Terrifying video captures moment German drone missed Afghan plane carrying 100 passengers by just tw

Terrifying video captures moment German drone missed Afghan plane carrying 100 passengers by just two metres

The video, filmed from onboard the unmanned Luna drone as it flew over Afghanistan, shows it missing the plane by as little as two metres.

It has caused outrage in Germany as debate rages about the Government's new order of drones.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... tml#ixzz2VAGn4Knp
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | Da(visit the link for the full news article)

For those who want to see the video, here it is:

www.liveleak.com...

Now, I'm no expert but if that drone had hit that aircraft (I'm assuming it was coming in for approach) at that height with gear down, then we'd be talking some serious casualty list.

Drones are evil imo, end of, whether it be accidentally striking a civilian plane or bombing civilians.

www.dailymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I think many are just waiting for something like this to happen, once they get fully deployed over the U.S.
A tired operator makes a mistake and 200 die. It's bound to happen if they put 30,000 of those things in the sky.

Originally posted by DAVID64
I think many are just waiting for something like this to happen, once they get fully deployed over the U.S.
A tired operator makes a mistake and 200 die. It's bound to happen if they put 30,000 of those things in the sky.

Who's to say it hasn't already happened already? Do you think we'd know about it if it had, I don't think the drone makers would like the negative publicity. A near miss is easy to deal with as opposed to an actual hit

Other people will comment on the incident itself, so I'll comment on the worst example I've seen of journalism all day.

1. the video has been on youtube since at least 2006

2. the original Der Spiegal article actually says the video has been on youtube since 2006.

3. the DailyMail article completely neglects to tell its audience that this video has been publicly available for all this time, and paints it as being a new story.

4. the DailyMail article uses the word "terrifying", despite the fact that nobody on the plane would have actually seen it.

5. the DailyMail article describes it as "out-of-control drone narrowly missing an Afghan passenger plane", when in fact it wasnt out of control until it had already passed the passenger plane.

6. the DailyMail describes the Euro Hawk drone as "Luna's successor". This is not true.
The 44-foot-long Global Hawk has a wingspan of more than 116 feet, a height of 15 feet, and a gross takeoff weight of 26,750 pounds. The Luna is a much tinier model aircraft size.
They perform different roles, operated by different people.
The DailyMail just made up this false "fact", since the Der Spiegal article they stole this story from says no such thing.

Originally posted by DAVID64
I think many are just waiting for something like this to happen, once they get fully deployed over the U.S.
A tired operator makes a mistake and 200 die. It's bound to happen if they put 30,000 of those things in the sky.

Why would they be deployed over the US? That would make absolutely no sense at all. How would you get it through Congress and the Senate? Obama is already on public record as saying he will not tolerate the use of drones on US soil:

The president also laid out what the standard should be for domestic use of armed but unmanned aerial vehicles: They should not be used.

"For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen -- with a drone, or a shotgun -- without due process," Obama said. "Nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil."

Let me repeat the second part of that quote, since this has been such a controversial and much-discussed topic: "Nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil."

That's the standard. No armed drones over U.S. soil.

(Source).

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Terrifying video captures moment German drone missed Afghan plane carrying 100 passengers by just two metres

The video, filmed from onboard the unmanned Luna drone as it flew over Afghanistan, shows it missing the plane by as little as two metres.

Why are you talking about a video from 7 years ago?

It has caused outrage in Germany as debate rages about the Government's new order of drones.

You mean 'It caused outrage in Germany 7 years ago...'

Originally posted by alfa1
Other people will comment on the incident itself, so I'll comment on the worst example I've seen of journalism all day.

1. the video has been on youtube since at least 2006

2. the original Der Spiegal article actually says the video has been on youtube since 2006.

3. the DailyMail article completely neglects to tell its audience that this video has been publicly available for all this time, and paints it as being a new story.

4. the DailyMail article uses the word "terrifying", despite the fact that nobody on the plane would have actually seen it.

5. the DailyMail article describes it as "out-of-control drone narrowly missing an Afghan passenger plane", when in fact it wasnt out of control until it had already passed the passenger plane.

edit on 3-6-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

Point 4., you don't know that mate, I reckon some may have seen it if they were looking out of the window

Number 5. Very convenient that it went out of control after missing the plane, I don't think that's true.

Another point, so I wonder how many times drones have come close to hitting planes, there's 2 already been presented in this thread.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Number 5. Very convenient that it went out of control after missing the plane, I don't think that's true.

The original story from der Spiegal says that after it passed the passenger plane, the turbulence behind it knocked the model aircraft sized drone out of control and it crashed.
A very very believable scenario.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Number 5. Very convenient that it went out of control after missing the plane, I don't think that's true.

The original story from der Spiegal says that after it passed the passenger plane, the turbulence behind it knocked the model aircraft sized drone out of control and it crashed.
A very very believable scenario.

Well, that still doesn't ease my concern on the safety aspect of these things mate

Additionally, from the news report:

Government announced new drones will not have anti-collision technology

Like that makes a lot of sense

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by DAVID64
I think many are just waiting for something like this to happen, once they get fully deployed over the U.S.
A tired operator makes a mistake and 200 die. It's bound to happen if they put 30,000 of those things in the sky.

Why would they be deployed over the US? That would make absolutely no sense at all. How would you get it through Congress and the Senate? Obama is already on public record as saying he will not tolerate the use of drones on US soil:

The president also laid out what the standard should be for domestic use of armed but unmanned aerial vehicles: They should not be used.

"For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen -- with a drone, or a shotgun -- without due process," Obama said. "Nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil."

Let me repeat the second part of that quote, since this has been such a controversial and much-discussed topic: "Nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil."

That's the standard. No armed drones over U.S. soil.

(Source).

Well according to your own information Obama did not say he would not deploy drones over the US, he said he would not deploy ARMED drones over the US. This doesn't rule out surveillance drones or drones used for mapping or any other reason. The big corps that make these drones are pushing for them to be used here, trying to get local sheriff's and police depts interested in them. I live in Los Angeles and have heard several news reports locally that the LA county sheriff is considering buying one of these drones for use over L.A. So use over our own country is not far off, and Obama said nothing about not letting them be used, he just won't let them shoot missiles at us from one, that's all he said.

reply to post by TheCrimsonGhost


Didn't Obama also say he'd close Guantamano? Last time I checked it was still open for business

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by alfa1
Other people will comment on the incident itself, so I'll comment on the worst example I've seen of journalism all day.

1. the video has been on youtube since at least 2006

2. the original Der Spiegal article actually says the video has been on youtube since 2006.

3. the DailyMail article completely neglects to tell its audience that this video has been publicly available for all this time, and paints it as being a new story.

4. the DailyMail article uses the word "terrifying", despite the fact that nobody on the plane would have actually seen it.

5. the DailyMail article describes it as "out-of-control drone narrowly missing an Afghan passenger plane", when in fact it wasnt out of control until it had already passed the passenger plane.

edit on 3-6-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

Wasn't aware of this and again, some sloppy journalism from the Daily Mail, on your point 4., you don't know that mate, I reckon some may have seen it if they were looking out of the window

Number 5. Very convenient that it went out of control after missing the plane, I don't think that's true.

Another point, so I wonder how many times drones have come close to hitting planes, there's 2 already been presented in this thread.

edit on 3-6-2013 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)

I'm not sure that two were presented here.. it seems daily mail just took the story from 2006 and recycled it to make it seem like news, so I think we only have 1 incident here, I think, lol.

reply to post by TheCrimsonGhost


1 or 2, 3 or 4, how many others? Kind of irrelevant at the end of the day, as previously mentioned in an earlier post, if there hasn't been an actual collision yet, chances are there will be

All it will take is for one drone to hit an American commerical jet and the people can stand up and say they don't want drones in the sky....

Right?


LOL.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by TheCrimsonGhost

 

Didn't Obama also say he'd close Guantamano? Last time I checked it was still open for business

Yeah... I think we are arguing the same point friend.

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by DAVID64
I think many are just waiting for something like this to happen, once they get fully deployed over the U.S.
A tired operator makes a mistake and 200 die. It's bound to happen if they put 30,000 of those things in the sky.

Why would they be deployed over the US? That would make absolutely no sense at all. How would you get it through Congress and the Senate? Obama is already on public record as saying he will not tolerate the use of drones on US soil:

The president also laid out what the standard should be for domestic use of armed but unmanned aerial vehicles: They should not be used.

"For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen -- with a drone, or a shotgun -- without due process," Obama said. "Nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil."

Let me repeat the second part of that quote, since this has been such a controversial and much-discussed topic: "Nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil."

That's the standard. No armed drones over U.S. soil.

(Source).

The statement was strictly regarding Armed drones and I wouldn't count on that holding forever...or even all that long. However, drones over the US? Thats not theory, it's passed, established law. It has been for quite some time and I'm really wondering where you get your information about the United States. It seems...regularly off base?

In February of this year, Congress passed the FAA Reauthorization Act, with its provision to deploy fleets of drones domestically. Jennifer Lynch, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, notes that this followed a major lobbying effort, "a huge push by […] the defense sector" to promote the use of drones in American skies: 30,000 of them are expected to be in use by 2020, some as small as hummingbirds – meaning that you won't necessarily see them, tracking your meeting with your fellow-activists, with your accountant or your congressman, or filming your cruising the bars or your assignation with your lover, as its video-gathering whirs.

Source

I believe the first widespread use of security drones was over the NATO Summit in Chicago...but I could be wrong. There may have been earlier use on a large scale. Hard to say when so much is beyond our "need to know".

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Well, that still doesn't ease my concern on the safety aspect of these things mate

Additionally, from the news report:

Government announced new drones will not have anti-collision technology

Mr de Maiziere scrapped the 'Euro Hawk' surveillance drone project two weeks ago blaming spiralling costs.

Thats right. The drone without the anti collision system isnt being bought by Germany anyway.

The real news story, in fact the ONLY news story of this week is a purely political story in which Mr de Maiziere, Defence Minister, is coming under intense pressure to resign.

Too bad the DailyMail didnt convey that to its readers.
Not sensationalist enough I suppose.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Well, that still doesn't ease my concern on the safety aspect of these things mate

Additionally, from the news report:

Government announced new drones will not have anti-collision technology

Mr de Maiziere scrapped the 'Euro Hawk' surveillance drone project two weeks ago blaming spiralling costs.

Thats right. The drone without the anti collision system isnt being bought by Germany anyway.

The real news story, in fact the ONLY news story of this week is a purely political story in which Mr de Maiziere, Defence Minister, is coming under intense pressure to resign.

Too bad the DailyMail didnt convey that to its readers.
Not sensationalist enough I suppose.

edit on 3-6-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

You're probably right mate, Daily Mail must be desperate for space to fill on their pages by recycling stories from a few years ago

There is a new, clear, war on terror..
Bringing an end to the era of error.
Tear our eyes, so that we are blind,
To a new way, no child left behind.