×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Drone Comes Within 200 Feet of Airliner Over New York

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the now-the-tsa-wants-to-take-your-rc-helicopter dept.

Transportation 339

New submitter FoolishBluntman sends this quote from CNN: "An unmanned drone came within 200 feet of a commercial jet over New York, triggering an FBI appeal to the public for any information about the unusual and potentially dangerous incident. The crew of Alitalia Flight 608 approaching John F. Kennedy airport on Monday reported the sighting. 'We saw a drone, a drone aircraft,' the pilot can be heard telling air traffic controllers on radio calls captured by the website LiveATC.net. ... The unmanned aircraft, described by the FBI as black and no more than three feet wide with four propellers, came within 200 feet of the Boeing jetliner. The FBI said it was looking to identify and locate the aircraft and its operator. A source with knowledge of the incident says investigators interviewed the pilot and others on the Alitalia plane."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

339 comments

That's not a drone (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43089823)

That's not a drone. That's an R/C model plane.

It's a drone dammit (5, Insightful)

Press2ToContinue (2424598) | about a year ago | (#43089861)

R/C model planes are much harder to legislate against.

So it's drone, dammit!

Re:It's a drone dammit (5, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43090051)

R/C model planes are much harder to legislate against. So it's drone, dammit!

As long as it didn't have more than 3.4 ounces of liquid, or nail clippers mounted to it, I don't see the problem.

Re:It's a drone dammit (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090463)

In other news, the drone had muted yellow/orange and black color markings, and moving wings. When the co-pilot saw it, he said, "if THAT's just a 'drone', I don't WANT to see the Queen!"

Planes attempting to track the drone to its origin were met by many more airplane-sized flying intruders that were similar to the "drone" except that their tails sported "stinger" missiles. This put a real buzz-kill on things.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled double-feature: "T.H.E.M." / "MANT". And tonight at 8pm, we have our in-depth investigative report: "Giant Mutated Hyper-Intelligent Man-Eating Cockroaches: Threat or Menace?"

Re:It's a drone dammit (1)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | about a year ago | (#43091237)

R/C model planes are much harder to legislate against. So it's drone, dammit!

As long as it didn't have more than 3.4 ounces of liquid, or nail clippers mounted to it, I don't see the problem.

I think this misses the bigger point which is, obviously:

  • Was he subjected to a metal detector/nude body scan/nutsack stroking "patdown"/backroom snuggle-time by TSA prior to operating said R/C Aircraft?
  • Do you know if he's doing flights to Raleigh-Durham yet? I have to go and I'd sooner die than fly commercial.

Re:That's not a drone (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43089903)

It's a UFO until classified as otherwise.

Re:That's not a drone (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090123)

It's a UFO until classified as otherwise.

With four propellers? Did that "UFO" get shit out of time machine too? I wasn't aware that the Wright brothers tech was based on alien discoveries.

Might as well go go double or nothing on our illusions these days...

Re:That's not a drone (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090163)

An object that is unidentified, and flying, is a UFO.

Re:That's not a drone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090593)

And it was identified as man less flaying machine, one similar to drone.

Re:That's not a drone (4, Funny)

BlueStrat (756137) | about a year ago | (#43091183)

And it was identified as man less flaying machine...

How in the world did someone manage to launch a lesbian sadist to that altitude?

I think I now understand Janet Napolitano's intense personal interest in the incident, however.

Strat

Re:That's not a drone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43091139)

It's a UFO until classified as otherwise.

You mean it's a drone until unclassified as otherwise?

Re:That's not a drone (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43089911)

It was less than 3 miles from the airport and at 1750 ft altitude. Your average R/C aircraft pilot wouldn't be that stupid unless he/she is intent on getting in trouble.... Most R/C hobbyists are surprisingly aware of the laws related to their hobby. This sounds more like a daredevil intentionally getting near the flightpath... Maybe even using FPV with one of the newfangled quadcopters, 'cause at 1750 ft your 3ft aircraft is going to look more like a spec in the sky than something you can easily control.

The cynic in me... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090031)

...thinks it would be easy to set up a Straw Man situation by surrupticiously arranging an agency to do it, then announce to the media that some unidentified incident occurred, which in turn becomes a case for legislating against Joe Citizen being allowed to fly FPVs.

Re:That's not a drone (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about a year ago | (#43090825)

It was less than 3 miles from the airport and at 1750 ft altitude. Your average R/C aircraft pilot wouldn't be that stupid unless he/she is intent on getting in trouble.... Most R/C hobbyists are surprisingly aware of the laws related to their hobby.

The only clearly marked R/C hobbyist field in my area is about 200 feet from an international airport. I kid you not.

Not that my drone could even climb up to 1750 ft, I'm just saying.

Re:That's not a drone (2)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about a year ago | (#43091165)

I don't think somthing that's a "toy" like an AR.Drone even has enough wireless range for that height. Standard RC equipment might let you fly that far, but bectoo small to see.... Clearly this is somebody that knows where they were flying to cause trouble.

Re:That's not a drone (3, Insightful)

cyn1c77 (928549) | about a year ago | (#43090037)

That's not a drone. That's an R/C model plane.

It's amusing that you think there's a difference between the two.

Re:That's not a drone (4, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | about a year ago | (#43090991)

one simple one.

a drone is flown by camera's and a video downlink.

an RC plane is flown from the ground by the pilot's eyes.

RC plane's rarely get more than a 1000' feet away as they become very hard to control.

Re:That's not a drone (1)

durrr (1316311) | about a year ago | (#43091021)

That's called FPV, If you want it to be a drone you need autonomous flight system.

Itsa bird, itsa plane, itsa drone, no it's... (1)

macraig (621737) | about a year ago | (#43090069)

Hey, Superman is not a drone! He's very much in control of himself.

Re:That's not a drone (1)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#43090237)

And it's a black helicopter, so it's probably NSA. No word about it being equipped with mind control lasers though.

Re:That's not a drone (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#43090797)

New York City is the headquarters of the United Nations. And the United Nations denied that they have plans to invade Texas: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/24/us-un-texas-duel-idUSBRE87N14A20120824 [reuters.com]

So if they are denying it, that means that it has already started.

Black invasion helicopters seen flying out of the UN headquarters in New York City in the direction of Texas?

Probably.

Re:That's not a drone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43091059)

That's no drone. That's a space station.

Re:That's not a drone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43091073)

There are restricted, designated areas for RC model planes. Somebody has screwed up by flying into the commercial airspace, if that is the case.

Probably those fuckin chinks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43089829)

Hate them so much. Fuuuuuuck.

Jetwash? (1)

splitsevin (953745) | about a year ago | (#43089833)

If it came within 200ft of a Boeing jumbojet I think we can assume it found itself a watery grave in Jamaica Bay.

Re:Jetwash? (1)

Starmac (544848) | about a year ago | (#43089915)

Why? If it was above and not inline with the wingtip vortices it should be fine. Even if it tumbled, 1800' is plenty for recovery.

Probably them fuckin chinks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43089839)

Hate them so much. Fuuuuick.

Why who would ever do that? (0)

frovingslosh (582462) | about a year ago | (#43089845)

Do you really think anyone in the government flying these things around will admit to this?

Re:Why who would ever do that? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43089885)

Ooooh so scary! Would your neighbor admit that his dog sh*t in your yard? Nope. Just like any ordinary guy won't admit to this either.

Re:Why who would ever do that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090815)

Probably the Airport Security company.
Benefits: Stepped up security patrols, extra overtime, contract renewal.
OTOH it could be a realtor initiative to get a birds eye view of some nearby property for sale.

A Parrot AR Drone? (1)

a_hanso (1891616) | about a year ago | (#43089863)

described by the FBI as black and no more than three feet wide with four propellers

Sounds like a Parrot AR Drone [wikipedia.org] with the indoor frame attached.

Re:A Parrot AR Drone? (2)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year ago | (#43090007)

No way it's a Parrot at 1750 ft above ground. Standard RF won't work much beyond 400-500 ft (which amateur quadrotor RC pilots consider seriously high altitude), and even at that it's so small it's very hard to control...

Re:A Parrot AR Drone? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090137)

who said anything about it being in control... once out of range of the transmitter it'll keep on flying (especially if a self stabilised quad copter type). Most hobby/toy ones don't have auto gps return to base capability.

Re:A Parrot AR Drone? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year ago | (#43090549)

A Parrot AR drone always stays within wifi range of its operator, and has an altimeter to ensure it never goes higher than 350 feet.

Iran (3, Interesting)

detritus. (46421) | about a year ago | (#43089865)

Well, Iran is the proud new owner of an RQ-170, maybe they decided to take it for a joyride over US airspace?

Re:Iran (-1, Flamebait)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43089909)

Well, Iran is the proud new owner of an RQ-170, maybe they decided to take it for a joyride over US airspace?

I just hope that it isn't Muslims practising to bring down another aircraft

Re:Iran (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090253)

I just hope that it isn't Muslims practising to bring down another aircraft

Wtf? You are an idiot.

Re:Iran (4, Interesting)

petman (619526) | about a year ago | (#43090341)

I just hope that it isn't Muslims practising to bring down another aircraft

So you're saying that if it were Christians practising to bring down an aircraft, it would be okay?

Re:Iran (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090615)

Of course!
And if it were Jews, it would be applauded.
That is how the world works.

Re:Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090935)

I just hope that it isn't Muslims practising to bring down another aircraft

So you're saying that if it were Christians practising to bring down an aircraft, it would be okay?

I think there's plenty of Christians around who already know how to do that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_air_force

Will they get banned? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43089893)

I wonder when there'll start to be some sort of crackdown on personal UAVs or RCVs. I've still not heard of any incidents of these being used to harm people*, but maybe this is the first incident. It's bound to happen at some point though, and I certainly expect a wave of copycats, accompanied some panic and backlash. The technology's probably not at that stage yet - would need larger payloads or much better automatic guidance for anyone to do much. I can't see it far off someone sticking a grenade on the front of one though for a cheap guided missile, or a ricin tipped spike and just fly one into someone. Might seem a bit far fetched, but there's certainly people out there with a will to do so.

Of course, what can be actually be done about them isn't clear. It'd be like trying to stop pirate radio, but potentially even more difficult - fully automated devices wouldn't need any radio link, so the only thing you could really do it stopping purchase or having some form of traceable identifiers.

* With the huge exception of military drones of course. Crime using RCVs is certainly not new, see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1112673/Remote-control-toy-helicopter-used-fly-drugs-prison.html [dailymail.co.uk]

Re:Will they get banned? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43089913)

This is the first false flag. Yeah they will be banned except for government usage.

Re:Will they get banned? (2)

weegiekev (925942) | about a year ago | (#43089933)

Don't worry, the NRA will start defending citizens rights to drones as soon as that happens.

Drones don't kill people, RC operators do.

Re:Will they get banned? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090167)

Only if you mount a magazine full of bullets on it - that would get full NRA endorsement.

Obviously the military never comments (2)

nauseous (2239684) | about a year ago | (#43089935)

FBI needs to take action on the military and stop the drones from being used over the US. Do we feel safer now? We need laws to outlaw these drones from being used in our country.

fuckwittery of the highest order (2)

thephydes (727739) | about a year ago | (#43089997)

Just as stupid and with the same potential casualties as the fucking morons who think it's a good idea to shine a laser into the cockpit of an aircraft. As previously noted by another poster, most real RC'rs are well aware of their responsibilities, so I can only imagine that this is the work of a complete wanker.

Re:fuckwittery of the highest order (2, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year ago | (#43090071)

So it is just the gross exaggeration of a tiny spot of light. Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to actually try to get one of those slow remote control quadrocopters to intersect with a jet airliner going a few hundred miles per hour. So somebody was playing with one of these too close to an airport and paying attention to the camera view of the 'ground' rather than any airspace around them. Even an automated flight gone out of control as it lost radio contact with the controller. This kind of extreme exaggeration stinks of a law enforcement desire to clamp down on these devices because they could all to readily spy on out of control cops.

Re:fuckwittery of the highest order (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090409)

Someone should tell the frickin sharks to stop that.

Only two possibilities. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090003)

1) Nobody was supposed to see that drone. Since civilians obviously did, everyone is scrambling to act surprised about it.

2) They don't actually know whose drone it was.

You will know which it is by what happens to this story. If they figure out it belonged to any one of the various police-state departments the US government created and employs, the story will simply disappear- business as usual, nothing to see here. If it actually was a rogue drone, then whoever was flying it will probably get a story of their own in the near future.

I smell a rat (3, Insightful)

Ozoner (1406169) | about a year ago | (#43090035)

How long before all RC helicopters (and all hobby RC planes for that matter) will be banned ?

Re:I smell a rat (5, Insightful)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about a year ago | (#43090289)

They've been limited to 400 feet and within site of the operator for a long time now. If this truly is an RC aircraft, then it's clearly well beyond that established rule, considering it was spotted at nearly 2,000 feet. The operator is an idiot, "plane" and simple.

Re:I smell a rat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43091007)

Your play on the homophones "plane" and "plain" makes me wonder if you used "site" instead of "sight" deliberately. If you didn't, then I suggest you pretend that you did.

Re:I smell a rat (5, Informative)

rocket rancher (447670) | about a year ago | (#43090889)

How long before all RC helicopters (and all hobby RC planes for that matter) will be banned ?

They are already trying in Texas [legiscan.com] and in New Hampshire [state.nh.us]. Notice the inclusion of drones by name in the legislation, and the lack of differentiation between government use and private use.

This article [slate.com] from a few weeks ago shows that two other state legislatures, specifically Florida and Virginia, are attempting a legislative fix to drone use, though those attempts are targeted specifically at government use of drones. The mayor of Seattle cancelled the Seattle PD's drone program [usatoday.com] and ordered the chief of police to return the ones they'd already bought to the manufacturer for a refund.

With that said, attempts to block government use of drones are probably doomed to failure, since the FAA has already been directed by the 112th Congress to integrate drones into the national airspace via HR 658 (relevant section here [loc.gov],) and police departments across the nation are buying them in droves, despite what happened in Seattle. The DHS's "loan a drone" [washingtontimes.com] program, coupled with DHS's $4M grant program to local law authorities to acquire drones, would strongly suggest that government use of drones is here to stay.

Given the push/pull legislative wars being driven by the privacy vs. public safety debate, I doubt that banning RC aircraft is a viable legislative option. What is (probably) going to happen with RC aircraft is what has already happened with other "hobbies" that are deemed to be a threat to public safety (think: greenhouses that could be used for growing pot, legal chemicals that could be used to manufacture illegal drugs, model rockets that could be weaponized.) Purchases of RC aircraft and related equipment will be tracked at the point of sale and those records will be forwarded to the feds, where the purchasers will end up on an FBI watch list, just like the purchasers of the above-mentioned items.

That was my pet ROFLcopter, sorry (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090055)

Mah bad. I built it with an Arduino and some motors from Radio Shack and I had no idea it could fly so high. What a rush!

Now that I know it works, I'll be continuing with my plan to airdrop 32 oz. beverage containers over the city... muhahahaha!

Drones with frickking lasers (1)

allypally (2858133) | about a year ago | (#43090057)

We already have problems with ground based idiots shining recreational lasers into aircraft cockpits. What hope for aviation when the recreational lasers are mounted on recreational drones? The US will long regret not having built an underground railroad network for safe consumer transport.

Re:Drones with frickking lasers (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#43090871)

What hope for aviation when the recreational lasers are mounted on recreational drones?

Pretty good, I suspect. I would have thought the cost of a suitable system for aiming and stabilising such a beam from a little flying machine flitting around in the breeze would be a bit high for non-military budgets.

Not a joke (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090063)

Regardless of whether this is an RC model or not, if this got sucked into an engine we'd have a repeat of the Hudson river landing (best case scenario).

Re:Not a joke (3, Informative)

cffrost (885375) | about a year ago | (#43090251)

Regardless of whether this is an RC model or not, if this got sucked into an engine we'd have a repeat of the Hudson river landing (best case scenario).

Can you explain how ingestion of an R/C aircraft can cause the failure of two engines, and subsequently result in a "best case scenario" equivalent to striking a flock of Canada Geese? [wikipedia.org]

Re:Not a joke (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090425)

You mad bro?

Re:Not a joke (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#43090485)

I agree with you, Canada Geese are drones, they are unmanned areal vehicles and they are armed with biological weapons. They must be eliminated.

Re:Not a joke (0)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#43090553)

Can you explain how ingestion of an R/C aircraft can cause the failure of two engines

It's worth noting here that geese, like most birds, have rather delicate bones. An R/C aircraft might have steel and other really hard materials that could do more damage. That drops the number of engines to one. If the remaining one fails due to the addition stress placed on it, then you have two engine failures as desired.

Re:Not a joke (5, Informative)

Michael Woodhams (112247) | about a year ago | (#43090705)

OK, so possibly it takes fewer R/C aircraft than geese to take out an engine. Then you wave a magic wand and say maybe the other engine will stop too. Losing one engine does not cause the other to fail, despite your appeal to 'additional stress'. Twin jets are able to fly with one engine. To be certified, they must demonstrate they can safely fly on one engine during the most stressful period of flight (a single engine failure late in the take-off roll.) They can also fly safely for a long time on a single engine. With appropriate safeguards, they are certified to do so for up to three hours (ETOPS-180) and coming soon, for over five hours.

Re:Not a joke (0)

Phelony (2628303) | about a year ago | (#43090765)

You're right. If I was the pilot, I would just continue right on to Australia with -1 engine.

Re:Not a joke (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090951)

Australia is more than 3 hours from the US. Also, please bear in mind that an inconvenient delay is not a catastrophe, no matter how much the passengers may behave like it is.

Re:Not a joke (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43091061)

You seem to be suggesting that the only two options available to the pilot in this hypothetical scenario are

1: Fly to Australia
2: Fly into a river

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just automatically and hysterically afraid of whatever boogeyman the media are currently crusading against? How about

3: Radio the nearest airport, explain the situation and request a runway. Given that the plane is only a few thousand feet up, chances are good it's on its way into/ out of a nearby airport anyway, and can land safely there.

Re:Not a joke (3, Informative)

cffrost (885375) | about a year ago | (#43090959)

Can you explain how ingestion of an R/C aircraft can cause the failure of two engines

It's worth noting here that geese, like most birds, have rather delicate bones. An R/C aircraft might have steel and other really hard materials that could do more damage. That drops the number of engines to one. If the remaining one fails due to the addition stress placed on it, then you have two engine failures as desired.

An uncorrelated, stress-induced failure of the remaining engine seems pretty unlikely — quoting Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

"When flying far from diversionary airports, (so called ETOPS/LROPS flights), the aircraft must be able to reach an alternate on the remaining engine within a specified time in case of one engine failure. Power is not an issue. One of the engines is more than powerful enough to keep the aircraft aloft. Mostly, it is about maintenance and design requirements ensuring that a failure of one engine cannot make the other one fail, also. The engines and related systems need to be independent and (in essence) independently maintained. ETOPS/LROPS is often incorrectly thought to apply only to long overwater flights. In fact it applies to any flight more than specified distances from an available diversion airport. Overwater flights near diversion airports need not be ETOPS/LROPS compliant."

Re:Not a joke (1)

k2r (255754) | about a year ago | (#43090963)

> An R/C aircraft might have steel and other really hard materials that could do more damage.

So somebody dropped a castiron drone from somewhere above the plane?
I see no other way to make an aircraft made of steel or similar fly.

Maybe a castiron quadcopter with a nuclear reactor?

Re:Not a joke (1)

Phelony (2628303) | about a year ago | (#43090661)

Really dude? The loss of ONE engine is an extremely serious *emergency* situation -- the plane is required to land ASAP -- ie. Do not pass "Go". There are multi-year, massive and expensive (multi-million $$) investigations that result from a single engine failure on a 747.

Re:Not a joke (1)

cffrost (885375) | about a year ago | (#43091003)

Really dude? The loss of ONE engine is an extremely serious *emergency* situation -- the plane is required to land ASAP -- ie. Do not pass "Go".

There are multi-year, massive and expensive (multi-million $$) investigations that result from a single engine failure on a 747.

Can you show me where I said anything to imply that single engine failures were non-emergencies that didn't require investigation?

Re:Not a joke (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090791)

I doubt you'd be this cavalier if YOU were on a plane that had even a single engine failure. I bet you'd be crying like a little girl, big guy.

Re:Not a joke (2)

cffrost (885375) | about a year ago | (#43091075)

I doubt you'd be this cavalier if YOU were on a plane that had even a single engine failure. I bet you'd be crying like a little girl, big guy.

How is asking a technical question about an assumed cascade failure mode "cavalier?" With all due respect, I think you're on the wrong site.

Times are a changin' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090141)

In the good old days we called these UFOs.

oh that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090209)

That was just my iphone with a propeller kit.

Don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090241)

Everybody on board that plane was a terrorist on the kill list.

Quadcopter (1)

hooiberg (1789158) | about a year ago | (#43090273)

If a quadcopter would be sucked into one of the jet engines, it would be shredded and burned to ashes and vapor without as much as a glitch. These engines are tested with frozen turkeys and the like. On the other hand, the RC pilot would have lost an expensive toy, probably with a camera on it, otherwise you do not fly it so close to an airplane, making it even more expensive. One would expect a pilot of such a craft to fly it with responsibility and common sense in mind. In that case, it could also simply be an accident. Flying the craft out of range, sender/receiver malfunction or another of many possibly failures. I think with the sequester going on, the US government has more important stuff on its mind than somebody flying a quadcopter near an airport.

Re:Quadcopter (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#43090947)

These engines are tested with frozen turkeys and the like.

Citation definitely needed here. If a plane can be taken down by a little non-frozen boid, then presumably a frozen boid would do more damage. Though, in my experience, I don't believe I have ever seen a frozen turkey flapping around in commercial flight-paths.

Re:Quadcopter (2)

TedRiot (899157) | about a year ago | (#43090961)

Well, it is very cold above 30 thousand feet and the Turkeys are struggling not to freeze up there.

Re:Quadcopter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43091087)

Nope. You're just dead wrong. Putting a coin into an engine is a very effective way to sabotage it. Hell, volcanic ash so fine you can't see it will damage turbine engines. Tip clearances are 3-5 atom in the compressor section. Many turbine blades are monocrystaline. We could make them a lot more survivable, but the specific fuel consumption would go to shit. That's one of the reasons the Air Force and Navy are burning so much jet fuel -- they're using 1970's and 80's engine designs that just aren't economical.

Re:Quadcopter (5, Informative)

couchslug (175151) | about a year ago | (#43091105)

Retired engine mech here.

Jet engines are tested with birds, but that doesn't mean birds can't damage them. It means they should be able to digest that standard weight of poultry and not fail. Maintenance would inspect (visual and fiber-optic borescope) them on return for maintenance.

Birds aren't metal. An engine sucking in an aircraft forms binder (for example) can sustain considerable damage just from the metal spine.

It's a crapshoot what sending hard parts down an intake will do. Just one bolt could, if it got to the compressor section, take an engine out. It rarely does.

Hugo Chavez dead (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090277)

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez was found dead in his Caracas home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Hugo Chavez dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43091189)

LOL!!!

The dictator of Venezuela!!!!

It will be easy to find the owner (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090327)

when they upload the onboard camera footage to YouTube.

Drones of Extra-terrestrial origin (1)

ixarux (1652631) | about a year ago | (#43090369)

Are UFOs out of fashion now? I miss the old days of government-related conspiracy theories.
And X-Files.
The truth is out there.

Drones save lives! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090451)

Kamikaze drones save lives one at a time.

it's funny now, later it's insidious (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090783)

Just wait until some property get's damaged, and people killed.
Who is going to be responsible?

It might be funny now, but farther down the time-line it's going to become insidious

Hobbyists will become the next terrorists.
The public will whine.
The media will drum up the public + government will kick in with solutions.

The Solutions will be you now live in HELL ON EARTH
Oath breakers
No Constitution
War
Pollution
Food Poison
Water Poison
Vaccine eugenics
You won't own property
You won't GROW food
You won't be independent
You won't live off-grid

More likely one of those 2700 MRAP's will mow you down, with the 2 billion DHS bullerts and military hardware

Meanwhile they want you to register your weapons and document your life, and c opy all your conversations

The real terrorists are one's who activated DHS.
There is some terrorism in the world it's true, but NOT this crap, this is scripted death squads, concentration camps and bankster theft and it ain't sustainable.

Oh yeah you fuckers said we were nuts about chemtrails too you oath breaking pieces of SHIT....

Not a Drone C.I.A Black ops job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43090823)

C.I.A survallance over New York, plane and simple. They are watching.

I suspect... (1)

lexsird (1208192) | about a year ago | (#43091143)

I'm imagining some hobbyist is setting at home shitting themselves. It sounds like a GPS controlled version of a RC toy. Someone probably programmed it with something like Google Earth, but didn't have the information for what was safe air space. If the turbulence didn't turn it to confetti and it made it home, someone was in for a big surprise when they played back what it recorded.

Let's hope everyone doesn't overreact and this is just a case of "derp" on behalf of a curious explorer.

If it's not, and this is worse case scenario, this is about to get interesting. I edited myself from even voicing how this could go sideways.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...