner into the Hudson River?

That was because they weren't frozen like the turkeys.

[1899b]

That was because they weren't frozen like the turkeys.

Ahhh thank you for the clarification!

[Big Racks]

Ken, those TC people live in a different world than the rest of us... just sayin.

/\ /\ /\ /\ This!!

Only 23 years for me, lol, but I couldn't agree more. The amount of ****e that comes off of a desk in Ottawa, by someone so far removed from the industry they couldn't tell a Boeing from a ball sack, is appalling. If it comes from TC, or even worse ICAO, it's usually bureaucratic nonsense that has no place in the operational workplace.

[Redfrog]

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone 'needs' a drone. You can't use them for hunting.:thinking-006:

[wildwoods]

A lot of people see an incident like this and are calling for bans, stiffer regulations and sanctions against drones. Change the word drone to firearm. Almost comical the difference of opinion when an "incident" happens with one of those...

[sikwhiskey]

A lot of people see an incident like this and are calling for bans, stiffer regulations and sanctions against drones. Change the word drone to firearm. Almost comical the difference of opinion when an "incident" happens with one of those...

Yep, almost identical, and unlike firearms, when drones kill who will be to blame? The operator or the instrument? Again, criminals do not follow laws.....

[Ken07AOVette]

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone 'needs' a gun. You can't use them for fishing .:thinking-006:

2 words changed watch the blowout on an outdoorsman forum.
Not all of us hunt, you know.

[58thecat]

Call it what you want, the manager of Civil Enforcement division is where I got the information.
So call me or him a liar, I don't care just repeating what I was told.

He mislead you on that statement.:(

[wildwoods]

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone 'needs' a drone. You can't use them for hunting.:thinking-006:

This is why we need drones (a must watch)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=65x2jxTG5_k

[Mackinaw]

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone 'needs' a drone. You can't use them for hunting.:thinking-006:

there is no real use for them they are like RC cars just something for people to waste money on just a little more obnoxious.


mack

[tacomama]

Call it what you want, the manager of Civil Enforcement division is where I got the information.
So call me or him a liar, I don't care just repeating what I was told.

Wasn't calling you a liar at all Ken, was just calling out TC's BS.
Some of those guys wouldn't know the difference between an airplane and a bird in the sky...

[Ken07AOVette]

Wasn't calling you a liar at all Ken, was just calling out TC's BS.
Some of those guys wouldn't know the difference between an airplane and a bird in the sky...

Fair enough. This guy seemed fairly educated and knowledgeable. Mind you Garneau did too.

[Redfrog]

2 words changed watch the blowout on an outdoorsman forum.
Not all of us hunt, you know.

Looks like you made my point Ken. Can't use them for hunting or fishing. They seem to be an annoyance to anyone who doesn't use them, and that's nearly everyone.



What's the point? Boys and toys.:thinking-006: