Plane damaged after being hit by York police drone at Buttonville Airport(toronto.ctvnews.ca)
toronto.ctvnews.ca
Plane damaged after being hit by York police drone at Buttonville Airport
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/plane-damaged-after-being-hit-by-york-police-drone-at-buttonville-airport-1.5554617
139 comments
The details in the avweb article are pretty damning... 500 AGL and one mile final is not even "near an airport," it's very obviously right in front of the approach end. Hard to imagine how anyone was operating a drone there without complete reckless disregard for safety.
The last time drone training came up, I pointed out that drone operators have no skin in the game, and often act like it too.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27618757
I was admonished that I was describing the behavior of only the most psychopathic individuals. So clearly my fears were unfounded.
From the avweb article: "The police department has not commented any further on the mishap except to say the drone was part of a police operation in the area."
Perhaps someone would care to explain how the department's response is substantively different from "opsie daisy"? Is it just that the pilot happend to get lucky this time, and the mid-air collision only caused a massive dent on the engine cowling?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27618757
I was admonished that I was describing the behavior of only the most psychopathic individuals. So clearly my fears were unfounded.
From the avweb article: "The police department has not commented any further on the mishap except to say the drone was part of a police operation in the area."
Perhaps someone would care to explain how the department's response is substantively different from "opsie daisy"? Is it just that the pilot happend to get lucky this time, and the mid-air collision only caused a massive dent on the engine cowling?
> I was admonished that I was describing the behavior of only the most psychopathic individuals.
A pretty apt description of the cops operating that drone...
A pretty apt description of the cops operating that drone...
Any reasonably professional part 107 operator (or Canuck equivalent thereof) would say hell no to operating in the glideslope of a runway like that.
In fact, Canada doesn’t distinguish between commercial and hobby RPAS operators. Anything over 250g needs at least a Basic license, and anything operating in controlled airspace needs an Advanced license and a filed SFOC. The basic license clarifies where you’re allowed to fly at all.
Soooo these clowns either had no clue at all about the licensing, or just straight up didn’t care. The IR says that Nav Canada (ATC) wasn’t informed of the flight ahead of time, so pretty unlikely that an SFOC was involved.
Soooo these clowns either had no clue at all about the licensing, or just straight up didn’t care. The IR says that Nav Canada (ATC) wasn’t informed of the flight ahead of time, so pretty unlikely that an SFOC was involved.
I can totally understand that they didn't care - they are police after all and peasant regulations rarely apply. But having no clue? I mean, if I just walk close to a runway I make sure to look in all hundred directions just in case, yet they flew right through it, yolo?
[deleted]
The airplane reported both 500AGL and 1NM (nautical mile) which is oddly the exact lower limit for altitude, and the exact limit to distance for 'advanced operating' drone from the airport, as far as I understand. Why those exact legal limits? What are the odds of that?
If the drone operator reported those numbers, they'd only be 100ft outside of where they should be legally.
Since both '500' and '1' are pretty arbitrary numbers, any reasonable margin of error puts a ton of range for the drone to be flying in safety while the pilot being at error. Or both.
This seems to be a 'threshold' issue, not some arbitrary invasion of space, but we'll have to wait for Transport Canada, hopefully the drone will have precise information. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If the drone operator reported those numbers, they'd only be 100ft outside of where they should be legally.
Since both '500' and '1' are pretty arbitrary numbers, any reasonable margin of error puts a ton of range for the drone to be flying in safety while the pilot being at error. Or both.
This seems to be a 'threshold' issue, not some arbitrary invasion of space, but we'll have to wait for Transport Canada, hopefully the drone will have precise information. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I would mostly attribute it to what the pilots are likely to notice - 500' AGL is a standard call-out on landing approach (not that light aircraft pilots necessary 'call it out' but their Foreflight or whatever very well may have), and the airport in question is actually uncontrolled so "one mile final" would be a common point to make a radio call.
So it's probably that it happened somewhere near those numbers, and they were the references the pilot readily knew of.
So it's probably that it happened somewhere near those numbers, and they were the references the pilot readily knew of.
This is not a threshold issue (other than a Boolean threshold of the drone operator needing to comply with the law and not doing so).
There is no lower limit for aircraft in the process of taking off or landing. I’m much more familiar with US aviation law, so I’ll give you US citation there, but it’s not likely to be wildly different elsewhere.
A fairly typical approach slope is 3°, which would put an aircraft around 320’ above touchdown zone elevation at 1 nm. There is of course some variation above and below that.
There’s no incentive for the pilot to shade or cheat their reported position. They would be legal at 419 feet and 1.625 nm just as well as 500’ and 1 nm.
Canadian regs (US are different here) require that if this were an airport without a control tower, the drone would need to be a minimum of 3 miles away from it. With an operating control tower, the drone operator needs permission and active radio contact with the tower.
The general safe altitude law in the US is 91.119*, which begins: Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (Necessary is consistently interpreted somewhat broadly rather than extremely narrowly.)
* https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119
There is no lower limit for aircraft in the process of taking off or landing. I’m much more familiar with US aviation law, so I’ll give you US citation there, but it’s not likely to be wildly different elsewhere.
A fairly typical approach slope is 3°, which would put an aircraft around 320’ above touchdown zone elevation at 1 nm. There is of course some variation above and below that.
There’s no incentive for the pilot to shade or cheat their reported position. They would be legal at 419 feet and 1.625 nm just as well as 500’ and 1 nm.
Canadian regs (US are different here) require that if this were an airport without a control tower, the drone would need to be a minimum of 3 miles away from it. With an operating control tower, the drone operator needs permission and active radio contact with the tower.
The general safe altitude law in the US is 91.119*, which begins: Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (Necessary is consistently interpreted somewhat broadly rather than extremely narrowly.)
* https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119
> that sense-and-avoid won't solve the problem entirely, since there's a fair number of aircraft that are not transponder equipped.
To be honest, I kinda hate the fact that DJI won't bring Airsense to the smaller drones. I love my Air 2S and I've seen it in action many times, helicopters often give you a 30-40 second window to get out of the way before you even see them.
To be honest, I kinda hate the fact that DJI won't bring Airsense to the smaller drones. I love my Air 2S and I've seen it in action many times, helicopters often give you a 30-40 second window to get out of the way before you even see them.
I generally haven’t found it useful. Too many false positives, and too many aircraft not using transponders - especially helicopters in Class G airspace.
Personally I’m hoping for some basic radar functionality, but that is going to be tough in smaller drones!
Personally I’m hoping for some basic radar functionality, but that is going to be tough in smaller drones!
I’m struggling to understand how Airsense would create a false positive (detect a plane that wasn’t there). It’s just listening for ADS-B out signals, which contain GPS position information.
Perhaps DJI could be being overly conservative in their algorithm, but the airplane that’s in the ADS-B transmission really is where it says it is.
Perhaps DJI could be being overly conservative in their algorithm, but the airplane that’s in the ADS-B transmission really is where it says it is.
I do a decent amount of flying in non-LAANC controlled and military controlled airspace (some near active airports). At least on the M300 RTK, their algorithms are total junk, and I get endless warnings (and serious ‘oh my god, reduce altitude now!’ type alerts for aircraft like jetliners coming in for approach - when I’m 90 degrees off their flight path, and 3-4 miles away. I also get critical warnings for aircraft flying overhead, which hey could in theory be a problem - if they weren’t climbing at 1k ft/min+, and at least 10k feet in altitude over me, when I’m at 200 ft AGL puttering around and the nearby trees are 100 ft tall.
It’s literally worse than useless, as it makes gives alarm fatigue. I’ve also had 3 sudden aircraft just showed up and almost ran me over events in Class G airspace, including one with a very expensive helicopter running nap of the earth - none of them were running transponders. But at least the helicopter pilot had some bitching sunglasses on.
It’s literally worse than useless, as it makes gives alarm fatigue. I’ve also had 3 sudden aircraft just showed up and almost ran me over events in Class G airspace, including one with a very expensive helicopter running nap of the earth - none of them were running transponders. But at least the helicopter pilot had some bitching sunglasses on.
At least in the US there are both LEO and military aircraft that fly around with their transponders turned off. I’m not sure that “sense and avoid” would’ve worked in this case if the cops decided for whatever reason they’d turn off ADS-B.
[deleted]
> Canada also doesn't yet mandate ADS-B equipage
Neither does the US in an overwhelming majority of airspace under 10,000’MSL.
I chose to equip as I’m based at an airport in airspace that requires it, but if I were willing to move airports about 20 miles up the road, I could conceivably operate for years without ever needing to access airspace where ADS-B is required (and waivers are, anecdotally, readily granted at least for now).
“See and avoid” is the law in VMC, not “sense and avoid”. FAR 91.113.b*. (That’s US law; I suspect Canada is similar**.)
* - https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.113
** - Transport Canada, TP 14371E, Transport Canada Aeronautical Information Manual (TC AIM) (26 March 2020), RAC – Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Services, section 4.5.6. (Probably not regulatory, but likely based on a regulation.)
Neither does the US in an overwhelming majority of airspace under 10,000’MSL.
I chose to equip as I’m based at an airport in airspace that requires it, but if I were willing to move airports about 20 miles up the road, I could conceivably operate for years without ever needing to access airspace where ADS-B is required (and waivers are, anecdotally, readily granted at least for now).
“See and avoid” is the law in VMC, not “sense and avoid”. FAR 91.113.b*. (That’s US law; I suspect Canada is similar**.)
* - https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.113
** - Transport Canada, TP 14371E, Transport Canada Aeronautical Information Manual (TC AIM) (26 March 2020), RAC – Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Services, section 4.5.6. (Probably not regulatory, but likely based on a regulation.)
> Neither does the US in an overwhelming majority of airspace under 10,000’MSL.
You are of course correct. But that's getting into the finer details of the FARs, and there's only so much comment space here. We could also talk about aircraft which don't have an electrical system. ;) I did mention that not everyone in the US was equipped, which seemed sufficient.
> “See and avoid” is the law in VMC, not “sense and avoid”.
"Sense-and-avoid" actually is the the correct term in this case. This is part of how the FAA wants to integrate commercial drones into the NAS. The idea is that future drones will have an ADS-B receiver and maneuver to avoid known traffic.
See the section on "detect and avoid" strategies here: https://www.faa.gov/uas/research_development/information_pap...
Though again, as mentioned... there are a good number of aircraft are not equipped, so this doesn't cover all possible cases.
You are of course correct. But that's getting into the finer details of the FARs, and there's only so much comment space here. We could also talk about aircraft which don't have an electrical system. ;) I did mention that not everyone in the US was equipped, which seemed sufficient.
> “See and avoid” is the law in VMC, not “sense and avoid”.
"Sense-and-avoid" actually is the the correct term in this case. This is part of how the FAA wants to integrate commercial drones into the NAS. The idea is that future drones will have an ADS-B receiver and maneuver to avoid known traffic.
See the section on "detect and avoid" strategies here: https://www.faa.gov/uas/research_development/information_pap...
Though again, as mentioned... there are a good number of aircraft are not equipped, so this doesn't cover all possible cases.
Thanks for the links to the FAA UAS research and certification work. Sense and avoid is indeed correct in the research being done (though not yet the active federal law governing airspace).
You did mention some aircraft are not equipped with transponders, which I took to mean the common use of the term in aviation: a 4096 code mode A/C transponder, not ADS-B out.
Slightly under half of general aviation aircraft are not equipped for ADS-B out (the overwhelming majority of these do have a transponder) and at this point, it seems fair to conclude most of those will never be equipped. (If you chose not to equip for the Jan 2, 2020 requirement, all that would compel you now to take on the upfront and recurring expenses associated would be change in usage requiring regular access to 91.225 airspace. In fact, for many non-ADS-B out airplanes, 4096 code transponders now provide little value, so the first time they need non-trivial maintenance, I’d expect some portion of those to be removed instead of repaired because they’re now primarily a convenience item and don’t on their own provide access to any airspace by rule.)
I can readily imagine a future where UAS operations are allowed under 500’ AGL over cities (aircraft are already blocked from operating there except during takeoff and landing). I don’t expect a near-future where class E airspace is open to drones unable to reliably see/sense and avoid aircraft that don’t have ADS-B out. There’s just too many such aircraft and will be for decades to come unless 91.225 is substantially expanded.
You did mention some aircraft are not equipped with transponders, which I took to mean the common use of the term in aviation: a 4096 code mode A/C transponder, not ADS-B out.
Slightly under half of general aviation aircraft are not equipped for ADS-B out (the overwhelming majority of these do have a transponder) and at this point, it seems fair to conclude most of those will never be equipped. (If you chose not to equip for the Jan 2, 2020 requirement, all that would compel you now to take on the upfront and recurring expenses associated would be change in usage requiring regular access to 91.225 airspace. In fact, for many non-ADS-B out airplanes, 4096 code transponders now provide little value, so the first time they need non-trivial maintenance, I’d expect some portion of those to be removed instead of repaired because they’re now primarily a convenience item and don’t on their own provide access to any airspace by rule.)
I can readily imagine a future where UAS operations are allowed under 500’ AGL over cities (aircraft are already blocked from operating there except during takeoff and landing). I don’t expect a near-future where class E airspace is open to drones unable to reliably see/sense and avoid aircraft that don’t have ADS-B out. There’s just too many such aircraft and will be for decades to come unless 91.225 is substantially expanded.
> Neither does the US in an overwhelming majority of airspace under 10,000’MSL.
This is a bad take. It’s required in all controlled airspace. That’s what’s important.
It’s like saying there are no traffic laws on majority of land in the US. It’s moot.
Edit: I'm wrong, read below.
This is a bad take. It’s required in all controlled airspace. That’s what’s important.
It’s like saying there are no traffic laws on majority of land in the US. It’s moot.
Edit: I'm wrong, read below.
> This is a bad take. It’s required in all controlled airspace.
That is incorrect. ADS-B out is required in class A, in and above classes B and C of controlled airspace, in the class B mode-C veils and class E controlled airspace that over both 10K MSL and 2.5K AGL.
It is not required in class D controlled airspace nor in the overwhelming majority of class E controlled airspace which isn’t covered by the prior paragraph.
* - https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/ads-b/whe...
** - https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.225
That is incorrect. ADS-B out is required in class A, in and above classes B and C of controlled airspace, in the class B mode-C veils and class E controlled airspace that over both 10K MSL and 2.5K AGL.
It is not required in class D controlled airspace nor in the overwhelming majority of class E controlled airspace which isn’t covered by the prior paragraph.
* - https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/ads-b/whe...
** - https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.225
I stand corrected.
It's required in class A, B, C, and E above 10,000' MSL. And within 30 nm of a Class B airport (mode C veil). That leaves a ton of controlled airspace in which it's not required. There are more class D airports and airports with class E surface areas, than there are class B and C airports.
I used to work in aviation. The police fly like they drive (i.e like the rules don't apply to them, because they don't). This isn't surprising in the least.
Buttonville airport is a small regional airport with few flights in/out on any given day. Anyone can monitor the tower on VHF and get a clue as to what is coming in, and some smaller planes do have ADS-B transponders and show-up on flightradar, or a basic SDR rig. It is flat terrain and any low-flying aircraft is visible well before it passes overhead. Can’t think of any excuse as to how this might have been allowed to happen.
I had never heard the term "airbox" before. To save people some Googling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbox
That pilot is lucky the police didn't try to arrest him for damaging their drone. US cops would have. But he should sue them personally for reckless endangerment, and for repairs for the damage to his aircraft.
Suing their department would do no good, beyond maybe getting his repairs paid for.
Suing their department would do no good, beyond maybe getting his repairs paid for.
Is this the first known incident where a plane hit a drone operated by another person / organization?
don’t give them jet packs
Hopefully the police get a fine and licence temporarily revoked just like a civilian would have.
It's weird how my perception of cops have changed. Actually that's a lie. I lost respect for the profession in high school.
That said, my immediate thought is they (cops) were fooling around with their new toy.
I guess my view would change if they lightened up on Revenue Collection, and solely zoned in on real crime? And what is real crime? I guess murders, white collar crime, organized gangs. It's not drugs.
That said, my immediate thought is they (cops) were fooling around with their new toy.
I guess my view would change if they lightened up on Revenue Collection, and solely zoned in on real crime? And what is real crime? I guess murders, white collar crime, organized gangs. It's not drugs.
This wasn't a toy drone like a DJI Mavic or similar. Assuming they haven't changed hardware, it cost ~$125,000, takes a team of two to operate, and weighs 2.4kg (5.2lbs).[1]
This is the damage done to the airplane.[2] It will require body work and an engine tear-down (prop struck the drone). If the drone had been a bit higher, it could have done major damage to the prop or worse the windscreen and possibly pilot.
1 - https://www.toronto.com/news-story/5728426-york-regional-pol...
2 - https://s30121.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/plane-hit-...
This is the damage done to the airplane.[2] It will require body work and an engine tear-down (prop struck the drone). If the drone had been a bit higher, it could have done major damage to the prop or worse the windscreen and possibly pilot.
1 - https://www.toronto.com/news-story/5728426-york-regional-pol...
2 - https://s30121.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/plane-hit-...
That doesn't mean the officers operating it weren't treating it like a toy. Hopefully the investigation is exhaustive and objective.
It’s worth pointing out that “real crime” is a social construct. Petty crime is a prosecuted, despite being dwarfed by wage theft. Shooting someone is a crime, obviously, but purposefully starving thousands of infants to boost Nestle stock values is not.
What you or I think of being the “real crime” that cops should focus on may or may not be what the laws define as real crime, which itself probably doesn’t map to what cops spend all their time doing
What you or I think of being the “real crime” that cops should focus on may or may not be what the laws define as real crime, which itself probably doesn’t map to what cops spend all their time doing
When I learned that you can show the police videos of who stole your property and give them the exact gps coordinates where your stolen property is right now or even the exact address of the house and they will do absolutely nothing… that is when I first realized that the police are worthless.
But if you go yourself to recover your property, that’s stalking and harassment and can get you arrested…
Do absolutely nothing? They took your report, and filed it. Who do you think the police work for?
I was sideswiped by a car speeding and passing illegally, that then fled the scene. Dashcam caught the license plate. No charges filed. I was lucky they were insured, and that their insurance company socked them for my repairs.
I was sideswiped by a car speeding and passing illegally, that then fled the scene. Dashcam caught the license plate. No charges filed. I was lucky they were insured, and that their insurance company socked them for my repairs.
[deleted]
In the broadest possible interpretation, lots of things are social constructs, but I would imagine that any functional society would generally agree that murder, rape, assault, and theft should be discouraged.
> murder, rape, assault, and theft
Lots of people have lots of opinions on what those things even are. Most of those opinions are utterly ridiculous.
Lots of people have lots of opinions on what those things even are. Most of those opinions are utterly ridiculous.
[deleted]
Police agree with you on 3 out of 4
That’s unreasonably generous to cops, IMO. They have a pretty long track record of doing all of those and getting away with it.
To be fair, I'm _reasonably_ sure most cops don't do those things.
Most cops just let it slide while their "bad apple" colleagues do those thing. And are therefore complicit in perpetuating them. So you're still right about it being unreasonably generous to all cops, even if not all of them do that shit.
Most cops just let it slide while their "bad apple" colleagues do those thing. And are therefore complicit in perpetuating them. So you're still right about it being unreasonably generous to all cops, even if not all of them do that shit.
It’s hard to say given that the stats are poorly kept, but it’s currently estimated that 40% of cops commit domestic abuse. Given that that’s a crime, a serious one at that, it wouldn’t surprise me if over half of them commit more petty crimes like theft.
And even for the most obvious ones that police agree with, how much of their resources and effort go towards investigating and actively preventing those crimes? Detective shows are popular, but isn't that sort of police work a vanishingly small portion of police budgets?
Yeah, the amount of "revenue collection" they do borders on theft I suppose.
Yes, in the broadest sense we want to discourage crimes like murder, rape, assault, and theft. I don’t think anyone reasonable disagrees with this concept. The issue I’m raising is that what the definition of things like “rape” and “murder” is where problems start.
My cynical point is that socially we tend to define “real crimes” in such a way to reinforce existing power hierarchies. Steal from the register and face prosecution, steal from your employee and maybe be forced to pay it back (maybe). Shoot your neighbor and get executed by the state, poison the river and face a civil case, starve foreign infants and face no consequences whatsoever. Morally all of these are awful things, but which ones get criminalized and prosecuted is extremely selective. The rich and powerful often not only get selective treatment when prosecuted, but the kind of violence that can bring is often not even criminalized at all.
My most horrifying example is the fact that until the 1990s it wasn’t legally possible for a man to be charged with raping his wife in some states. 13 states still treat marital rape as a lesser crime than rape of a non-spouse. I think we’d all agree that punishing rape is a good thing for the justice system to be doing, but that’s hardly sufficient when the law has such obvious holes in it.
My cynical point is that socially we tend to define “real crimes” in such a way to reinforce existing power hierarchies. Steal from the register and face prosecution, steal from your employee and maybe be forced to pay it back (maybe). Shoot your neighbor and get executed by the state, poison the river and face a civil case, starve foreign infants and face no consequences whatsoever. Morally all of these are awful things, but which ones get criminalized and prosecuted is extremely selective. The rich and powerful often not only get selective treatment when prosecuted, but the kind of violence that can bring is often not even criminalized at all.
My most horrifying example is the fact that until the 1990s it wasn’t legally possible for a man to be charged with raping his wife in some states. 13 states still treat marital rape as a lesser crime than rape of a non-spouse. I think we’d all agree that punishing rape is a good thing for the justice system to be doing, but that’s hardly sufficient when the law has such obvious holes in it.
I agree with you, but I do think that as a society we need to think about mechanisms to prevent false accusations and wrongful convictions. Both sexes can have immoral motivations [1].
In general, people are more likely to believe the word of a woman over the word of a man. So if a woman accuses a man of something, unless he can prove his innocence, he's got I would estimate a 3/4 chance of being found guilty of whatever the crime is. I think we need some way to rebalance that.
All laws and prosecutorial systems should be designed with misuse in mind, because misuse will happen. We should always think, "if I felt wronged by some person and wanted to get revenge, using the system as a weapon and being willing to lie, could I successfully use the system to get my revenge?" And I think in many cases in our current systems the answer is yes, misuse is very much possible. I won't even bother to describe any scenarios, because I'm sure we can all imagine them. Well, here's one [2]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDpvwWWzJuk
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLowHT_ytBs
Other links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGE-3ioAlmQ
In general, people are more likely to believe the word of a woman over the word of a man. So if a woman accuses a man of something, unless he can prove his innocence, he's got I would estimate a 3/4 chance of being found guilty of whatever the crime is. I think we need some way to rebalance that.
All laws and prosecutorial systems should be designed with misuse in mind, because misuse will happen. We should always think, "if I felt wronged by some person and wanted to get revenge, using the system as a weapon and being willing to lie, could I successfully use the system to get my revenge?" And I think in many cases in our current systems the answer is yes, misuse is very much possible. I won't even bother to describe any scenarios, because I'm sure we can all imagine them. Well, here's one [2]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDpvwWWzJuk
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLowHT_ytBs
Other links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGE-3ioAlmQ
I don't actually disagree with anything you've said... but I don't know what point you're trying to make in the context of replying to the parent comment.
I was genuinely wondering too.
I had to answer in a bit of a roundabout way to avoid being mistakenly thought to be saying things I'm not saying. It's tough these days.
I still don't understand where you were trying to go with your comment. If one person comments about the fact that marital rape and other forms are rape are treated differently and your response is to be wary of false accusations, I'm going to have an uncharitable reading of your comment. I'm just trying to understand what your actual intention was.
Now nobody has any clue what you’re saying, which is maybe not great, but probably not as bad as whatever you’re fearing.
> I guess my view would change if they lightened up on Revenue Collection, and solely zoned in on real crime? And what is real crime? I guess murders, white collar crime, organized gangs. It's not drugs.
Then I would suggest you do not look up the statistics on how many "real crime" cases get solved. Murders, most of which are done in the moment and not planned out at all. Even premeditated must be understood to mean "X tried to extort Y, fight ensued, knife was used, Y died", and very much not "the butler, after 2 years of slowly preparing for the moment, set in motion his plan ..." like in the books.
Of all murders, the police solve about 60% of cases. Every other crime it goes down significantly (and theft is far below 10%).
There's a reason actual premeditated murders usually make the news for a week.
Then I would suggest you do not look up the statistics on how many "real crime" cases get solved. Murders, most of which are done in the moment and not planned out at all. Even premeditated must be understood to mean "X tried to extort Y, fight ensued, knife was used, Y died", and very much not "the butler, after 2 years of slowly preparing for the moment, set in motion his plan ..." like in the books.
Of all murders, the police solve about 60% of cases. Every other crime it goes down significantly (and theft is far below 10%).
There's a reason actual premeditated murders usually make the news for a week.
Of all murders, the police solve about 60% of cases.
The work of The Innocence Project makes me question how many cases they solve versus how many they found a targetable person to scapegoat instead.
Certainly a lot of the "science" that gets used to identify who the killer is pseudo-scientific bunk. Very convenient for looking for a conviction, very bad for actually catching bad guys.
The work of The Innocence Project makes me question how many cases they solve versus how many they found a targetable person to scapegoat instead.
Certainly a lot of the "science" that gets used to identify who the killer is pseudo-scientific bunk. Very convenient for looking for a conviction, very bad for actually catching bad guys.
the 60% figure is referring to the clearance rate, which is just the ratio of charges filed to crimes reported. so if by "solve" you mean "someone gets convicted", the rate is quite a bit lower.
Aren't something like 98% of criminal cases pled out before trial, and the majority of those that go to trial end in a guilty verdict?
If you find yourself in a suit before a jury you're likely to have a bad time.
If you find yourself in a suit before a jury you're likely to have a bad time.
Cops are there to maintain their jobs, and their leaders are there to expand the corporation and make more money. The companies that support policing are there to make more profit. For all this to happen, they need to manufacture more "crime", even though all statistics say that crime is in a long term decline.
> I guess my view would change if they lightened up on Revenue Collection
For that, you need political change. Many a constituency has elected to rip off their people with absurd policing tactics - including asset forfeiture abuse - that primarily target poor people to fund their operations, instead of properly raising taxes, because raising taxes is a hard sell "thanks" to decades of small-gubmint, trickle down propaganda.
For that, you need political change. Many a constituency has elected to rip off their people with absurd policing tactics - including asset forfeiture abuse - that primarily target poor people to fund their operations, instead of properly raising taxes, because raising taxes is a hard sell "thanks" to decades of small-gubmint, trickle down propaganda.
Personally I don't want to pay more taxes because I can see how little the government cares to spend it with any sense of effeciency. I don't care how large the government is as long as it isnt throwing trillions of dollers into various money pits.
I saw a lecture from a poli sci prof at princeton. Taxes have generally not been going up as services have expanded. Debt is one answer and "revenue generation" is another. It is really shameful how traffic fines has become big business in most of north america. Is europe better on this?
You must not know anyone who does heroin, fentanyl or addicted to scrip. opioids, and therefore would have difficulty imagining how free and open access to those substances would lead to something much worse than COVID for civilization, and therefore maybe don't get quite why in the 'Supply Demand' equation, that law enforcement in totality (not just Police) basically keep a 'lid on things' such that the cost (economic and social) for such things is quite high, resulting in only relatively marginal demand.
Your statement also belies a couple of other misunderstandings in that 1) Police don't make the law and 2) 'go after organized crime' ... when almost all organized crime activity is actually drugs.
Some drugs like mushrooms we can probably move off the watch list, others, like MDMA feel like there should be options, but we are just not structured well for it, but most of the more potent ones just won't work in society irrespective of how a relatively small group of conscientious burningman-ers can 'handle their stuff'.
As for the drone - it was involved in some kind of operation, we have no idea the parameters of the situation or what kinds of risks were taken, why, or even where the civilian plane was at the time, hopefully we will. The Police obviously operate under a completely different set of parameters so it's hard to fathom what's going on.
What's 'wierd' to me is how people can use such casual thinking to make such broad social assessments kind of devoid from reality. I think it has to do with the fact that all systems are imperfect, and when we see an imperfection from the outside, we tend to extrapolate that to the entire system and don't have a developed intuition at all for the material reality of it all. I'll bet anyone most police skeptics, were they to just ride with police for a few days, would be bored out of their minds at the relatively mundane applied pragmatic reality of it all.
Your statement also belies a couple of other misunderstandings in that 1) Police don't make the law and 2) 'go after organized crime' ... when almost all organized crime activity is actually drugs.
Some drugs like mushrooms we can probably move off the watch list, others, like MDMA feel like there should be options, but we are just not structured well for it, but most of the more potent ones just won't work in society irrespective of how a relatively small group of conscientious burningman-ers can 'handle their stuff'.
As for the drone - it was involved in some kind of operation, we have no idea the parameters of the situation or what kinds of risks were taken, why, or even where the civilian plane was at the time, hopefully we will. The Police obviously operate under a completely different set of parameters so it's hard to fathom what's going on.
What's 'wierd' to me is how people can use such casual thinking to make such broad social assessments kind of devoid from reality. I think it has to do with the fact that all systems are imperfect, and when we see an imperfection from the outside, we tend to extrapolate that to the entire system and don't have a developed intuition at all for the material reality of it all. I'll bet anyone most police skeptics, were they to just ride with police for a few days, would be bored out of their minds at the relatively mundane applied pragmatic reality of it all.
> or even where the civilian plane was at the time
From the CADORS report:
"The instructor for a Canadian Flyers International Inc. Cessna 172N (C-GKWL) reported that they had just turned from base leg to final for Runway 15 at Toronto/Buttonville, ON (CYKZ) and were established and stable at 1100 ASL, or about 500 AGL, when they felt a jolt that pushed them back on their seat. "
Pretty sure there's an extremely narrow left/right window either side to the runway centreline and a somewhat less narrow but still quite accurate distance from the runway that the plane could have been at "about 500 AGL" during it's landing approach.
There is zero doubt that the police were operating illegally and recklessly here. No amount of "operational security" or "war on drugs" or "qualified immunity" can _possibly_ apply to or excuse anyone, police included, for operating a drone directly in the landing approach flightpath of an active airport, and especially not without notifying the air traffic control and all aircraft in the vicinity. Any attempt to argue otherwise is without doubt an "assessment kind of devoid from reality".
From the CADORS report:
"The instructor for a Canadian Flyers International Inc. Cessna 172N (C-GKWL) reported that they had just turned from base leg to final for Runway 15 at Toronto/Buttonville, ON (CYKZ) and were established and stable at 1100 ASL, or about 500 AGL, when they felt a jolt that pushed them back on their seat. "
Pretty sure there's an extremely narrow left/right window either side to the runway centreline and a somewhat less narrow but still quite accurate distance from the runway that the plane could have been at "about 500 AGL" during it's landing approach.
There is zero doubt that the police were operating illegally and recklessly here. No amount of "operational security" or "war on drugs" or "qualified immunity" can _possibly_ apply to or excuse anyone, police included, for operating a drone directly in the landing approach flightpath of an active airport, and especially not without notifying the air traffic control and all aircraft in the vicinity. Any attempt to argue otherwise is without doubt an "assessment kind of devoid from reality".
I didn't say that cops should be able to fly dangerously 'because drugs'.
I said 'we don't really know' - and objected to arbitrary arguments about cops complicity, and narrow arguments about 'because drugs' as some kind of justification of lack of credibility in policing.
So you're 'pretty sure'? Well maybe there is some doubt.
From my limited understanding but referencing government sources - 500AG exactly the lower threshold for pilots, don't you think it's odd that they reported that they were 'just' at the threshold? Because if they were at 499AG they would breaking the law. So can we hate on civilians for 'always being so reckless?' if it were true. Or rather, even if that was true, we might want to assume it was probably a mistake? And those happen?
The other key detail is that they reported '1 nautical mile' from Buttonville, funny, because that's the exact distance from the airport for which 'Advanced Operations' drone flight is allowed, and it's highly probably the Police wold have this authority.
It seems slightly odd that the report was 'just within altitude' and 'just within' safety range for advanced op. drone flight.
Because if the drone reported those numbers, they would be just barely out of legal bounds.
If the drone reported 1NM and a slightly lower altitude, then they'd be totally legal, and the airplane would be doing the 'unsafe flying'.
1 NM seems a little arbitrary. Maybe it was 0.5, or maybe it's 1.5, in which case it wouldn't take much 'stretching of the envelope' of either party for an accident to happen.
'We'll know' about the specifics of the issue when Transport Canada has done the investigation - was it a civilian contractor? A poorly designed flight path? Was there tacit knowledge that someone was breaking the rules? Was something wrong, was the Pilot actually in error by flying too low? Was the drone just barely above ceiling and this happened?
I don't think we do know yet, and there's a lot of ways accidents can happen in any discipline.
I don't think it's reasonable to jump to arbitrary malicious conclusions and then pile on with low grade 'I don't like cops 'cause they stop me from doing things!' rhetoric.
So we wait for Transport Canada's report for more details, and 'war on drugs' just isn't part of the equation.
I said 'we don't really know' - and objected to arbitrary arguments about cops complicity, and narrow arguments about 'because drugs' as some kind of justification of lack of credibility in policing.
So you're 'pretty sure'? Well maybe there is some doubt.
From my limited understanding but referencing government sources - 500AG exactly the lower threshold for pilots, don't you think it's odd that they reported that they were 'just' at the threshold? Because if they were at 499AG they would breaking the law. So can we hate on civilians for 'always being so reckless?' if it were true. Or rather, even if that was true, we might want to assume it was probably a mistake? And those happen?
The other key detail is that they reported '1 nautical mile' from Buttonville, funny, because that's the exact distance from the airport for which 'Advanced Operations' drone flight is allowed, and it's highly probably the Police wold have this authority.
It seems slightly odd that the report was 'just within altitude' and 'just within' safety range for advanced op. drone flight.
Because if the drone reported those numbers, they would be just barely out of legal bounds.
If the drone reported 1NM and a slightly lower altitude, then they'd be totally legal, and the airplane would be doing the 'unsafe flying'.
1 NM seems a little arbitrary. Maybe it was 0.5, or maybe it's 1.5, in which case it wouldn't take much 'stretching of the envelope' of either party for an accident to happen.
'We'll know' about the specifics of the issue when Transport Canada has done the investigation - was it a civilian contractor? A poorly designed flight path? Was there tacit knowledge that someone was breaking the rules? Was something wrong, was the Pilot actually in error by flying too low? Was the drone just barely above ceiling and this happened?
I don't think we do know yet, and there's a lot of ways accidents can happen in any discipline.
I don't think it's reasonable to jump to arbitrary malicious conclusions and then pile on with low grade 'I don't like cops 'cause they stop me from doing things!' rhetoric.
So we wait for Transport Canada's report for more details, and 'war on drugs' just isn't part of the equation.
> From my limited understanding but referencing government sources - 500AG exactly the lower threshold for pilots, don't you think it's odd that they reported that they were 'just' at the threshold?
I will admit to not being an aviation law expert, but I'm "pretty sure" the "lower threshold for pilots" who are landing at an airport is zero feet above ground level, and that there is a well known path via which pilots pass through 500 and 499 feet on their way there.
I live directly under a flight path, about 3km out. Do you know how much 'stretching of the envelope' there is on aircraft approach paths? Very very little, they are always flying down what I estimate to be a corridor probably less that 10m sideways deviation from each other, and as far as my untrained eye can tell always the same altitude. They're all aiming to hit the same near end of a ~2000m long runway that's about 50m wide. They are not "maybe 0.5nm short, maybe 0.5nm long" - where I am, 0.5nm short means they crashed into the houses on the airport outskirts. 0.5nm long is probably just a really bad landing - at least for planes that don't need more than 2/3rds of the runway to land safely.
> there's a lot of ways accidents can happen in any discipline.
Sure.
But I fail to understand why you think there's _any_ reason at all to suspect the "accident" here involved errors on the part of the plane political, when it's so obviously a fuckup of the part of the drone operator that's 100% at fault here.
Why is it that you're so insistent on exonerating the cops here?
I will admit to not being an aviation law expert, but I'm "pretty sure" the "lower threshold for pilots" who are landing at an airport is zero feet above ground level, and that there is a well known path via which pilots pass through 500 and 499 feet on their way there.
I live directly under a flight path, about 3km out. Do you know how much 'stretching of the envelope' there is on aircraft approach paths? Very very little, they are always flying down what I estimate to be a corridor probably less that 10m sideways deviation from each other, and as far as my untrained eye can tell always the same altitude. They're all aiming to hit the same near end of a ~2000m long runway that's about 50m wide. They are not "maybe 0.5nm short, maybe 0.5nm long" - where I am, 0.5nm short means they crashed into the houses on the airport outskirts. 0.5nm long is probably just a really bad landing - at least for planes that don't need more than 2/3rds of the runway to land safely.
> there's a lot of ways accidents can happen in any discipline.
Sure.
But I fail to understand why you think there's _any_ reason at all to suspect the "accident" here involved errors on the part of the plane political, when it's so obviously a fuckup of the part of the drone operator that's 100% at fault here.
Why is it that you're so insistent on exonerating the cops here?
I responded elsewhere in more detail to your incorrect claim that the fixed wing pilots would be in violation if they reported at 499’AGL instead of 500’: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28286331
I'm pretty sure that if a civilian was operating a drone in restricted airspace and a collision almost took out an aircraft, it would incur more than a fine and temporary license suspension. Just look at all of the folks being prosecuted for pointing a laser the wrong way in the sky.
http://jdasolutions.aero/blog/aiming-lasers-at-aircraft/
http://jdasolutions.aero/blog/aiming-lasers-at-aircraft/
> ... pointing a laser the wrong way ...
I don't see how the two situations compare.
If you are shining a laser light towards an aircraft, you are deliberately trying to inflict harm upon the pilot, and could easily cause an accident.
The police drone pilot screwed up, badly, and was possibly criminally negligent, but wasn't intending to down a plane, though that could easily have been the result.
I don't see how the two situations compare.
If you are shining a laser light towards an aircraft, you are deliberately trying to inflict harm upon the pilot, and could easily cause an accident.
The police drone pilot screwed up, badly, and was possibly criminally negligent, but wasn't intending to down a plane, though that could easily have been the result.
> you are deliberately trying to inflict harm upon the pilot
I suspect most people who shine lasers at aircraft are just being stupid and don’t intend to inflict harm on the pilot.
I’ve been hit by a green laser in a high-wing. At 3000’, the beam is wide enough that it lights up a substantial fraction of a wing, (quite brightly at night). I suspect that looks pretty entertaining to the laser wielder on the ground. I turned off my position lights, reported their location to ATC, and hope they’re caught, but I think it’s way more likely that they were being a bored butthead (probably a group thereof) than them actually trying to hurt me.
I suspect most people who shine lasers at aircraft are just being stupid and don’t intend to inflict harm on the pilot.
I’ve been hit by a green laser in a high-wing. At 3000’, the beam is wide enough that it lights up a substantial fraction of a wing, (quite brightly at night). I suspect that looks pretty entertaining to the laser wielder on the ground. I turned off my position lights, reported their location to ATC, and hope they’re caught, but I think it’s way more likely that they were being a bored butthead (probably a group thereof) than them actually trying to hurt me.
A lot of people who point lasers at planes don't understand how dangerous their actions are.
I expect the people that we give guns/drones to for the purpose of enforcing laws to understand the laws they're enforcing and the consequences of their actions.
I expect the people that we give guns/drones to for the purpose of enforcing laws to understand the laws they're enforcing and the consequences of their actions.
Personally I'm unconvinced by the danger posed by handheld lasers to an aircraft. A group of people all pointing high-powered ones into the eyes of a pilot as it's landing, yes that's dangerous. But a single person, it'd be pretty difficult to keep it on target long enough to have real effect. Most of the time I'd say it's just kids pointing up into the sky and maybe hitting the underside of a plane for a split-second, it's not the end of the world. Lets not act like they're shooting heat-seeking missiles.
Yes, it's not the right thing to do and shouldn't be happening, but let's not blow the risk out of all proportion. Of course I do understand why such behavior needs to be illegal, because otherwise whole neighborhoods could band together to distract pilots and bring down aircraft. But by the same token we don't need to send in the SWAT team for a teenager with a laser pointer.
Cue all the keyboard warrior pilots telling me how a 747 will instantly fall out of the sky if touched for a millisecond by a handheld AA-powered laser.
edit: actually just the downvotes, whatever.
Yes, it's not the right thing to do and shouldn't be happening, but let's not blow the risk out of all proportion. Of course I do understand why such behavior needs to be illegal, because otherwise whole neighborhoods could band together to distract pilots and bring down aircraft. But by the same token we don't need to send in the SWAT team for a teenager with a laser pointer.
Cue all the keyboard warrior pilots telling me how a 747 will instantly fall out of the sky if touched for a millisecond by a handheld AA-powered laser.
edit: actually just the downvotes, whatever.
Let's have you hop in the left seat of a small aircraft, at night, 500 feet above the ground and I'll blind you for 20 seconds with a laser pointer.
The fact that you're "unconvinced" of something that is a documented danger that could literally kill people is astounding to me. When people talk about this they're not talking about 747s or private aircraft 10k feet in the air. They're talking about small planes in airports and low to the ground.
You're getting (rightfully) downvoted because you're making ridiculous ignorant comments about things you obviously know nothing about.
The fact that you're "unconvinced" of something that is a documented danger that could literally kill people is astounding to me. When people talk about this they're not talking about 747s or private aircraft 10k feet in the air. They're talking about small planes in airports and low to the ground.
You're getting (rightfully) downvoted because you're making ridiculous ignorant comments about things you obviously know nothing about.
"Documented danger". Has it ever caused a crash or other damage? Or just "documented danger", unlike the myriad other undocumented dangers I listed in my other comment?
20 seconds seems like an extraordinarily long time to be able to hold a handheld laser on a moving target. Exaggerate much?
You seem to think it's a world-ending danger. I don't. That's fine, I don't fly so whatever.
20 seconds seems like an extraordinarily long time to be able to hold a handheld laser on a moving target. Exaggerate much?
You seem to think it's a world-ending danger. I don't. That's fine, I don't fly so whatever.
You're right! We should do a randomized controlled trial to make sure that "obvious dangers" like jumping out of a plane without a parachute are really a bad idea.
I volunteer for the test (parachute group). Will you volunteer for the control group? There's been no peer-reviewed scientific evidence to date that parachutes actually help. We'll be advancing the cause of science!
I volunteer for the test (parachute group). Will you volunteer for the control group? There's been no peer-reviewed scientific evidence to date that parachutes actually help. We'll be advancing the cause of science!
The parachute study has been done: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
tl;dr no significant difference in results with vs. without.
tl;dr no significant difference in results with vs. without.
Ha! +10 points for pedantry.
I should have been more specific: Jumping from a plane from a significant altitude, say 2000 feet AGL.
I should have been more specific: Jumping from a plane from a significant altitude, say 2000 feet AGL.
Here is an army of hand held laser pointers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIOh9-RoAaE&t=51s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIOh9-RoAaE&t=51s
It's worth looking at some video of what a laser strike looks like from the cockpit.
eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eoj3H7LMy2k
And because this happens at night, the pilot looses their dark adaptation - they will have difficulty seeing for a minute or longer after each flash.
So, no, the airplane won't instantly roll over dive into the nearest building. But it is still quite dangerous.
eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eoj3H7LMy2k
And because this happens at night, the pilot looses their dark adaptation - they will have difficulty seeing for a minute or longer after each flash.
So, no, the airplane won't instantly roll over dive into the nearest building. But it is still quite dangerous.
I note that in that video, the first footage there is a plane on the runway with someone shining the laser from maybe 30m away. Not a moving plane in flight.
And it doesn't speak to the quality of the reporting when it shows the alarmist message "THIS FOOTAGE SHOWS A LASER ATTACK ON A PASSENGER PLANE", combined with footage that is clearly not from a plane but a helicopter.
In my younger, stupider days I've played with laser pointers with my young, stupid friends, trying to shine them into each others eyes from across a park. It's really not that bad because you can't hold it steady enough and in a moving aircraft from a large distance would be a non-event. A helicopter would be more vulnerable however, and as I said a group of people all ARMED with laser WEAPONS to ATTACK.
Yes, people who shine at planes are doing the wrong thing, but it's not bad enough to warrant alarmist all-caps warning messages and pretending it's anywhere near as much threat as physical impacts with drones, drunk/sleepy pilots, crappy maintenance or plane UI (lol, I watch Air Crash Investigations TV show), or anything else.
And it doesn't speak to the quality of the reporting when it shows the alarmist message "THIS FOOTAGE SHOWS A LASER ATTACK ON A PASSENGER PLANE", combined with footage that is clearly not from a plane but a helicopter.
In my younger, stupider days I've played with laser pointers with my young, stupid friends, trying to shine them into each others eyes from across a park. It's really not that bad because you can't hold it steady enough and in a moving aircraft from a large distance would be a non-event. A helicopter would be more vulnerable however, and as I said a group of people all ARMED with laser WEAPONS to ATTACK.
Yes, people who shine at planes are doing the wrong thing, but it's not bad enough to warrant alarmist all-caps warning messages and pretending it's anywhere near as much threat as physical impacts with drones, drunk/sleepy pilots, crappy maintenance or plane UI (lol, I watch Air Crash Investigations TV show), or anything else.
> In my younger, stupider days I've played with laser pointers with my young, stupid friends, trying to shine them into each others eyes from across a park.
I'm assuming that these were 1w red laser pointers? Have you ever played with those new 5w and 10w green lasers? They're a whole other ballpark. One of the big issues is that while a red light doesn't affect your night vision a green laser will.
I'm assuming that these were 1w red laser pointers? Have you ever played with those new 5w and 10w green lasers? They're a whole other ballpark. One of the big issues is that while a red light doesn't affect your night vision a green laser will.
They were labelled as "<5mW" red lasers, from memory.
I have seen the 5mW green lasers and you're right, I wouldn't play with them aiming them at people's eyes, but I still wouldn't call in an airstrike if my plane was hit by one for a split-second.
I have seen the 5mW green lasers and you're right, I wouldn't play with them aiming them at people's eyes, but I still wouldn't call in an airstrike if my plane was hit by one for a split-second.
I'm assuming that you meant mW everywhere you wrote W.
I'm aware of these, but the context of what you wrote doesn't seem to match. Did you and your friends suffer burns or blindness when playing with these lasers (which likely did not yet exist when you were younger)? 5mW Nd:YAG(green) laser pointers have been around for about 20 years. Handheld green lasers with power levels above 2W have only been available for about five years.
Wow, that is actually very scary. I take it back. That is a ridiculous power in a handheld laser.
These people tend to be intentionally aiming their lasers at planes, which is quite different from "point a laser the wrong way in the sky" which implies accidental. The headline example on your page also got a year of probation from a fairly understanding judge it seems.
look at the headline 'Plane damaged after being hit by York police drone at Buttonville Airport'
if it were a civilian I am sure it would be 'Major disaster - as civilian drone crashes into a plane - potential suspects at large'
> Just look at all of the folks being prosecuted for pointing a laser the wrong way in the sky.
That really smacks of being intentionally obtuse. If I said “look at all the people prosecuted for pointing their guns the wrong way when discharging them” you wouldn’t buy it…
That really smacks of being intentionally obtuse. If I said “look at all the people prosecuted for pointing their guns the wrong way when discharging them” you wouldn’t buy it…
The fine will be paid by the taxpayers and nothing will change.
A civilian would be criminally charged for this.
The police will likely get a slap on the wrist, or a token fine.
The police will likely get a slap on the wrist, or a token fine.
[deleted]
... or at least pay for the plane repairs and whatever other expenses arise from it.
The last sentence made me laugh:
> The cause of the collision is not known.
I'll give you long odds that the cause was the drone being someplace it was not supposed to be.
> The cause of the collision is not known.
I'll give you long odds that the cause was the drone being someplace it was not supposed to be.
The rule on not using the passive voice in journalism is suspended the moment it’s about cops misbehaving.
I hope someone out there is documenting just how consistently, it's astounding.
I still wonder how this happens. The only theory I know of is that if they don't give them positive coverage then they'll never get comment form them again, but is that really sufficient for it to be so universal and why have so few papers gone adversarial on this?
I still wonder how this happens. The only theory I know of is that if they don't give them positive coverage then they'll never get comment form them again, but is that really sufficient for it to be so universal and why have so few papers gone adversarial on this?
Police are also known to physically assault and arrest journalists from outfits they don't like.
Police in Canada? Do you have anything to back that up?
Here's one from just this past week (with plenty of prior/ongoing related mistreatment of journalistic activity in the area): https://caj.ca/blog/CAJ_urges_RCMP_to_follow_court_order_to_...
"officer-involved aircraft incident"
I assume you're referencing this? (If not, you're in for a treat here):
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-...
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-...
I think GP and that article are both mocking the same thing; the tortuous lengths journalists will go to to avoid talking about police misconduct in the active voice.
Yeah, this is another case of the police thinking the rules don't apply to them. The "don't fly drones in certain airspace" isn't even about good guys and bad guys, it's about safety.
[deleted]
Obviously. But why were they there? Were they told to be flying there? Were they given the correct info on where to be flying? Who or what process lead this to happen?
Uh, why were they allowed to operate a drone within the glide slope of a runway?
> NAV Canada, the country’s air navigation service provider, had not been notified about the YRP drone, Transport Canada said.
They didnt ask
They didnt ask
They were not but they did so anyway.
They're not, but they're cops, so...
Ah, yep. The plane should have pulled over when the pilot saw the blue lights.
My point wasn't that cops have authority there, but that cops break the rules when it suits them.
[deleted]
I'd be interested to know about how York police operate their drone "unit": if it's a group of trained people with flight experience, appropriate training, and the right connections with aviation authorities, or if it's just a couple constables "takin' the drone out".
I found this article from 2018
https://www.toronto.com/news-story/8102547-video-peel-police...
Nearby Peel ON has a drone unit and probably flies similar equipment to York
https://www.toronto.com/news-story/8102547-video-peel-police...
Nearby Peel ON has a drone unit and probably flies similar equipment to York
If it was >250g, you need a license: https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/drone-safety/learn-rules-yo...
Given the quality of York cops, it's most likely the latter. (They're still better than the Durham cops, though.)
I know a lot of people are viewing this as the police getting their comeuppance, but there's not really enough info in this article to go on. The last line of the article is pretty explicit about this: "The cause of the collision is not known."
You don't need to know much more than that the manned aircraft was on final approach within a mile of the airport^[1] and that the police drone got in its way. Short of some one-in-a-million (but probably actually a lot more than a million) malfunction, there is very little wiggle room here for the police operators to have been anything but profoundly and (one would assume, by "civilian" standards at least) criminally negligent.
You simply do not fly drones anywhere near an airport without coordinating with the relevant air traffic control authorities, and this is exactly why. The people in the 172 could have been killed. Every person operating a UAS needs to be positive they aren't doing so in restricted or conflicted airspace, even casual hobbyists flying tiny sub-250g drones.
Equipment failure is usually not an excuse (for the operator) either, since the limits and failsafes on the drone should always be set to prevent it from ending up somewhere it shouldn't be. Every time I'm going to fly one of my drones, I evaluate these settings and choose new values tailored to the situation and "mission". This includes disabling automatic return-to-home if there is any chance of that function causing it to fly a dangerous route, e.g. one over people.
^[1] https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/172-substantially-damage...
You simply do not fly drones anywhere near an airport without coordinating with the relevant air traffic control authorities, and this is exactly why. The people in the 172 could have been killed. Every person operating a UAS needs to be positive they aren't doing so in restricted or conflicted airspace, even casual hobbyists flying tiny sub-250g drones.
Equipment failure is usually not an excuse (for the operator) either, since the limits and failsafes on the drone should always be set to prevent it from ending up somewhere it shouldn't be. Every time I'm going to fly one of my drones, I evaluate these settings and choose new values tailored to the situation and "mission". This includes disabling automatic return-to-home if there is any chance of that function causing it to fly a dangerous route, e.g. one over people.
^[1] https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/172-substantially-damage...
You proved my point by bringing a second (more detailed) source into your argument. At the time I commented, there was no second source in any of the HN comments here.
The "about to land" and "at Toronto Buttonville Municipal Airport" verbiage in OP's article is plenty damning, as it tells us that the police drone's operator(s) not only failed in their general duty to stay clear of and yield to manned aircraft, but did so in the vicinity of an active airport. My point (possibly not well made) was that "the cause of the collision is not known" is mostly irrelevant wrt. the culpability of the police, as in any incident like this there is a tiny keyhole of possible extenuating circumstances surrounded by an ocean of likely negligence.
I brought in the other source to verify the claims in OP's article, but the fact that the manned aircraft was literally on short final makes this incident even worse than the first article implies. It escalates the police misconduct from serious, likely criminal (by "civilian" standards, at least) negligence to something so absurdly over the top that I'm not sure what to call it. There is no more dangerous place to operate a UAS than in the glide slope of an active runway.
The term "reckless endangerment" comes to mind.
I brought in the other source to verify the claims in OP's article, but the fact that the manned aircraft was literally on short final makes this incident even worse than the first article implies. It escalates the police misconduct from serious, likely criminal (by "civilian" standards, at least) negligence to something so absurdly over the top that I'm not sure what to call it. There is no more dangerous place to operate a UAS than in the glide slope of an active runway.
The term "reckless endangerment" comes to mind.
I don't dispute that (now that we know more) the situation is pretty damning. But again, the original article (a local news article written by a "web content writer") was so light on facts and so short in general that there easily _could_ have been plenty that would have changed the situation when more info came from another source. The "about to land" phrase that you specifically point out really isn't all that specific. People say they're "about to" do something all the time when they're not actually very close to doing it.
I don't know much about CTVNews specifically, but I hope we can both agree that especially in this day and age it's not uncommon for news organizations to use language in such a way to make an event seem more dramatic than it actually was, so I stand by my original statement that there wasn't enough info in that article to go on.
I don't know much about CTVNews specifically, but I hope we can both agree that especially in this day and age it's not uncommon for news organizations to use language in such a way to make an event seem more dramatic than it actually was, so I stand by my original statement that there wasn't enough info in that article to go on.
The only thing I could imagine that would exonerate the operators of the drone would be if it turned out this was an unforseeable equipment failure (eg an uncommanded climb into controlled airspace), and they weren’t already being excessively risky at the time of failure.
Less than a mile out and directly in line with the landing approach off an active runway? Having the drone powered up at all was "being excessively risky" in my opinion.
I have a DJI drone that will not power up at my house, I'm about 3km out and 7-800m to the side of the runway centreline of my nearby airport. I've been known to test fly and pid tune small (sub 150g) drones in my backyard at lower-than-tree-height or about 3-4 meters up max, but even that "feels wrong" to me if there's a plane I can see on approach or on FlightRadar, so I'll land and wait for a gap.
I have a DJI drone that will not power up at my house, I'm about 3km out and 7-800m to the side of the runway centreline of my nearby airport. I've been known to test fly and pid tune small (sub 150g) drones in my backyard at lower-than-tree-height or about 3-4 meters up max, but even that "feels wrong" to me if there's a plane I can see on approach or on FlightRadar, so I'll land and wait for a gap.
[deleted]
You can see a little more detail on the TSB incident page, this is CADORS report 2021O1096:
https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cadors-screaq/rd.aspx...
Because it involved non-police, the CADORS got filed swiftly.
When an RCMP (Canadian federal police) drone collided with their own helicopter, they took 4 months to report the incident:
https://skiesmag.com/news/rcmp-drone-flying-wrong-altitude-c...
When an RCMP (Canadian federal police) drone collided with their own helicopter, they took 4 months to report the incident:
https://skiesmag.com/news/rcmp-drone-flying-wrong-altitude-c...
If this happened I the US, I highly doubt the police would have admitted to it.
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/172-substantially-damage...
There's also a copy of the incident report here:
https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cadors-screaq/rd.aspx...
More generally, I really hope the drone manufacturers invest in genfencing off controlled airspace and installing ADS-B receivers as part of a sense-and-avoid scheme to avoid potential collisions entirely. As a pilot, I'm impressed by the work DJI has been doing in this space.
(Though it's worth noting that sense-and-avoid won't solve the problem entirely, since there's a fair number of aircraft that are not transponder equipped. Canada also doesn't yet mandate ADS-B equipage.)