I wonder if they found the owner of the drone and what the consequences will be. The article didn't comment on either.
That's just funny. If only you made satirical YouTube videos.It's Canada. They'll probably just apologize for breaking the drone.
That's just funny. If only you made satirical YouTube videos.
But did the burrito make it the correct backyard, eh?
I'm with @Kritchlow and I'm anti drone. At least with birds we can predict how they'll react. No way to predict what a drone or it's remote controller will do.
It's Canada. They'll probably just apologize for breaking the drone.
But did the burrito make it the correct backyard, eh?
Not in my experience!I'm with @Kritchlow At least with birds we can predict how they'll react.
If you can find a decent burrito in Canada let me know. Please!!!
Well, surely by now they've tracked down the drone pilot from the drone's registration number and arrested the guy.
Right?
I dunno but don't call me Shirley!
Oh, sorry! We promised to confine that to PM, didn't we?
As long as the drone doesn't get sucked into a turbine or break the wind screen?Minor damage?
So does this mean all the drone hype was over blown....nahhh lol
It's on the Web site of the Canadian transport minister. Doesn't look fake to me.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
I dunno but don't call me Shirley!
Reactive. Feel better now that spell checker didn't take over, or have you never made a typo?Retroactive...LMAO!
There's no doubt that unless we do something soon, drones will replace green LASERs as the leading cause of airplane crashes.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.
You ever get hit with a laser? It's not pleasant.There's no doubt that unless we do something soon, drones will replace green LASERs as the leading cause of airplane crashes.
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.You ever get hit with a laser? It's not pleasant.
Are you saying that we have to wait until the sky is falling before action is justified?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.
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.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.
As long as the drone doesn't get sucked into a turbine or break the wind screen?
I think this would be more akin to putting someone else's eye out (which has actually happened with a consumer drone).That's the aviation equal to "you're going to put your eye out with that thing"
I think this would be more akin to putting someone else's eye out (which has actually happened with a consumer drone).
Drone collides with plane.
vs
Plane collides with drone.
I'm with @Kritchlow and I'm anti drone. At least with birds we can predict how they'll react. No way to predict what a drone or it's remote controller will do.
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
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?
I think birds refer to it as a "cheep, cheep, cheep, cheep."I wonder if birds refer to it as an aircraft-strike.