← Back to Squawk list

13

Airliner's near miss with drone injures two crew members

送信時刻：4 年前

The threat of drone collisions near airports isn't just scary -- it can lead to very real injuries, even if there's no accident. Canada's Transportation Safety Board is investigating an incident where a Porter Airlines flight bound for Toronto took evasive maneuvers in an attempt to avoid a reported drone, injuring two crew members. The exact circumstances (including the nature of the injuries) isn't clear, but it took place near Billy Bishop Airport, an island hub right near… (www.engadget.com) さらに...

Torsten Hoff

32 人のメンバーからのコメント

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

davidlapworth 4 年前 4

So the pilots thought it was a balloon 9000 ft up 20 odd km from shore 55 km from Toronto, suddenly it's a drone and "it took place near Billy Bishop Airport, an island hub right near Toronto's downtown core". The media should really learn to stop speculating and wait for the official report to come out, or perhaps they should just stop inventing stories that they know will stir up outrage and attract visits to their websites through clickbait like this.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Bernie20910 4 年前 3

Can't sell advertising space if you don't have enough readers, and you can't get as many readers with The Truth as you can with speculation and fabrication.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Leighton Elliott 4 年前 1

Later reports confirm it was a bird anyways.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

sparkie624 4 年前 7

I don't buy this... A drone at 9000 feet... You would not see it from the ground to even control it. I have flown these as well as other RC. I think this is a case of Pilot thinking he saw something and he may have, but I doubt that it was a Drone.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Chuck Chall 4 年前 1

The first report I saw said 9000 ft and 30 miles offshore. Not much to see out there for a drone operator.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Iain Robertson 4 年前 2

Statistic probability dictates a fatal incident involving a drone and an aircraft is inevitable. Where and when this will happen, nobody knows.. Our collective past behaviour indicates that when the collision occurs, sweeping legislation will be enacted in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of a re-occurrence.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Chuck Chall 4 年前 1

Since there have been far more reports of alien space ships seen than drones, I can only assume you believe a fatal incident will soon occur there too.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Robert Gomez 4 年前 3

Sounds a bit drastic, what type of uav at 9000?

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

matt jensen 4 年前 -6

Has to be military

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Torsten Hoff 4 年前 2

I don't see the military doing something this irresponsible, most likely this was some guy trying to see how high he can go -- people routinely exceed the 400 feet permitted in the USA for instance.

As far as how high hobby drones can go, here is a video of someone taking a DJI Phantom 4 to 12,467 feet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7_PN4gum1A

While FAA regulations require non-commercial users to maintain line of sight and visual contact, people routinely ignore these requirements. I don't know the regulations in Canada, but I doubt the hobbyists there are any more compliant than those in the USA.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

RECOR10 4 年前 2

I love the fact that seemingly it is okay to attach an iPhone to a helium balloon and send it to the stratosphere...but we cant fly our little whirly-birds around at will?

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

JMARTINSON 4 年前 1

Not that it changes your basic point much, but that video is not what it claims to be. Apparently the uploader swiped footage shot from a modified Phantom II reaching 4950 feet a couple years ago. Still too high obviously, but it puts 9000 and certainly 12,500 into question (especially where off the shelf equipment is concerned).

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

RECOR10 4 年前 -1

My bet...Will Smith and that dude from Jurassic Park were out for a test flight - trying to leave the US post haste due to election results.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

matt jensen 4 年前 1

http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/database/index.php?pageid=event_desc&edis_id=VIV-20161115-55921-CAN

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Alan Brown 4 年前 1

I wonder when reporters and the FAA will start calling these near collisions rather than near misses. To most people, a near miss is a hit by definition.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Er.A.K. Mittal 4 年前 -8

The menace of drone flying has all the ingredients of clear and present danger coupled with shock and awe elements .
High time FAA as well as ICAO take steps "ruthlessly" to implement strictest regulation of drone operations all over the world.
It deserves handling in a manner akin to terror control !

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Allan Main 4 年前 4

FAA recent risk analysis using a standard 3 llb consumer drone estimated one fatal incident every 1300 years. Also for the uneducated. To get a drone to 3000 meters will take 17 minutes at full power to attain that altitude. Oddly they do not come down as fast as they go up as they don't glide so you need to drive them down. So assume 20 minutes at the very least to descend. 37 minutes of flight time. Sadly very few drones can handle that duration so they turn into gliding pianos well before reaching the ground again. The cash invested to get a drone to do what would be needed to achieve that flight is likely close to 6000 dollars or more. Are you getting my drift?? Its all hysteria and hypocrisy from people who know nothing about what they let fall from loose lips. BS in other words.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Er.A.K. Mittal 4 年前 0

Dear friend Allan Main , going by ur words of wisdom, the report about Porter Airlines flight having experienced a "near miss" incident is pure figment of imagination and BS simpliciter ?
And the proposed investigation by Canada's Transportation Safety Board is going to be a criminal waste of money of honest tax payers of Canada ? And the "experts" engaged by Canada's Transportation Safety Board are all fake and / or shammers ?
I'm not sure what experts like U really mean ?

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Allan Main 4 年前 3

Mr Mittal, Im not picking a fight or even an argument. I am a licensed pilot and fly both multi-rotor and fixed wing drones for SAR and public services such as fire fighters and police. The words quoted originally are "pilots thought it was a balloon 9000 ft up 20 odd km from shore 55 km from Toronto" What I am trying to get across is if those are the facts as stated by the flight crew then this was NO CIVILIAN DRONE.... Those numbers are impossible to achieve for the casual Sunday hobby flyer. Are they achievable?? Yes but not with your $1000 dollar toy. A drone capable of those numbers is a multi thousand dollar investment and not flown by kids or hobby types. I was talking with a 777 captain a few days ago and he told me that on approach to any airport he seriously doubts you could even see a drone go past. These guys are head down in the office at 200 plus knots with a very high intensity work load. A 19 inch white plastic toy drone, like birds, is basically impossible to see.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Er.A.K. Mittal 4 年前 0

In short, dear friend Allan Main , in place of commenting rudderlessly let us wait for the Canada's Transportation Safety Board to justify the grants they receive !
Regards

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

linbb 4 年前 0

Take it easy fellow its the USA not the USSR so take your vengeance out on some other country.

Outlandish statements like yours are a real and present problem it shows radical intent.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

RECOR10 4 年前 6

There will never be any crisis too small to panic over....

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Wolfgang Prigge 4 年前 5

For your information linbb, Toronto is in Canada.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Er.A.K. Mittal 4 年前 3

Dear friend linbb , I wonder which part of my 'suggestion' is outlandish ? And where do I restrict my words to USA ?
FAA is a recognised world leader in context of flight safety and has more resources and freedom wrt ICAO.
Already FAA is rendering assistance to many jurisdictions (countries) in matters related to aviation.
And "vengeance" ? How could U perceive it ? Like a black cat in a dark room which is not there !
Popularity and technical development of drones is on the rise so must be their regulation !
Has regulation of general aviation remained same over last 10 or 50 or 80 years ? A big no .
So why not for drones ?
Being a student of engineering and management I strongly believe in foresight and planning ! irrespective of field / area of application.
Regards

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

[This poster has been suspended.]

Highflyer1950 4 年前 -3

Yup, and I for one one, would like to see an offshoot of flight aware with a secure sign on allowing commentary for pilots with at least a PPL. Not wanting to exclude non aviation rated enthusiasts, but that's the main source of the drivel!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

[This poster has been suspended.]

Highflyer1950 4 年前 1

The trouble is that usually the answer to most questions are not simple but generally more complicated and it is almost impossible to convey in print in rational lay terms the knowledge most professionals have accumulated over Four decades and thousands of hours. You wouldn't find doctor's, lawyer's etc. trying to explain their occupation in a few paragraphs to other individuals simply because they might show some interest. By having credentials to access certain sites allows for intelligent conversations and keep out the worthless rhetoric!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

RECOR10 4 年前 6

Or, you get the same people who are dogmatic in the same views and taught the same things (rules, regulations and otherwise) just patting each other on the collective backs...If I wanted that I could join a church or a cult. Sometimes getting the opinion of a "non-expert" can shine a whole new light on things (Ochams razor)

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Bernie20910 4 年前 5

If you lack the writing skills to sum up your profession in "a few paragraphs", then how do you ever hope to have "intelligent conversations" in your private area?

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Chuck Chall 4 年前 5

Einstein once said that if "you can't explain it to a 6 year old, you don't truly understand it yourself". I totally agree with you, Bernie.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

JMARTINSON 4 年前 2

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

http://forums.propilotworld.com

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

[This poster has been suspended.]

JMARTINSON 4 年前 3

I agree with you. Highflyer50 was looking for a more exclusive and intelligent group without all the drivel and rhetoric... so I found him one.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

[This poster has been suspended.]

JMARTINSON 4 年前 3

Wilbur, I just want everyone to be happy.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

ログイン

当ウェブサイトはクッキーを使用します。当ウェブサイトを使用し、サイト内を移動することで、あなたはこれに同意したこととみなされます。

閉じる

FlightAwareのフライト追跡は広告によりサポートされていることをご存知ですか？

広告表示を許可してくださることでFlightAware.comを無料で提供することができます。表示される広告は関連性の高い控えめなものを選んでいます。FlightAwareをホワイトリストに追加する方法はかんたんに設定していただくことができます。または、プレミアムアカウントのご利用をご検討ください.

閉じる