I'll defer to the language reference in your sig to not question how you got that from my statement.

from the conversation on this thread i believe people dont understand the severity of flying drones around planes. .

Which will do more damage to a plane a 2 lb drone or a 13lb goose? Do you think a plane hitting a drone, is a bigger risk then hitting a goose?

Im not saying that drones should be allowed around airports, of course not. But it seems closing an airport for more than a day cause a drone was spotted in the air, is way overblowing the situation.

when it was built in the 1920's that's all that was needed i'd surmise.

i think drone activity is a reflection of the direction society has taken, people not caring or just too stupid to understand the consequences of their actions. my plane has been hit by lasers probably a dozen times over the last 15 yrs. one night i took a good shot to my right eye, it was bothering me driving home. if it wouldn't have felt better in the morning i had planned on a trip to the emergency room. who here does not know that you shouldn't shine green lasers at people or animals?

15 or 20 years ago i don't think society, in general, would have ever thought of doing such things. when i grew up we TP'd our friends houses, if someone was a dick you might egg their car. but never anything that would cause bodily harm to anyone. yes, egging someones car is a dick thing to do, as a teenage boy i'm sure quite a few of us were dicks at one time or another. and, it was in retaliation to someone being a dick first. but i never wanted to harm anyone.

from the conversation on this thread i believe people dont understand the severity of flying drones around planes. and i consider us a group who are above average intelligence. (my grammar sucks though. i admit it.) try to get the message out to the masses, good luck.

regarding airports, in the states, when most big airports were built, a shit-load of time, money and consideration would go into how and where to build an airport. today...multiply that by 100x due to more legislation, restrictions, zoning requirement, environmental impact, etc.

i dont remember what military officer said it but someone thought the airplane would only be useful for hauling the mail. Gatwick was built in the 20's. airports were built away from cities and people because they didnt haul 'em, it was for mail then freight. the cities grew around the airports as the airplane evolved. as planes got bigger they needed longer runways. as air travel expanded we needed more runways. it's not as difficult to make a runway longer as it is to add one, or 3. generally. we have needed more runways at most major airport for years, there's just no place to put 'em.

the most recent major airport that has been built in the states is denver. (if memory serves me correct. open to correction on this.) as far as land, it's also the largest. before denver the largest airport was dallas/ft worth. denver is a great airport as far as the layout goes. but it is a long way from downtown and the general population. the more versatile the airport the more land you need, and it's an exponential increase to get more versatile. i.e. to have 2 parallel, 12'000 ft runways vs 12'000 ft intersecting runways. runway orientation is heavily based on prevailing winds but you also have to consider the plot of land that youre dealing with. if you look at the DFW airport, you have no true E-W runways, 1/3 of DIA's runways are E-W oriented.

most big airports fell behind in keeping up with urban growth. the land adjacent the airport became so densely populated before they realized they were going to need that land until they realized that they needed it. by then they were screwed.

if you made it this far, thanks. i find this industry fascinating.

i'd say i dont want drones around airports and if you ride on planes you shouldn't either. i think there should be a no fly zone that is a 3-5 mile radius, up to 3000-5000' high. if youre caught it's a federal offense, and hold people accountable.

is the drone a returning reoccurrence? i.e. showing up two or three times a day and hanging out? i honestly dont know the history on the gatwick drone. but if the same drone keeps showing up and hanging around then i think the probability of hitting it is greater than hitting a goose. if you have a target moving through the flight path vs one loitering in the flight path the one loitering is a greater threat.

re: hitting a drone vs goose, i dont want to hit either one. i'd rather take a 13lb goose through the radome than a 2 lbs drone through the engine. if i have to choose between a drone or goose through an engine, if they both shell the engine does it really matter? assuming you make it as equal as possible and sent 'em both through the core it's really a moot point, either will prob destroy the engine. i have an emergency either way.

Madduck wrote:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8042572/gatwick-airport-drones-arrests-latest/

two arrested in the drone caper.

DavHamm wrote:

Lets start with the fact there are no-fly zones and these people were already violating this space. In the US (cant recall UK ceiling) you have a 400 ft ceiling for drone flying, and you can't fly within 5 mile of an airport with approval of the airport, so your proposed zone is smaller than the current regulations

so theyre already breaking the law flying in a no-fly zone. do they know that? if they do thats even worse. if theyre so stupid to break the law theyre prob to stupid to realize the significance of what a drone can do to a plane. and do they know what/where airplanes wont be? at least an animal world, hopefully, the animal will have the wherewithal to move away from a plane. a drone hovering over a position has a very limited sight picture and very little situational awareness of what's next to them or behind them.




Never heard the drone was in the flight path, highly unlikely as they were going for visibility they wanted to be seen to stop the flights, if they were in the flight path they would be to far away to be seen.

your drone vs bird analogy is really stupid. there are so many directions to take this argument i cant cover them all. birds are transitioning, drones have been seen loitering. every drone event does not get reported by the news just like every laser event doesnt. i dont know how many times i've been given a drone alert flying out of LAX. plus, drones are more difficult to see. a stationary dot is much more difficult to pick out vs a moving target. ever wonder why lights on towers blink? easier to identify and determine if the target is actually moving or stationary.



Well History is not on your side, many planes have ingested birds into an engine and continued flying, most commercial planes can fly down an engine, bird strikes that take down a plane are when they fly into a flock of birds and lose more than one engine.

no shit sherlock, airplanes with more than one engine are all certified to fly if they lose one. it's bad enough looking for birds now you want to put more things out there for us to hit? again, birds are transitioning, generally in a straight line. i can prob 'guesstimate' where they are heading if i can see 'em, that way i can avoid them. a drone can change directions much quicker and not knowing their intent it's impossible to 'guesstimate' what their future path may be. on many occasions i have seen airport ops grind to a halt due to a coyote running in and around the vicinity of a runway. usually the more rural ones, i.e. lubbock, boise, little rock. i can guarantee you if a coyote was seen on the ground between either set of the parallel runways at LAX, that side of the airport would stop operations until that threat was removed. i guess you could say a coyote is the drone of the animal world on the airport/gound. they can stop, change directions quickly, be next to impossible to determine their next move.

I agree I don't want to hit either, but airports are not closed because a goose is seen in the area. If I were on the plane and someone said there was a drone flying around I would be like yeah ok, lets go whats the issue. Is there an increased risk, sure, but one outside what I would call operating norms no. Should the police do something to get the operator yes, but closing the airport cause you spot 1 drone in my opinion way over reacting. But its just my opinion.

so theyre already breaking the law flying in a no-fly zone. do they know that? if they do thats even worse. if theyre so stupid to break the law theyre prob to stupid to realize the significance of what a drone can do to a plane. and do they know what/where airplanes wont be? at least an animal world, hopefully, the animal will have the wherewithal to move away from a plane. a drone hovering over a position has a very limited sight picture and very little situational awareness of what's next to them or behind them.

i dont know how many times i've been given a drone alert flying out of LAX.

Madduck wrote:

i dont disagree that one drone here and there should shut down and airport, they dont, it is a fact of life today. reading some more stories it seemed that the drone was seen on airport prop, then gone, then back, i.e. like a coyote. not trusting the media i have no idea the accuracy of what theyre printing. i also read that the drone was seen crossing the "fence line". with the info i've seen so far i have no idea of the proximity of the drone to runways, taxiways, ramps, etc., so 90% of what you and i are saying is being debated on speculation. what i do know is that there is a reason one bird wont shut down an airpot but one coyote will.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8042572/gatwick-airport-drones-arrests-latest/

two arrested in the drone caper.

There were no drones.