Plane collides with drone in Canada....

I wonder if they found the owner of the drone and what the consequences will be. The article didn't comment on either.
 
Many here will disagree, but it's only a matter of time before there's a big newsworthy event concerning drones.

The same folks here want nothing done because there has yet to be a tragedy, yet will blame the FAA afterwards for being retroactive instead of proactive.
I'm not a huge FAA guy, but a little slack on this one is warranted imo.
 
deonb said:
It's Canada. They'll probably just apologize for breaking the drone.
Click to expand...

Or set up a government subsidy for Bombardier to develop airliner proof drones.
 
Minor damage?

So does this mean all the drone hype was over blown....nahhh lol
 
Well, surely by now they've tracked down the drone pilot from the drone's registration number and arrested the guy.

Right?
 
seems to me a fake article really, no sources, no pictures, ya looks fishy, BUT over at our local field where my buddies and i fly rc planes, few noobs and their drones keep going above 1000feet over the freeways adn such, we keep informing them they need to stay below 400 but to no avail...they seem to be messing up this hobby for the rest ofus adn one day i wot be surprised if they run right into a chopper
 
glideher said:
seems to me a fake article really, no sources, no pictures, ya looks fishy, BUT over at our local field where my buddies and i fly rc planes, few noobs and their drones keep going above 1000feet over the freeways adn such, we keep informing them they need to stay below 400 but to no avail...they seem to be messing up this hobby for the rest ofus adn one day i wot be surprised if they run right into a chopper
Click to expand...
It's on the Web site of the Canadian transport minister. Doesn't look fake to me.

https://mgarneau.liberal.ca/en/news-nouvelles/drone-hit-commercial-plane-approaching-quebec-city/
 
Kritchlow said:
Many here will disagree, but it's only a matter of time before there's a big newsworthy event concerning drones.

The same folks here want nothing done because there has yet to be a tragedy, yet will blame the FAA afterwards for being retroactive instead of proactive.
I'm not a huge FAA guy, but a little slack on this one is warranted imo.
Click to expand...
There's no doubt that unless we do something soon, drones will replace green LASERs as the leading cause of airplane crashes.
 
Lindberg said:
There's no doubt that unless we do something soon, drones will replace green LASERs as the leading cause of airplane crashes.
Click to expand...
You ever get hit with a laser? It's not pleasant.
 
Drone collides with plane.
vs
Plane collides with drone.
 
Kritchlow said:
You ever get hit with a laser? It's not pleasant.
Click to expand...
I haven't, have you? What about a drone? While I can't really comment on exactly what it's like to be "hit" with a laser, I have had other unpleasant things happen to me. Regardless, the empirical evidence is that the sky still is not falling.
 
Lindberg said:
I haven't, have you? What about a drone? While I can't really comment on exactly what it's like to be "hit" with a laser, I have had other unpleasant things happen to me. Regardless, the empirical evidence is that the sky still is not falling.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that we have to wait until the sky is falling before action is justified?
 
Lindberg said:
I haven't, have you? What about a drone? While I can't really comment on exactly what it's like to be "hit" with a laser, I have had other unpleasant things happen to me. Regardless, the empirical evidence is that the sky still is not falling.
Click to expand...
Nobody said the sky is falling. My point is that I believe something should be proactively done before there is a major incident, and yes it's only a matter of time.

Yes, I've been hit with a laser. No permenant eye damage and the airplane landed just fine. There was some temporary vision loss (not blindness) in my right eye. It could have been much worse I suppose.
 
Palmpilot said:
As long as the drone doesn't get sucked into a turbine or break the wind screen? :dunno:
Click to expand...

That's the aviation equal to "you're going to put your eye out with that thing"
 
James331 said:
That's the aviation equal to "you're going to put your eye out with that thing"
Click to expand...
I think this would be more akin to putting someone else's eye out (which has actually happened with a consumer drone).
 
Palmpilot said:
I think this would be more akin to putting someone else's eye out (which has actually happened with a consumer drone).
Click to expand...

Sounds like it's just fun you can't see
 
tinerj said:
Drone collides with plane.
vs
Plane collides with drone.
Click to expand...


What is the news reporting standard on this;
(hits=crashes into=other verbs)
-the airplane that 'survives' the encounter did the 'hitting'?
-the bigger airplane always 'hits' the smaller plane (the hittee)?
-the one with the fastest max cruise is always the 'hitter'?
-airlines can never be hitters, this role must always fall to the inferior, GA airplane?
-the one with damage to the radome is automatically the hitter?
-in a 90° (or less) collision, they note which one's nose was further ahead; this is your 'hitter'
Pretty important, as the hitter is automatically seen as the guilty party. Surely there is an accepted practice?
 
glideher said:
seems to me a fake article really, no sources, no pictures, ya looks fishy, BUT over at our local field where my buddies and i fly rc planes, few noobs and their drones keep going above 1000feet over the freeways adn such, we keep informing them they need to stay below 400 but to no avail...they seem to be messing up this hobby for the rest ofus adn one day i wot be surprised if they run right into a chopper
Click to expand...

If they use common sense, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to fly above 400 ft safely. I've got several EDF jets and I routinely go above 400 ft for short durations.

We have collisions and close calls because drone drivers intentionally go high to get close to manned aircraft. Couple years back I flew past a quadcopter at around 530 ft AGL. There's no way that guy on the ground didn't hear a Bell 407 coming from miles away. Instead of landing or at least getting lower, he sat there and went out our door maybe 50-75ft away. Those are the type of morons that ruin the hobby for us.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
What is the news reporting standard on this;
(hits=crashes into=other verbs)
-the airplane that 'survives' the encounter did the 'hitting'?
-the bigger airplane always 'hits' the smaller plane (the hittee)?
-the one with the fastest max cruise is always the 'hitter'?
-airlines can never be hitters, this role must always fall to the inferior, GA airplane?
-the one with damage to the radome is automatically the hitter?
-in a 90° (or less) collision, they note which one's nose was further ahead; this is your 'hitter'
Pretty important, as the hitter is automatically seen as the guilty party. Surely there is an accepted practice?
Click to expand...

I wonder if birds refer to it as an aircraft-strike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top