Hey DJI so I go over and look at this stupid article where there claim to be a "DJI" drone with a picture of the inspire 1 if the stupid reporters look at DJI and how you can't fly bread air ports ffs I give up lol

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/flying-drone-put-130-lives-at-risk-after-near-miss-with-plane-at-gatwick-airport-pilot-says-a3659001.html

Picture caption says "A separate drone flying in Hanworth Park in west London." - did the newspaper really go out and photo their own Inspire flying just 2 miles from the Heathrow runway while an aeroplane was landing?

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-10-15 08:25
Picture caption says "A separate drone flying in Hanworth Park in west London." - did the newspaper really go out and photo their own Inspire flying just 2 miles from the Heathrow runway while an aeroplane was landing?

No, they used Photoshop like every creator of 'fake news'.

This is the same (probably) photoshopped picture that the "Evening Standard" use in several articles covering "the dangers and the menace of drones". See also their article on "London Assembly explores plan for parcel delivery drones in London" 5 days earlier. Doesn' show DJI in a very good light, maybe they should complain.

Ignore it - they obviously have no real news

I call BS on the photo and the article, which seem to have nothing to do with each other.   Airbus would have moving 77 meters a second.  A drone in a horizontal position to the pilots orientation would have a very low profile.  Even a drone with a diameter of 1 meter would be next to impossible to identify with a profile of 10 to 20 cm. at 77 m per second.   Geese !

JW5255 Posted at 2017-10-15 09:50
I call BS on the photo and the article, which seem to have nothing to do with each other.   Airbus would have moving 77 meters a second.  A drone in a horizontal position to the pilots orientation would have a very low profile.  Even a drone with a diameter of 1 meter would be next to impossible to identify with a profile of 10 to 20 cm. at 77 m per second.   Geese !

Perfect reply!

One of the other reports is interesting.  One of those pesky manned aircraft pilots intruding into our airspace and making unexpected manoeuvres in the belief that he owned the airspace and then reporting the drone!  Even worse he was an instructor who should have been teaching his student how to fly safely!

"
The PA28 Instructor reports demonstrating a right-hand level turn when the student saw a predominantly white quadcopter below them in the 7 o’clock position. The instructor rolled out of the turn, climbed and flew to a new area for general handling whilst informing Southend Radar of the Airprox. The instructor noted that the drone was close enough that they could clearly see black stripes on the side of its body and that no relevant NOTAMs were observed before or after flight.
  
Reported Separation: 200ft V/5m H
Location: East Hanningfield
Altitude: 1800ft

Cause: The drone was entitled to operate at that location and altitude albeit at the limit of VLOS, and was not endangering other aircraft by being flown in proximity to airfield approach paths. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as a conflict in Class G.
  
Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s estimate of vertical separation, allied to his overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

Reported Risk of Collision: Medium
"

JW5255 Posted at 2017-10-15 09:50
I call BS on the photo and the article, which seem to have nothing to do with each other.   Airbus would have moving 77 meters a second.  A drone in a horizontal position to the pilots orientation would have a very low profile.  Even a drone with a diameter of 1 meter would be next to impossible to identify with a profile of 10 to 20 cm. at 77 m per second.   Geese !

Of course the photo isn't from the incident reported.  It's a standard file photo like all these reports get.
Claiming BS because they use a stock file photo is nonsense.
Just like your claim that the pilots couldn't possibly see/identify the drone because they were travelling at 280-300 km/hr.
The object might have been a drone or it might not but your assertion is nonsense.

We recently had a local story about a drone flying near a playground "with voice capability ""asking young children to come with it"".  I would have to believe the voice would have to be very very loud to be clearly understood over noise of the drone.  

Labroides Posted at 2017-10-15 16:53
Of course the photo isn't from the incident reported.  It's a standard file photo like all these reports get.
Claiming BS because they use a stock file photo is nonsense.
Just like your claim that the pilots couldn't possibly see/identify the drone because they were travelling at 280-300 km/hr.

In Canada, the Minister of Transport has proven himself to be hostile towards the use of drones on several occasions, including in the content of a press release this weekend with regards to a collision between a drone and an aircraft near Quebec City.  I for one, am very tired and concerned about the negative press that drones are getting, especially unsubstantiated and sketchy reports.  I have been approached by members of the general public and verbally attacked for flying my drone, although I was following the rules set by Transport as well as flying in the safest possible manner with no threat to persons or property.  These attacks were encouraged by the bad press from the minister, along with the general bad press drones are getting world wide.  I have flown many different aircraft since the age of 14, and have on occasion had to circumnavigate clumps of party balloons and worked my way down through flocks of geese in the spring and fall.  Seeing something going by the cockpit of the aircraft at altitude and on approach is not uncommon, and more often is a bird, typically, geese or gulls.  Nonsense?  No ! The press should be more responsible and not represent facts with "stock photos"and  "sketchy incident reports" that mislead the public.  Based on my experience, travelling at 77 meters a second, a pilot at best would have 2 seconds to see and identify any object of high contrast, much less time for an object of low contrast (e.g. a white P4P).  Again, Nonsense?  No!

JW5255 Posted at 2017-10-16 03:02
In Canada, the Minister of Transport has proven himself to be hostile towards the use of drones on several occasions, including in the content of a press release this weekend with regards to a collision between a drone and an aircraft near Quebec City.  I for one, am very tired and concerned about the negative press that drones are getting, especially unsubstantiated and sketchy reports.  I have been approached by members of the general public and verbally attacked for flying my drone, although I was following the rules set by Transport as well as flying in the safest possible manner with no threat to persons or property.  These attacks were encouraged by the bad press from the minister, along with the general bad press drones are getting world wide.  I have flown many different aircraft since the age of 14, and have on occasion had to circumnavigate clumps of party balloons and worked my way down through flocks of geese in the spring and fall.  Seeing something going by the cockpit of the aircraft at altitude and on approach is not uncommon, and more often is a bird, typically, geese or gulls.  Nonsense?  No !  The press should be more responsible and not represent facts with "stock photos"and  "sketchy incident reports" that mislead the public.  Based on my experience, travelling at 77 meters a second, a pilot at best would have 2 seconds to see and identify any object of high contrast, much less time for an object of low contrast (e.g. a white P4P).  Again, Nonsense?  No!

I don't dispute what you say about the quality (or lack)of journalism shown in the reporting of this alleged incident.  See my posts on this thread:  https://forum.dji.com/forum.php? ... 97377&fromuid=10818
And it seems that I also agree with you on your opinion of
what the Transport Minister is doing.
But since newspapers aren't ever going to be there to somehow catch a photo of the drone (or whatever it was) going past the plane, I think it's no big deal that they use a file pic of a drone so that their readers understand what's being discussed.  That's what they do for anything else so why should drones get special treatment?

And I understand that the majority of alleged drone/plane interactions reported in databases in many countries are anything but drones ...
But travelling at that speed pilots could easily get a good enough view of an object to identify it (depending on direction, distance and lighting).  I don't believe you can make a blanket declaration that it's impossible simply on the basis of that speed.

Part of the problem appears to be that pilots have been asked to report all drones and so they report a drone whenever they see anything, as in this report from the last set:

"The B737 pilot reports that he was under Radar vectors downwind for RW26L heading 070° in between showers and cumulus clouds. He observed a black object approximately ½-1nm in the 9 o'clock position level as he passed 6000ft in the descent. It was a black object that appeared tall and flat twisting around the vertical axis. Although it seemed likely a balloon in terms of shape and movement, it was up at 6000ft and thus as there was a chance of it being a drone he reported it to Gatwick Director. "

Then there are reports that make no sense:

"The A320 pilot reports abeam Hyde Park on approach to RW27R at Heathrow when a small ‘orangey/bronze’ drone was observed to pass down the right side of the aircraft, slightly above. It appeared to be maintaining altitude and position and not drifting as a balloon would.
  
Reported Separation: 100ft V/100m H
Reported Altitude: 3000ft"

Traveling at 150mph a small object passes 100m away and in the 2 seconds it is visible you can tell it is maintaining position and "not drifting as a balloon would ?

And how do you identify a drone specifically as a shiny black quadcopter glinting in the sunlight when it is 1 nautical mile away at the same level as yourself?  I can't see my drone even as a black dot at 1nm distance and side on at the same level I can't tell it is a quadcopter at 10m!

"The A320 pilot reports that during final descent, just inside 2nm from RW26L at Gatwick, a shiny hovering object was seen about 1nm south of the approach and passed down the port side at a similar level.  It was a Quadcopter and appeared to be black and shiny; it was glinting in the sunlight.
  
Reported Separation: 0ft V/1nm H
Reported Risk of Collision: None
Reported Altitude: 650ft
"

And then there are the pilots who go drone hunting:

"The Firefly pilot reports he was levelling from a descent to remain outside CAS when he spotted a small white cross-shaped object on his left and slightly below. It appeared to be stationary. Suspecting it was a drone he commenced an orbit to identify it, whereupon it descended sharply and tracked southeast.  He kept the drone in sight for about a minute before losing sight of it.  A second white object was seen heading in the same direction, which he believed was another drone, but because this one was further away it wasn’t possibly to make a positive ID.

Reported Separation: 200ft V/150m H
Reported Altitude: 1500ft

Cause: The Board agreed that although the drone was being flown near the practical VLOS limit, it was entitled to be there and that the incident was best described as a conflict in Class G.
"

Pilots have always been seeing strange objects during flight, and we always will.  Back before drones, we "knew" they were UFOs/aliens and you just kept your mouth shut about it.  Or at most you'd ask ATC if they had any traffic.  After you landed, you'd be dying to tell someone about what you saw but you couldn't.  Now that drones are out there, it's much more convenient to simply say that you saw a drone.  This way you don't get hauled into the doc's office for a nice chat.

So much bad press about drones, much of it unwarranted. But if we are to change the public's perception of drones then we must , somehow, provide an alternative culture. Try and show how much good these little craft can do and are doing. Any suggestions anyone? A good news website for drones, more local engagement with the press and or authorities, more of us being publicly outspoken about what we are acheiving?

where did they claim it was a DJI drone? DJI was only named in a comment... In any case it's  just another example of the UK trash press..

JW5255 Posted at 2017-10-15 09:50
I call BS on the photo and the article, which seem to have nothing to do with each other.   Airbus would have moving 77 meters a second.  A drone in a horizontal position to the pilots orientation would have a very low profile.  Even a drone with a diameter of 1 meter would be next to impossible to identify with a profile of 10 to 20 cm. at 77 m per second.   Geese !

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/dro ... c-garneau-1.3633035

Drone hits aircraft in Quebec...

Hey Hallmark, that one was listed in another thread:   Drone hits Airliner near Quebec

Steve Slechta Posted at 2017-10-16 07:39
Hey Hallmark, that one was listed in another thread:   Drone hits Airliner near Quebec

Searching the news, I could find only one article that was not the Marc Garneau Transport press release.  The plane was a small turbo-prop commuter aircraft (10-15 people max load) on a flight from Noranda to Quebec City.  A photo of the aircraft shows the "minor" damage on the wing leading edge behind the engine one looks to me like paint removed by prop wash.  In the photo you can actually see where the paint had been replaced by the aircraft techs sometime in the past, so this paint erosion appears to be an ongoing issue.  What is with Transport and their dramatic press release?

JW5255 Posted at 2017-10-16 16:51
Searching the news, I could find only one article that was not the Marc Garneau Transport press release.  The plane was a small turbo-prop commuter aircraft (10-15 people max load) on a flight from Noranda to Quebec City.  A photo of the aircraft shows the "minor" damage on the wing leading edge behind the engine one looks to me like paint removed by prop wash.  In the photo you can actually see where the paint had been replaced by the aircraft techs sometime in the past, so this paint erosion appears to be an ongoing issue.  What is with Transport and their dramatic press release?

Any link to that report?

Labroides Posted at 2017-10-16 17:29
Any link to that report?

The article to which I refer was from a french TV station in Quebec, before  Garneau's version of the incident saturated the news reports. I will give the URL as soon as I find it again.