'DJI Mavic' drone seen menacing London City airliner after takeoff

A "DJI Mavic type" drone was flown close to an airliner leaving London City Airport in September, a recently published UK Airprox Board report has revealed. The report [PDF] is unusual in that most drones involved in airprox incidents are not identified so specifically by pilots. A De Havilland Dash-8 turboprop airliner, …

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiots

We don't need new laws for this: we just need to enforce the existing ones.

Quadcopters can't descend fast in a controlled way - the descent time from 3,000ft would typically be over 8 minutes. To identify and catch the operator would require a quick response procedure to be in place, given the approximate location where a drone was spotted.

A transmitter direction finder might help, but once the operator issues a return home command, they can switch off the controller and scarper.

Do pilots routinely record their cockpit visuals, as they could be useful as evidence?

[TheVogon]

Re: Idiots

They should make it a legal requirement that all drones broadcast their serial number. Equipment to record that would be relatively cheap and with a sensitive antenna could easily pick up everything near an airport.

[rzrjck]

Re: Idiots

they're working on it (DJI too)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Idiots

They should make it a legal requirement that all drones broadcast their serial number. Equipment to record that would be relatively cheap and with a sensitive antenna could easily pick up everything near an airport.

You better hope they won't hack that system and broadcast your ID then. This is the general issue with serial numbers: easy to falsify and near zero chance of being caught flying a false flag.

[TheVogon]

Re: Idiots

"You better hope they won't hack that system and broadcast your ID then."

That's no difference from printing a false serial number on the drone itself. 99% of people are not going to do that and it will help catch many of the morons flying these near airports.

And you could make doing that a criminal offence just like it is with mobile phones...

[Teslahed]

Re: Idiots

An interesting question this raises regarding the time taken to descend from altitude is the time and energy required to climb that high. It's going to take at least a couple of minutes to get that high. At 900 meters altitude (3000 feet approx) you'll be near the limits of most radio control systems even assuming you are stood relatively nearby almost directly beneath. Once at altitude and after allowing for 2 mins climb and 8 mins descent time you will have very little flying time in which to do much flying around.

I have to wonder if this was a 'flyaway' and whether or not the pilot successfully recovered his drone afterwards.

[My Alter Ego]

Re: Idiots

They can descend close to terminal velocity if you're not careful. While tuning my home-build quadcopter I wanted to get it on the ground quickly, and just started descending. It started to look like it was simply dropping with a loud buzzing noise and my helicopter aerodynamics lecturer sprang to mind "shit - vortex ring".

Fortunately I had enough time to increase thrust and managed to fly it out of it's own downwash. From then on I learned to descend in a nice coordinated spiral.

[AstroNutter]

vortex ring

Sometimes it's worth reading comments. Never thought about the vortex ring before.

If I ever start flying drones (something that I'm casually tempted to do for aerial photography and video) which isn't really likely, I'll bear this one in mind. Great explanation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Idiots

> We don't need new laws for this: we just need to enforce the existing ones.

Absolutely correct.

> Quadcopters can't descend fast in a controlled way - the descent time from 3,000ft would typically be over 8 minutes.

> It's going to take at least a couple of minutes to get that high. At 900 meters altitude (3000 feet approx) ... ... Once at altitude and after allowing for 2 mins climb and 8 mins descent time you will have very little flying time in which to do much flying around.

Somewhat true, the Mavic Pro can ascend at a max rate of 5 m/s and descend at 3 m/s, this is limited in the firmware to help prevent VRS, it still gets a bit wobbly but the flight controller handles it well. So, with those figures in mind, it would take 3 minutes to reach 900m and 5 minutes to descend. It has a MAX flight time of 27 minutes, so once at altitude, it could fly for 10-15 minutes with ease, assuming there isn't too much wind.

> you'll be near the limits of most radio control systems even assuming you are stood relatively nearby almost directly beneath.

Not at all. The radio range on the Mavic is insane. I have experience with 2.4Ghz control link systems and UHF (493 Mhz) and the Mavic is somewhere in between.

> I have to wonder if this was a 'flyaway' and whether or not the pilot successfully recovered his drone afterwards.

That would be interesting to find out, but we never will.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ban the lot of them

before something nasty happens.

sorry to be so blunt but there is a real danger.

What goes up must come down.

I hope that the coming down isn't due to a drone crash.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ban the lot of them

Ban the use of drones entirely? Somewhat reactionary, no?

[depicus]

Re: Ban the lot of them

I'm not surprised you're anonymous with such a stupid statement. Why is "ban it" peoples first response to everything !!!

[Tigra 07]

Re: depicus

"Why is "ban it" peoples first response to everything"

Theresa May to shortly announce a ban on sugar, trains and christmas tree lights after recent NYC terror attack...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ban the lot of them

Why not ban planes? 100% effective against plane crashes.

[gypsythief]

Why not ban planes?

Because, according to a recent report, it is safer on a plane flying to or from Australia, than it is being there.

Banning planes would condemn all the poor Aussies to a fate of being eaten alive by rampant crocodiles, or bitten to pieces by hungry sharks, or mauled to shreds by a ravenous drop-bear, or stung to death by ants the size of bulldogs, and deny them a fair chance of escape!

[Denarius]

Re: Why not ban planes?

Aside from the masochists who love flying into Bali volcano eruption clouds, we like it that way.

Lethal wildlife may be our best defence once the military have been downsized to pay for the the F35 which is coming real soon now.

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

Re: Why not ban planes?

"downsized to pay for the the F35 which is coming real soon now."

Are you going to have to take turns in it?

[Alan Brown]

Re: Why not ban planes?

At the current rate of downsizing it really will be "the" F35

[Muscleguy]

Re: Why not ban planes?

You forgot the blue ringed tree octopus with a taste for human brains. Rabbit felt hats are proof against them hence their widespread use. I have one.

[BebopWeBop]

Re: Why not ban planes?

I have always find carrying half (carefully measured and cut I should emphasise) protect me from the danged tree creatures. Got the tip from a frequent flyer.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Why not ban planes?

"Banning planes would condemn all the poor Aussies to a fate of being eaten alive by rampant crocodiles, or bitten to pieces by hungry sharks, or mauled to shreds by a ravenous drop-bear, or stung to death by ants the size of bulldogs, and deny them a fair chance of escape!"

Well, obviously Australia needs to be banned too. FFS Some people! What happened to critical thinking? I know, let's just ban people and be done with the whole sorry mess :-)

[Red Ted]

Re: Ban the lot of them

While we're at it, ban birds too.

The US Airways Flight 1549 that landed on the Hudson was brought down by a bird-strike, and that one of the least catastrophic ones.

[Voland's right hand]

Re: Ban the lot of them

No need.

Just arm the aircraft.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ban the lot of them

It would be safer to ban Boeing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh, the risk to planes from drone strikes is overblown. El Reg already told us so.

US government officials' grave warnings that drones could cause a disaster above the nation's airports are overstated, a study by George Mason University has found.

We're told birds are a much bigger threat to aircraft than folks' unmanned aerial systems (UASs).

"We estimate that 6.12 x 10−6 collisions will cause damage to an aircraft for every 100,000 hours of 2kg UAS flight time. Or to put it another way, one damaging incident will occur no more than every 1.87 million years of 2kg UAS flight time," the authors note.

"We further estimate that 6.12 x 10−8 collisions that cause an injury or fatality to passengers on board an aircraft will occur every 100,000 hours of 2kg UAS flight time, or once every 187 million years of operation."

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/16/faa_exaggerates_drone_strikes_against_aircraft/

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the damage will be costly to repair and disruptive to passengers. Pieces of debris falling from that height could be deadly, particularly over a populated area. Existing laws to ensure the safe separation of drones and people / aircraft need to be followed. No drone being operated within the current law should present a danger to anyone.

[ridley]

Re: Meh, the risk to planes from drone strikes is overblown. El Reg already told us so.

Are these the same people who estimated that there would be an incident leading to a loss of a Space Shuttle once every 100,000 flights?

[Gordon 10]

Re: Meh, the risk to planes from drone strikes is overblown. El Reg already told us so.

No. These are the people who know better than to conflate the risk of damage or loss to a commercial aircraft to the loss of a reusable space plane. No to mention the bad taste in doing so.

[lglethal]

Re: Meh, the risk to planes from drone strikes is overblown. El Reg already told us so.

You can happily talk about the reduced risk of a drone causing a fatal aircraft crash, but i have to ask why you would accept the need for their to be a risk in the first place? There are rules and regulations against flying drones around airports. If people followed those rules, there would be no danger to aircraft and no chance of people dying from a crash. Why accept a risk, when it all it takes is common sense of not flying a drone near an aircraft. And why defend the people who do fly the drones near an aircraft and take the risk - with other people's lives - that a collision might cause a crash. There is no societal benefit from flying a drone near an aircraft - a few pretty pictures does not outweigh the right of the people on the aircraft to fly safely. So there really is no excuse for flying a drone near an aircraft.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Meh, the risk to planes from drone strikes is overblown. El Reg already told us so.

""We estimate that 6.12 x 10−6 collisions will cause damage to an aircraft for every 100,000 hours of 2kg UAS flight time. Or to put it another way, one damaging incident will occur no more than every 1.87 million years of 2kg UAS flight time," the authors note."

That is an *estimate*, and the error bar on it is huge. Studies are ongoing regarding the probability and effects of drone strikes, and that particular study is definitely not the final word.

[Loyal Commenter]

Re: Meh, the risk to planes from drone strikes is overblown. El Reg already told us so.

If a commercial aircraft hits one of these things, it may or may not cause damage. What it WILL cause is a need for the aircraft to make an unscheduled landing, most likely back at the airport it took off from (given that most planes will be well above the ceiling of drones not long after take-off).

The knock-on effects of this are the delay and rescheduling of other flights, as well as the cancellation of the flight that has just had to land. The plane will need to be fully checked over before it can go anywhere. The passengers won't be happy.

The possibility of loss of life is not the main concern here. It is all the associated costs with dealing with a mid-air incident.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is dangerous.

33m vertical separation !....., at a time when an aircraft is probably climbing at 200+ km/hr.

If they'd turned slightly earlier the outcome would have been very different.

I congratulate the very observant observer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: That is dangerous.

If they'd turned slightly earlier the outcome would have been very different.

Why would you assume that?

Hint: Aircraft are not as fragile as you think they are.

[Richard 12]

Re: That is dangerous.

Well, the falling drone might have hurt someone.

The turbulence of a nearby aircraft would quite probably be more than it could handle.

Although given that the flight time of those is about 20min, and it'd take about half of that to reach such an altitude...

Assuming it really was a drone, it was out of control, had probably hit its flight ceiling and was shortly going to run out of battery and plummet.

The idiot drone pilot lost their model aircraft. They probably won't do it again, those things aren't cheap.

[Aitor 1]

Re: That is dangerous.

So 33m difference while flying probably at 250knots and going up at 200fpm at least, probably much more.

It is very difficult to judge that distance in my opinion. And the drone described is less than a kilo.. but the drone described CAN pull that.. it does a theoretical 984fpm, so as others have pointed out, three minutes to go up, about five to go down.. and 16 more to fly at most.

I agree in the principle of registered drones, so the idiots amongst us dont do these things, but please dont panic... the damage to the plane would be minimal, and birds continue to be a way greater risk.

[joea]

Re: That is dangerous.

" . . .and birds continue to be a way greater risk" . . .

Perhaps only because there are, currently, a lot more birds than drones?

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: That is dangerous.

"Perhaps only because there are, currently, a lot more birds than drones?"

I think the word "currently" is redundant. Even if everyone on the planet owned a drone, birds would still outnumber them.

[rzrjck]

and pilot/observer was able to spot grey drone, 30cm in size, while travelling +300km/h ?

[Gordon 10]

And correctly identify it as one of the models that has reasonably working geofencing?

Me thinks El Reg is being a little hard in DJI in this case.

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

"Me thinks El Reg is being a little hard in DJI in this case."

They didnt really point the finger, just named the (apparent) make of drone.

It was nice of DJI to comment on the story really. You don't get Citroen releasing press statements when a chav in a Saxo is hooning about in McDonald's car park.

[SkippyBing]

'and pilot/observer was able to spot grey drone, 30cm in size, while travelling +300km/h ?'

Why not? It does require you to be looking in the right direction but it's not impossible, you'd only see it for a split second but depending on the circumstances that's all you need. Obviously you're not always going to see something that size but I don't think you can dismiss it out of hand, it's analogous to seeing a shoe by the side of the motorway while travelling at <cough>70</cough> because your eyes happen to be looking just the right way as you go past.

[Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese]

it's analogous to seeing a shoe by the side of the motorway while travelling at <cough>70</cough> because your eyes happen to be looking just the right way as you go past.

The motorcycle rider has a relatively untrained eye compared to a pilot. Remember that quite a few civilian pilots are ex-RAF, and were trained to operate in fast jets.

[rzrjck]

and jets pilots are trained to avoid birds (evasive maneuvers) during a flight ?

[SkippyBing]

'and jets pilots are trained to avoid birds (evasive maneuvers) during a flight ?'

It's strongly encouraged.

[werdsmith]

My instructions when there was a risk of bird collisions was to climb, because a bird will dive to pick up speed if it is trying to evade something. I have seen a light aircraft that had a herring gull go through its prop and it was a bit messy.

But that was for light aircraft, I imagine that airliners being less immediately responsive would only be able to try to avoid large flocks that they see in good time.

[Alan Brown]

Civil operators have been avoiding hiring ex-military pilots (and fast jet pilots in particular) since at least the mid 1980s.

They're statistically far more likely to be involved in an incident due to the military culture encouraging them to press on regardless.

If you can see a quadcopter across a footall field whilst stationary you're doing well. I've sat on top of a hill at a Buddhist shrine in Myanmar and despite being able to hear the drone circling about 200 feet below still had a hell of a job picking it out from the ground another 800 feet down. If you can do it whilst moving at 200mph then you're getting on for superhuman.

I'll repeat the observation that there's a linear inverse relationship in the UK between the number of recent drone sightings around airports and the number of bird sightings.

[rzrjck]

i'm not saying it's not possible to spot something, ok, it's possible, in a blink of an eye.

however, no time for reaction, even no time to think about it (you can think about what you saw few seconds later).

and no, it's not like a shoe, 70km/h is at least 4 times slower, so it's about spotting something 7cm in size :)

[SkippyBing]

'70km/h is at least 4 times slower'

Who said anything about doing km/h on a motorway, proper imperial measurements are being broken!

[Anonymous Coward]

and pilot/observer was able to spot grey drone, 30cm in size, while travelling +300km/h ?

As it so happens, visual acuity is a job requirement for a pilot. The whole reason that flying is in general safe is that there are multiple layers of protection, and no instrument can quite replace ye olde Mark I eyeballs.

So yes, I think it's credible. As for the exact identification, there's no reason pilots should be assumed to be ignorant of drones - maybe he/she even owned one too.

[werdsmith]

No it can't be an exact identification. The Mavic has an altitude limiter, though this can be worked around by people who, for instance, like to take them up mountains to film themselves skiing, there are a number of chinese copies that can be had for a fraction of the price and have no alitude limiter. They look very much like Mavics and I wouldn't be surprised if one got out of control.

[John Brown (no body)]

"and pilot/observer was able to spot grey drone, 30cm in size, while travelling +300km/h ?"

As others have said, maybe the pilot was looking in just the right direction at the time and, being a pilot and interested in flying, maybe he owns a drone and is familiar with specific models, possibly even owning that particular model. Ever noticed how when you get a new car suddenly it seems as if everyone on the road bought the same model as you?

[Richard 12]

Approx. type, not specific model

The pilot will have seen something that looks similar to the DJI Mavik.

They'll have used that example because they're familiar with the Mavik - probably seen adverts, may have even flown one.

However, that means "cuboid-ish box with four props on sticks", so it doesn't really narrow it down at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not use social media?

Accepting that the drone operator isnt a some nutjob with a grudge and accepting that they dont record the footage to knock one out in a darkend room, they'll probably posting online somewhere. Find out where, find out who and then give em a very public smack.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Why not use social media?

Accepting that the drone operator isnt some nutjob with a grudge

.. and that is EXACTLY the situation most intelligent people are worried about..

[werdsmith]

Re: Why not use social media?

A nutjob with a grudge would need a massive slice of luck to get a bullseye on airliner, especially at 3000 feet AMSL. It is far more likely that they would lose their toy or get arrested than they manage to touch an airliner in just the right spot to be dangerous.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Why not use social media?

"A nutjob with a grudge would need a massive slice of luck to get a bullseye on airliner, especially at 3000 feet AMSL. It is far more likely that they would lose their toy or get arrested than they manage to touch an airliner in just the right spot to be dangerous."

Yep, an engine intake, even on the biggest engines, is a very small target at airliner speeds and at a range a good sniper in perfect conditions would have trouble with. I can't see even an expert drone flyer being able to hit a target like that in the vastness of the 3D world with almost no reference points being able to get a "hit" with even a smidgeon of certainty. Maybe a fleet of drones working in a networked pattern would have some chance, but a cheap rocket launcher with some form of guidance or heat seeking could probably be bought for less than a fleet of drones big enough to cause damage and have a better chance of a result.

[SkippyBing]

Re: Why not use social media?

'A nutjob with a grudge would need a massive slice of luck to get a bullseye on airliner, especially at 3000 feet AMSL. It is far more likely that they would lose their toy or get arrested than they manage to touch an airliner in just the right spot to be dangerous.'

Depends how much planning they actually did. Airliners fly a very predictable path for the last few thousand feet down to the runway, at Heathrow all you'd need to do is position your drone on that path and wait. With a plane every 60 seconds or so the odds start to move in their favour.

[werdsmith]

Re: Why not use social media?

"Depends how much planning they actually did. Airliners fly a very predictable path for the last few thousand feet down to the runway, at Heathrow all you'd need to do is position your drone on that path and wait. With a plane every 60 seconds or so the odds start to move in their favour."

And the first time they get close their drone will be killed by the wake turbulence. The disturbance in the air caused by wings at 180 knots holding up a 70+ tonne airline would give a drone zero chance.

If you could judge by eye from the ground where the centreline glidepath and localiser are then you would have some kind of super-hero power. And anyway, this incident was when the flight was on climb out.

Next to no chance.

[SkippyBing]

Re: Why not use social media?

'If you could judge by eye from the ground where the centreline glidepath and localiser are then you would have some kind of super-hero power.'

Or you could use a GPS, they're a thing now.

[werdsmith]

Re: Why not use social media?

GPS + Massive slice of luck. With GPS altitude accuracy of +/- 23 metres, the first near miss will knock the quadcopter out of the sky.

[Kinetic]

"We will continue working together with regulators to help our users understand the safe and legal operation of aerial technology."

Oh good, they're going to come clean and admit there isn't anywhere you can use them legally. That's going to put a dent in their sales.

Seriously, look into it, anywhere in the UK you were planning to fly your drone is probably illegal; well, without getting the landowner's permission and/or filling in paperwork. I nearly bought a Mavic, but quickly discovered that the only way I was realistically going to be able to fly was either illegally, inside my house or at sea.

[Richard 12]

Join a club

There's hundreds of model aircraft clubs who have large grounds where you can fly any number of model aircraft.

And many public parks where you can fly as well.

Yes, flying it at window level over next door but one where that hot person lives would be illegal, but why does that matter, no responsible person would want to do that?

[Kinetic]

Re: Join a club

Yes, but the point of a Mavic and other popular drones is to act as a flying camera platform. No-one is looking to photograph the grass in that flying Club's field. If I wanted to fly just for fun, I'd buy a racing drone or suchlike. From what I've heard parks require permission from the local council, unless you have a list of parks that have declared themselves drone friendly?

[Spanners]

Unless they have a picture.

I am ready to suspect that it was a polythene shopping bag. This is good 'cos we've, sort of, banned them already! Alternatively, it was a government stealth helicopter disguised as one.

[stu 4]

mince

unless this was a flyaway* it's 'fake news'...

mavic's a restricted to 500m max ascent from take off. 1640 feet.

that is a long way off 3000 feet.

*and, as far as I'm aware there has never been a mavic flyaway that has simply went into max ascent mode -ever.

whatever they saw wasn't a DJI mavic... and quite how you can identify a 12 inch drone while flying past it at a minimum of 150mph is a mystery to me too...

[batfink]

A rare "Drone Sighting" that might actually have some credibility

One of the problems I see in these discussions (viz: "Ban the Lot of them") is that every report of drone/aircraft proximity is taken as gospel, when in fact there seems to be close to zero corroboration that the objects seen were in fact drones. This is the first one I've seen in a long time that seems to have some credibility.

Some of the reports strain any sort of credibility, such as the one a little while ago reporting a near-miss on a drone at 11000ft. Seriously? Yes there are drones that have the range and endurance to be hovering on a flightpath at 11000ft, but they're expensive enough that you wouldn't want to risk having it run over by an incoming aircraft.

Likewise most of the reports of actual collisions with "drones" turn out to be something else, such as the "drone" bouncing of the Socata in Adelaide in July, which turned out to be a flying fox (*).

Of course scrotes and f*wits who do fly drones around airport approaches should be dealt with severely, preferably in a way that also prevents their genes from contributing further to the pool.

However this shouldn't be done on the basis of "I saw something! I reckon it was a drone!". It should be done on the basis of "This object that was sighted was a drone and here's a photo" or "The object that struck the plane was a drone and here are the pieces".

On the bright side, at least unidentified objects are now usually classed as drones rather than alien spacecraft, as in the Good Old Days.

(*) A large bat, not actually a fox that flies...

[JaitcH]

Britain's Answer: BANNED. Personally I Think the Pilots Are Lieing (aka Alternative Truth)

It seems British pilots possess visual acuity above international standards - if they are to be believed. NOT!

It seems the preponderance of 'near misses' emanate from British pilots flying over Britain. a country with a paucity of flights compared with the USA.

There was, allegedly, 100 feet of separation, and at the speed suggested by another poster of 200 knots. Someone more clever than I can figure out the amount of time the DeHavilland crew could have to capture the image with their eyes, focus, and then identify the drone model. I am disappointed this liar didn't report a serial number, too.

Given that a drone flies significantly slower than a commercial jet, the reports use of the expression "The board agreed that the drone had been "flown into conflict" with the DHC-8" demonstrates bias - the DHC-8 actually flew in to 'conflict' with the drone as demonstrated by the fact the DHC-8 approached the drone from the rear and overtook it.

One day they will do some actual tests to determine what damage a drone collision might cause. It the mean time the whole thing is guess work . . . and meaningless.

[Anonymous Coward]

the hard part about visual ID of "type"

is that I can order an almost visually exact (yet slightly smaller, lower quality etc) version of the Mavic Pro from a popular Chinese website. For a lot less than The Real Thing. of course with less of the capabilities. Still, most drone enthusiasts might not be able to tell the difference without being right up close to it, much less at any significant distance or speed

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: the hard part about visual ID of "type"

Exactly

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2078849

[I&I]

Dash-cams ?

I mean if all Russian taxi drivers have them...