The General Drone-Related Thread

Messages
1,652
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
Bearing in mind the environmental impact of flying I can't say I feel particularly sad for those delayed at the airport..........

That depends on which side of the argument you listen to! There are as many (in fact more) arguments to say that global warming is a myth and is being encouraged by Western governments so they can heavily tax all fossil fuels etc (hence all studies supporting it get massive Govt. funding but those stating its not happening get no funding what so ever!) - who knows what the real truth is - I don't believe anything I'm told anymore.

Remember David Bellamy who was 'ostracised' for stating climate change was all 'poppycock!':

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-shunned-they-didnt-want-to-hear-8449307.html
 
Last edited:
Messages
8,703
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
That depends on which side of the argument you listen to! There are as many (in fact more) arguments to say that global warming is a myth and is being encouraged by Western governments so they can heavily tax all fossil fuels etc (hence all studies supporting it get massive Govt. funding but those stating its not happening get no funding what so ever!) - who knows what the real truth is - I don't believe anything I'm told anymore.

Remember David Bellamy who was 'ostracised' for stating climate change was all 'poppycock!':

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-shunned-they-didnt-want-to-hear-8449307.html

Wasn't it 97% of all climate scientists believe that human-induced climate change was real? Perhaps you like to believe the other 3% - like the Trump does.
 
Messages
16,703
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Wasn't it 97% of all climate scientists believe that human-induced climate change was real? Perhaps you like to believe the other 3% - like the Trump does.
I’m in the 3%. A lot of the research is state funded and there’s a reason governments want to spook us into believing this guff - so they can tax us and curtail our freedoms.

Hell, I don’t even buy the figures they use to measure the temperatures. I mean just how accurate was a thermometer 100 years ago and just how trusted can the historical data be to be so sure it’s even getting hotter or indeed the sea level is getting higher. There’s no evidence that there is otherwise places like NYC, London would be flooding.

These so called experts said in the 70s London would be under water by now. It isn’t. That Al Gore fool said similar and has been spectacularly proven wrong as nothing’s sunk into the sea like he said it would. Thank God Bush won against him.

Now there’s plenty of evidence about pollution and the real harm to the planet - but I don’t believe the weather or climate would be one iota different with or without human co2 emissions.
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,957
Name
Hugh
Edit My Images
No
Am a little surprised no-one has picked up from the article that Sussex police have said there is no film of the drone & that they were relying entirely on eye witnesses whom may have been mistaken.

In other words one of the busiest airports in the world may have been shut because someone thinks they saw something
 
Messages
1,652
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
Wasn't it 97% of all climate scientists believe that human-induced climate change was real? Perhaps you like to believe the other 3% - like the Trump does.

As i said Jerry, I don't believe anything I'm told; there is always a 'hidden agenda'. I really do not know what to believe but I do know the following:

(1) Climate change happened countless times before human's inhabited the Planet
(2) Scientist are given huge grants and therefore employment to say it is happening
(3) Scientists are given nothing (have to fund themselves to say it isn't happening
(4) In one breath we are told fossil fuels will run out very soon
(5) in the next breath we are told the burning of fossil fuels causes extreme climate change
(6) Acid rain was supposed to spell the end of rain forests already
(7) We keep being told how the ice sheets of the Arctic are rapidly shrinking by the climate change scientists but they fail to mention Antarctica is growing.
(8) In terms of statistics the sample size is infinately small and can not be relied upon to give any accurate indication - we have only been keeping records for less than 100years compared to the billions of years the Planet Earth has existed for.

I believe humans cause a massive amount of disruption to other wildlife both plant and animal but I'm not convinced on climate change yet.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,620
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
Climate change/animal right's groups operate on fear and intimidation. They love to cause disruption, chaos and anarchy. They've achieved this and people might be less keen to fly in the knowledge that if this sort of thing became widespred their plans could be disrupted. Look at how many hunts get disrupted by these groups. Disruption is their MO.

How many people wear real fur, not because they don't want to but because they don't want to be attacked by an extremist.
I thought the drone tactics were reminiscent of “ animal rightists” but only time will tell, or not :(
 
Messages
15,957
Name
Hugh
Edit My Images
No
I thought the drone tactics were reminiscent of “ animal rightists” but only time will tell, or not :(
There is a distinct possibility that the drones didn't exist in the first place. So the UK has demonstrated that its easy to shut down a major airport by claiming to have seen something at exactly no personal risk
 
Messages
16,703
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
There is a distinct possibility that the drones didn't exist in the first place. So the UK has demonstrated that its easy to shut down a major airport by claiming to have seen something at exactly no personal risk
Amateur hour at its very best. I really do wonder how went an Empire, had the two power naval standard and became one of the richest countries in the world to, well, this.
 

Gremlin

William Wallace
Messages
14,133
Name
Ingrid
Edit My Images
No
There is a distinct possibility that the drones didn't exist in the first place. So the UK has demonstrated that its easy to shut down a major airport by claiming to have seen something at exactly no personal risk
But just suppose there had been a drone/s and an aircraft had hit it and crashed ?
Please don't say it couldn't happen, no one knows for certain what could happen just
because it hasn't so far
Can you imagine the uproar over loss of lives if it became known they had a prior warning ?

Difficult decision to make, but I personally think it was the right one, sad to say it will
no doubt happen again if someone feels it could have a big impact
 
Messages
1,620
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
I wonder if it was one of those episodes of hysteria where rumours spread and people start imagining/misinterpreting things. There might have been one or two “innocent” drones and that sparked the whole thing off. We may never know but it is further evidence of the cowboys running the country — ministers who don’t know about Dover or Nats and Prods in Norn Iron and do on.
 
Messages
21,754
Edit My Images
Yes
Am a little surprised no-one has picked up from the article that Sussex police have said there is no film of the drone & that they were relying entirely on eye witnesses whom may have been mistaken.

In other words one of the busiest airports in the world may have been shut because someone thinks they saw something
They have 97 eyewitness accounts, including ATC staff who say the drone buzzed the tower and hovered outside the windows. There is video of a drone over gatwick taken on a phone.
Not sure whats going on, other than they've released a hobby flyer who thought he was safe to fly his 4 miles from Gatwick - probably didn't realise how foolish that was given the sensitivity in the area.
 
Messages
15,957
Name
Hugh
Edit My Images
No
But just suppose there had been a drone/s and an aircraft had hit it and crashed ?
Please don't say it couldn't happen, no one knows for certain what could happen just
because it hasn't so far
Can you imagine the uproar over loss of lives if it became known they had a prior warning ?

Difficult decision to make, but I personally think it was the right one, sad to say it will
no doubt happen again if someone feels it could have a big impact
I didn't say it couldn't happen. Simply paraphrased the police today. It looks like amateur hour.

They have 97 eyewitness accounts, including ATC staff who say the drone buzzed the tower and hovered outside the windows. There is video of a drone over gatwick taken on a phone.
Not sure whats going on, other than they've released a hobby flyer who thought he was safe to fly his 4 miles from Gatwick - probably didn't realise how foolish that was given the sensitivity in the area.
Yet of those 97 accounts there is no video and the police say they cannot discount the possibility there was no drone.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,652
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
Interesting how people interpret matters:

(1) The Police have stated ' They can not rule out the possibility there was no drone' , which to me is sensible statement whilst they are still investigating the matter and the Police spokesman went on to say that until they had spoken to the eye witnesses they wouldn't know. Speaking to 100 eye witnesses (taking written statements from) takes a huge amount of time TBH.

(2) Your Doctor will never speculate on anything until all tests have been carried out.

One is seen as 'amateur hour' whilst the other approach is professional?

I watched the news last night where it was said the Police had recovered a damaged drone from the airport perimeter?
 
Last edited:

Tori_T

Staff member
Messages
7,107
Edit My Images
Yes
There was no reports of drones hitting anything...
I wonder if the recovered drone is one someone fly-tipped to make room for a Christmas replacement?
 
Messages
15,957
Name
Hugh
Edit My Images
No
Interesting how people interpret matters:

(1) The Police have stated ' They can not rule out the possibility there was no drone' , which to me is sensible statement whilst they are still investigating the matter and the Police spokesman went on to say that until they had spoken to the eye witnesses they wouldn't know. Speaking to 100 eye witnesses (taking written statements from) takes a huge amount of time TBH.

(2) Your Doctor will never speculate on anything until all tests have been carried out.

One is seen as 'amateur hour' whilst the other approach is professional?

I watched the news last night where it was said the Police had recovered a damaged drone from the airport perimeter?

1) For the police to state that, at this stage, they must be reasonably sure that there was no drone. After all they have no video (they've said as much) and no real evidence.

2) Your Dr certainly will. And will treat according to that assumption whilst they are waiting for test results. For them not to do so would be irresponsible in some cases and may drastically alter their patient's chances of survival.

So yes 'amateur hour.
 
Messages
980
Edit My Images
Yes
One thing I want to know is,

Could a drone really bring a passenger plane down ? Why are they not falling out of the sky daily with birds ?

I would say a larger crow or similar would cause just as much, if not more damage as a drone,

ok maybe some of the larger pro drones might cause some damage but I’m guessing if you want to do this sort of thing, unlikely your going to do it with a £12k drone when a £800 would cause the same effect ?

My Mavic will fall out of the sky if it hits a 3mm twig on a small tree, yet I’m led to believe the same drone can destroy millions of pounds worth of plane ???
 
Messages
15,957
Name
Hugh
Edit My Images
No
Could a drone really bring a passenger plane down ? Why are they not falling out of the sky daily with birds ?
I think there's two potential issues. If a drone struck a turbine or the cockpit windows. The battery from a drone is much denser then say a bird, even if the overall weight is the same. The commercial plane that was hit in Canada last year only suffered light damage to a wing
 
Last edited:
Messages
980
Edit My Images
Yes
I think there's two potential issues. If a drone struck a turbine or the cockpit windows. The battery from a drone is much denser then say a bird, even if the overall weight is the same. The commercial plane that was hit in Canada last year only suffered light damage to a wing
Yeah I understand the theory but are these passenger planes with 100’s of lives on them really that delicate ?
 
Messages
21,754
Edit My Images
Yes
Yet of those 97 accounts there is no video and the police say they cannot discount the possibility there was no drone.
yet there is video
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bat1fuyWRLA


There's also two witness accounts from the ATC tower that said a drone flew close and hovered, and provided enough detail that they were able to identify the make and model.

I think whoever did this realised it was time to pack up for now.
 
Messages
5,703
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
I’m in the 3%. A lot of the research is state funded and there’s a reason governments want to spook us into believing this guff - so they can tax us and curtail our freedoms.

Hell, I don’t even buy the figures they use to measure the temperatures. I mean just how accurate was a thermometer 100 years ago and just how trusted can the historical data be to be so sure it’s even getting hotter or indeed the sea level is getting higher. There’s no evidence that there is otherwise places like NYC, London would be flooding.

These so called experts said in the 70s London would be under water by now. It isn’t. That Al Gore fool said similar and has been spectacularly proven wrong as nothing’s sunk into the sea like he said it would. Thank God Bush won against him.

Now there’s plenty of evidence about pollution and the real harm to the planet - but I don’t believe the weather or climate would be one iota different with or without human co2 emissions.

A thermometer 100 years ago was pretty much Identical to ones made today certainly accurate within a 1/10 of a degree. Even 200 years ago they were already standardised. and extremely accurate.
The first crude thermometers were invented in 1593, while the first standardised thermometer was by Fahrenheit in 1724, followed by the universal Centigrade scale in 1742. ( the USA is one of the very few countries that still use the older Fahrenheit scale) The first quick reading clinical thermometer was invented in 1866.

Al Gore has been proved right. The sea levels are rising and land is becoming flooded.

The fools are the deniers.

If it were not for the Flood defences and the Thames tidal Barrier London would indeed have been flooded long ago.
 
Messages
15,957
Name
Hugh
Edit My Images
No
yet there is video
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bat1fuyWRLA


There's also two witness accounts from the ATC tower that said a drone flew close and hovered, and provided enough detail that they were able to identify the make and model.

I think whoever did this realised it was time to pack up for now.

No there isn't any video. The police have confirmed that is the case. Second paragraph in, and widely reported in other sources including the BBC article in this thread.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...igation-footage-couple-released-a8697306.html

They also commented about the eyewitnesses in the same article
 
Messages
395
Name
Geoff
Edit My Images
No
A little perspective about drones and aircraft! To the best of my knowledge no drone has ever been reported to be the primary factor in bringing an aircraft out of the sky, to date. So lets look at the facts...

"Bird strikes, as defined by the FAA, are collisions between a bird and an aircraft resulting in the death or injury to the bird, damage to the aircraft or both. Near-collisions with birds reported by pilots also are considered strikes."

According to the FAA’s National Wildlife Strike Database, there were 177,269 wildlife strike reports on civil aircraft between Jan. 1, 1990, and Dec. 31, 2015. For a more recent comparison, 13,162 strikes were reported for all of 2015, up from 9,540 in 2009—the year that the database was first released to the public. Birds accounted for 97%.
For a more global perspective, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) reports 65,139 bird strikes for 2011-14, with the U.S. accounting for the Top 10 airports for occurrences. An ICAO spokesman says the agency receives roughly 10,000 reports annually but expects that number to grow as its system is modernized for e-reporting.

Damage: Engines sustain the highest percentage of actual damage.
FAA statistics show that in 1990-2015, there were 16,636 reports of bird strikes on engines, in which 4,417—or 27% of the total—resulted in damage.

Please consider the quotes and expert knowledge of the inspectors and engineers listed. > Source: https://www.mro-network.com/maintenance-repair-overhaul/how-bird-strikes-impact-engines

Now for drones....

So far, 1 reported hit, that was so badly investigated. there is wild variance in the evidence to who was at fault and what actually happened. lets give the pilot the benefit of the doubt and say it was a drone, and it was breaking the law regarding its usage. The aircraft received limited and minor damage and made a perfectly safe and planned landing. No injuries.

The number of sightings by airline pilots has increased over the past-few years... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/19/drone-near-misses-triple-two-years/ a sensational headline. 92 reported 2017 from 71 in the previous year, So whats a near miss?
A near midair collision is defined as an incident associated with the operation of an aircraft in which a possibility of collision occurs as a result of proximity of less than 500 feet to another aircraft, also known as loss of separation.

Ok so how many 'loss of separations have there been'? From the same publication.... as above "A report in 2014 found that there were some 150 losses of separation in European airspace for every one million flights. In 2016 there were some 10.1 million flights." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/...miss-and-how-common-are-they-aviation-planes/

In summary....

Birdstrikes/Near-miss account for 10,000 reports annually.
Loss of separation between two or more aircraft 15,010 approx 2016
'Near miss of drone' approx 92 in 2017
Drones hitting an aircraft 1 (maybe)

Those god dam feather'd maniacs intent on killing flying humans! Time to petition your MP requesting the eradication of birds!
 
Last edited:
Messages
21,754
Edit My Images
Yes
No there isn't any video. The police have confirmed that is the case. Second paragraph in, and widely reported in other sources including the BBC article in this thread.
and yet for those saying why aren't there video's or photos, I'm reminded that a plane could crash into the Hudson River and the only footage we have is some poor quality CCTV. How many tourists are in NY at any one time yet nobody videoed it?
 

simon ess

Keeper of The List
Messages
7,343
Edit My Images
No
and yet for those saying why aren't there video's or photos, I'm reminded that a plane could crash into the Hudson River and the only footage we have is some poor quality CCTV. How many tourists are in NY at any one time yet nobody videoed it?
Nobody knew that was about to happen and it was over very quickly.

Everyone knew there were reports of drones in the area and it lasted for many hours.
 
Messages
980
Edit My Images
Yes
Nobody knew that was about to happen and it was over very quickly.

Everyone knew there were reports of drones in the area and it lasted for many hours.
Also tech from 2018 is substationally better than 2009, let’s be honest, nearly every man, women and child has an extremely good camera/camcorder in there hands 90% of there life.
 
Last edited:
Messages
395
Name
Geoff
Edit My Images
No
Messages
1,652
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
1) For the police to state that, at this stage, they must be reasonably sure that there was no drone. After all they have no video (they've said as much) and no real evidence.

2) Your Dr certainly will. And will treat according to that assumption whilst they are waiting for test results. For them not to do so would be irresponsible in some cases and may drastically alter their patient's chances of survival.

So yes 'amateur hour.
You have a very different doctor to me and anyone I know!

The Police are clearly not certain - hence they are saying they won't rule anything out which is a good open minded investigation.
 
Top