Oh No!!!! A Drone has hit a plane!

This is getting out of hand ,there are these idiots that will ruin this hobby for us that fly safely , I can see the USA type registration coming in soon if this carries on
 
Its been on the cards for a while now. The mis information to ban or register all drones is about to begin.
Big brother only wants his eyes in the sky not the sheep
 
get the feeling we're on borrowed time with this hobby ?

luckily for me I fly in Spain, and they've not yet brought out any regulation as far as I know, except bizarrely a blanket ban on drones for commercial use.
 
Man, did anyone read the comments section of this news link? Sniveling, weak, panic stricken, no back bone proles, that must live in a constant state of fear lacking in logic and common sense. Calls to "Ban Them!", is a sad sign of what our population is willing to do and the freedoms they are willing to give up, for the hope of no risk, comfort, security, as they cower in their holes waiting for the Govt to care for and protect them from any and all possible risk or forms of chance in life.
 
From the link:

"The pilot reported being hit by an object as the Airbus A320, which took off in Geneva, approached the London hub on Sunday afternoon."

So this "object" is assumed to be a drone?
 
"Initial inquiries determined that the object - believed to be a drone - struck the front of the plane as it approached the airport."

Yep, let's assume it must have been a drone. {.....refer to scary picture of a "drone" with the caption, "Drones: Can Authorities Keep Up?"....}


(I think I just wet my pants a little bit)
 
So if I read this right, a "drone" hit an airplane, and the airplane landed safely, was inspected for damaged, and cleared immediately. So that would mean that "drone" hitting the airplane did so little damage that it was not even worth more than a quick inspection if the plane made its next flight.

The aviation industry has done test of bird strikes on aircraft for years, why can't they buy some UAVs and put them trough the same test? Get some real data on what effect a dronestrike would have on aircraft instead of taking a chicken little mentality that any dronestrike will bring down an aircraft.
 
would registration really be a bad thing? Unless you're flying with no respect to airspace, and the safety of the public, why would you care? just curious. I know I'm not against registering my drones. Though I'm not sure they'd lump the 250's in with the more high range cinematic drones.
 
Proxxii said:
That is so sad that people jump to conclusions so fast...
Click to expand...
Well jumping t sensational conclusions before all of the facts come out is easy money for news. If you wait for the facts to come out before making a conclusion you lie when you insert the sensational claim that you are hoping for. But if you do so before hand you can say that you presented everything available.
 
Skycore said:
I wish the media would wait until they have confirmed the facts before publishing.
Click to expand...

But if they did that, they'd miss the "scoop" of the century and lose MILLIONS of dollars and readers/viewers/subscribers.
News media is in business these days for one reason; to make money!
So if you can release a story, without having all the facts, and it draws millions of hits to your website, that's advertising revenue.
Even IF the story turns out to be nothing, they still got all that revenue.
Just about every story these days has to follow the "Man bites dog" scenario. Cuz we all know dogs bite people all the time. ;)
 
Michael Fenimore said:
But if they did that, they'd miss the "scoop" of the century and lose MILLIONS of dollars and readers/viewers/subscribers.
News media is in business these days for one reason; to make money!
So if you can release a story, without having all the facts, and it draws millions of hits to your website, that's advertising revenue.
Even IF the story turns out to be nothing, they still got all that revenue.
Just about every story these days has to follow the "Man bites dog" scenario. Cuz we all know dogs bite people all the time. ;)
Click to expand...
Yep, and if we as viewers don't get outraged enough to take action like boycotting and that type of thing then there is no reason to stop. However if their viewers did get mad at them each time this happened it would be avoided, but as many people as there are viewing each site, you'd have to have a pretty reasonably sized number of people who care.
 
GJH105775 said:
Yep, and if we as viewers don't get outraged enough to take action like boycotting and that type of thing then there is no reason to stop. However if their viewers did get mad at them each time this happened it would be avoided, but as many people as there are viewing each site, you'd have to have a pretty reasonably sized number of people who care.
Click to expand...

But I also see "concerned" users being ignored as well.
I worked for a newspaper for 12 years. I can't tell you how many times facts were glossed over or ignored in order to increase paper sales.
It was well known that not everything was being reported accurately, but it was deemed "proper" by the Ivory Tower residents since the numbers of papers sold rose. And as was the practice of that paper to bury any retractions or edits to the original.
I agree that the people's voices need to be heard, both sides, to get a "fair and balanced" form of reporting.
As long as everything is based upon a bottom line dollar amount, we will continue to have the hype and hysteria perpetuated on us, the knowledgeable and educated reader.
 
Back
Top