Just a few hours ago, Lufthansa 456, an Airbus A380 finishing an 11-hour flight, reported a drone flying just 200 feet above it as it was on approach to Los Angeles International Airport. The near-miss was reported to the LAPD, who immediately began a search.
As drones become more and more ubiquitous, stories of mishaps and misuse are becoming more frequent. In response, the FAA has required mandatory drone registration, while also mandating that drones be kept below 400 feet and more than five miles away from airports. Nonetheless, today, an Airbus 380 flying at 260 m.p.h. reported a drone flying just above it at an altitude of 5,000 feet. Flying about 14 miles east of the airport and on approach, the aircraft was in one of the most crucial stages of flight. The LAPD immediately launched a search for the drone's owner, but was not expectant of a positive result.
The A380 is the world's largest passenger plane, with a capacity of over 500 passengers in Lufthansa's configuration. While it's an incredibly hardy aircraft, a strike at low altitude over an urban center is nonetheless something to be avoided. As Senator Dianne Feinstein put it: "This is one more incident that could have brought down an airliner, and it's completely unacceptable. A near-miss of 200 feet should serve as a stark reminder of the dangers posed by reckless drone use."
I personally have no patience for such behavior. It's no secret that the airspace above Los Angeles is incredibly busy, and to knowingly fly a drone high into that airspace is to willingly endanger lives. Some of history's most infamous air disasters have been caused by collisions over urban centers (PSA 182, Aeromexico 498). Drones are essentially invisible to radar, and while they are not the size of the planes that brought down the aforementioned flights, they are still sizable enough to be a serious threat to the operation of an aircraft.
[via KABC]
It's doubtful if the object was stationary, or at least not traveling at similar speed, that the pilots would have had enough time to make any reliable identification on an object as small as a commercial drone - especially if it was above them. They have limited visibility above the aircraft. If you were traveling at 260mph, you would not be able to make out details on tree branches that are stationary.
Don't get overheated. I'm just saying don't take everything you read for the gospel truth. It's my position that as photographers, we need to protect what we do. The move is on to restrict Ariel photography unless the government can make money off of it. It's overreach. There are a lot of articles out demonizing drones. Don't believe everything you read.
http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/business/2015/07/15/commercial-use...
Here's a little advice for you - if you don't want to be told to not get overheated - then don't get overheated. My comment on this article was to not take if for gospel, as there are interests out there that seek to ban drones. I'm not calling the author a liar - just expressing caution. If you want to believe it, that's your prerogative. Personally I feel believing everything you read is a bad policy, but if you want to believe it be my guest. There are many people in this world who believe whatever they read, so you're not alone there. I gave you the link making the case for the move to ban drones. Take it or leave it - but regardless, there's a movement to do just that. If people continue to believe everything they read, then that movement just might be successful.
The very fact you thought this was a debate proves my point. I offered the link to support my position since you felt the need to make your comments. You not wanting to read it just proves you aren't interested in anything but arguing. Move on already.
No, we are not having a debate. You are arguing in the wind, as I have no interest in debating you. You really need to get a life. This is a photography forum - not the FOX news blog. Buy a camera, take some shots, and come back. Until then you'll be arguing with yourself.
I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I've always wondered why they weren't able to put some kind of screen in front of the engines to protect them from birds or idiots like this?? Seems like a pretty simple fix to me. My cat could knock my DJI 3 out of the air, but this thing could take down a passenger plane??? WTF?
A screen would inhibit airflow to the engine too much. Furthermore, it would pose a risk if something hit it and forced pieces of it into the engine.
These idtiots ! I hope LAPD find him and charge him for violating restricted airspace and having a non registered drone if he hasn't registered it. Its not a joke.