This past Sunday, there was a report out of the United Kingdom from police that a British Airways aircraft collided with what was believed to be a drone. After investigations were initiated, the believed drone actually may have been a plastic bag.
It is being reported that the collision happened an altitude of 1,700 ft, which is slightly over four times the legal limit of unmanned aerial vehicles in the United Kingdom. The transport minister, Robert Goodwill, has informed the public that they have not concluded whether it was a controlled device.
Goodwill went on to say:
The reported drone strike on Sunday has not confirmed it was actually a drone. It was the local police force that tweeted that they had a report of a drone striking an aircraft. And indeed, the early reports of a dent in the front of the plane were not confirmed. There was no actual damage to the plane, and there's indeed some speculation that it may have even been a plastic bag or something.
There has been an ongoing debate and controversy both here in the States and across the pond about drone laws going forward. The Transport Minister made a few comments regarding these issues:
There are already existing laws in place that require the user of drones to maintain direct, unaided visual contact with their vehicle and not to recklessly or negligently permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property. So, this instance that we've read about and was alleged was already breaking existing legislation, and the Department [of Transport] and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) are working with a wide range of industry partners across the sector, including manufacturers, airports, and airlines to ensure our understanding of potential hazards to aircrafts remains up-to-date.
If you are a drone owner and flyer, it is very important to review the rules and regulations in place to avoid issues with the FAA and to maintain safety. The CAA (UK) laws can be found here.
[via The Telegraph]
Ha ha, no surprises there! Perhaps you should go back and change your misleading "Drone Strikes Plane" headline above your previous article about this...
To be fair to Nick before this thing blows up and people give him crap, he reported what literally every major news network reported. The story of it possibly only being a bag only broke a few hours ago and he updated it here before a lot of the major outlets have even gotten to it. He's reporting the news as told by other credible news outlets not claiming that he personally saw a drone strike a plane. So don't be jerks and give him a hard time, he did his job 100% correctly.
As was pointed out in the comments under the first article, the headline "drone strikes plane" was premature as it hadn't been confirmed. It still hasn't been confirmed and so it is still misleading.
An issue I have with "internet reporting" is underscored in the comment by Taylor. Partly. Taking your reporting from someone else's reporting, re-tweeting, forwarding, etc. can cause inaccurate information to be further circulated and before long its true no matter what. I did not completely read Nick's original report but my point is not so much the specific article but the practice of reporting news as news from someone else, not going to the sources and doing original reporting. This is not intended to be an indictment of Nick or Stoppers but just a cautionary call.
I agree..he simply re-reported what was already out there.
Fact is, there are plenty of examples of idiots flying in dangerous ways everywhere. Just today I watched a video of 3 flyers over populated cities, very near airports where you can actually see the runway, over crowds etc. All the things that cause authorities concern.
The most shocking...some very well known people (internet/social media) are the culprits..Trey rat cliff...center of London, Neistat..pretty much everywhere and every dangerous situation you can imagine and the list goes on.
Just because this one incident turned out to be something else I would go talking it up as authorities overreacting. It's gonna happen some day soon.
Politicians will use the original headline to restrict drone use, and pretend like the correction never happened.
That's what's too bad about this. The public will only remember than a plane was almost taken down by a drone because that was exciting news and was everywhere (I said myself it should be posted on Fstoppers). The correction will only be seen by a fraction of the public.
If the original story was reported accurately, there'd be no such problem. The original Fstoppers headline "drone strikes plane" was irresponsible on behalf of "drone" operators (many of us being your target audience) and you're right, the damage can't be undone. The headline was also clearly misleading as was pointed out at the time.
Lee Morris, seeing as you're part of Fstoppers - why did you (Fstoppers) publish such a misleading and damaging headline?
I already wondered the whole time when they will find the debris of the drone (although that might be pretty difficult) if its a small one. But at least we have some new fears spread around drones.
question - from a non drone user.
Can these drones actually fly up to 1700 feet high?
cheers
Yes, but it is against most laws depending on countries.
People need to register their plastic bags so stuff like this doesnt happen again.
Thanks for the update, it was necessary.
It is a shame so many, including the media, politicians and commenters here, insist that it is just a matter of time before an incident like this occurs, and then use it as an excuse for more onerous and restrictive regulations. First of all, it isn't inevitable, it has been shown to be an extremely unlikely occurrence. Second, there are already tons of laws on the books to prevent this sort of thing from happening. The few knuckleheads who might have actually been doing dangerous things with drones have probably already crashed or lost them.... or soon will. The professionals and even hardcore hobbyists, treasure and value their equipment too much to put it or manned aircraft at risk in the first place. An occasional amateur idiot will never be stopped anyway. It's not as complicated as the media and the government agencies are making it out to be.
If it had been an actual drone there'd be visible damage. Anybody that's seen a drag car hit a foam timing block at 200+ MPH knows the damage those cause.