This is the stuff that's going to get the hammer dropped on us

[Marko9219]

Guess what an F16 pilot saw on a taxiway? It surely didn't belong there

Drones are already the subject of lots of scrutiny. This crap doesn't help.

 

[Arizona Jeeper]

Absolutely! The first time a drone brings down a passenger aircraft it will be all over.

 

[Cabledog]

Guess what an F16 pilot saw on a taxiway? It surely didn't belong there

Drones are already the subject of lots of scrutiny. This crap doesn't help.

Some people are just not responsible. ..... the fact they say we have to register our drones is now false.... when I got my drone the setup stated we no longer have to register your drones

 

[sar104]

Some people are just not responsible. ..... the fact they say we have to register our drones is now false.... when I got my drone the setup stated we no longer have to register your drones

If you are in the US then you should be aware that the registration requirement was reinstated. You do have to register.

 

[Simmo]

It was on the ground so could have been a flyaway and thats where it crashed. Glass half full....

 

[787steve]

Yep here we go again. Do you think it was in Visual line of sight? Of course, because that's the law, right? And everyone knows what sticklers drone operators are when it comes to the law. I kept seeing one guy here post about what he erroneously called a government study , which said risk from drones was acceptable because they predicted an impact with manned aircraft causing injury or death once every 187 million years. The problem is, he left out that they predicted impact causing damage once every 1.87 million years. Problem is, we had two damage impacts in the next six months. Who thinks we can use that study to keep the hammer away. I hope the people who fly with total disregard to the law are having enough fun for all of us, because we are all going to pay for it.

 

[Simmo]

Are you havin' a go at me Steve???
I've had an aircraft in total LOS and no more than 100 feet from me when it decided to do its own thing, never found it. It certainly was not in VLOS or in my control when it disappeared. As to what damage it did upon landing, I have no idea. Am I responsible for it, YES, no one ever came forward..
Do I condone flying outside the realms of the rules, NO, far from it.
I'm just giving another option to what was 'reported'.

 

[787steve]

Are you havin' a go at me Steve???
I've had an aircraft in total LOS and no more than 100 feet from me when it decided to do its own thing, never found it. It certainly was not in VLOS or in my control when it disappeared. As to what damage it did upon landing, I have no idea. Am I responsible for it, YES, no one ever came forward..
Do I condone flying outside the realms of the rules, NO, far from it.
I'm just giving another option to what was 'reported'.

Not having a go at you at all. Having a go at the "Who has the guts to take it to the max", and the ones that brag about how far they have flown.
Actually, I suspect you would be legally responsible if some came after you for damages, but if you did everything right and the craft just screwed up, I doubt that the FAA would be after you.

I'm not sure if I hope your option is right, or wrong. On the one hand, if it is some irresponsible idiot, one hammer might drop. But if they come to think that drones just fly away all the time, who knows if an even bigger hammer will appear. I know that suggesting fly-aways are normal is inaccurate, but I can easily see the press making it look that way to juice up their story. I cannotdetermine the facts in this case, but if some drone hating reporter ever comes on this site and sees as much disregard for the law as is posted here, he will be seeing Pulitzer Prizes in his dreams.

 

[Simmo]

OK, I see your point and wholeheartedly agree!
However, in this case, no one saw the drone in the air! An F16 pilot calls near miss by nearly running over the frikkin' thing!!
I'm calling glass half full, and some prize seeking journalist should realise that sometimes aircraft get lost through no fault of the pilot other than the fact that he was on the sticks at takeoff.
IF THE STORY IS TRUE??? With a drone on the ground, the only people in danger were the groundsmen mowing the grass...

 

[787steve]

I'm pretty sure this one was probably a drone. And the military has to assume that all drones on or around air bases are not lost. Some could be used by bad people for bad things. Hopefully this wasn't a trial run.
And the F-16 driver would have reported it as FOD, not a mid-air.

 

[pgh1949]

Yes it COULD be a responsible flyer suffering an unintentional flyaway but what are the chances?

A responsible flyer would have surely been at least 5 miles away from an operational military airfield and flying AWAY from it. The flyaway happens and has a 360 degree "circle" to choose which direction to flyaway to. What are the chances of a) a flyaway happening, then b) it just happening to go in the direction of the airfield and finally c) the battery giving out just at that moment and it landing right on the runway?

Or it could be some idiot seeing what he could get away with.

I know which my money would be on

 

[Simmo]

@787steve, you are editing your posts after the fact bud, not good practice.
I could say your a ( **** **** wait for you to respond, and then go back and edit my post calling you a superstar....
Not on..

 

[locoman]

Fight nice boys. But....

The issue is, a drone was found on a runway, where it shouldn't have been, especially a military one, and the bottom line is that it just added another nail into the UAV hobby coffin.

For one, I hope that person is caught and prosecuted. Maybe then, others will think twice before breaking the rules.

 

[Marko9219]

To those of you who contend that the drone posed no risk while on the ground: You need to Google "FOD damage."

 

[4wd]

Evidence is kind of light someone flew it there deliberately or flew it there at all.
But get the pitchforks ready.

 

[787steve]

Evidence is kind of light someone flew it there deliberately or flew it there at all.
But get the pitchforks ready.

I doubt that they walked out there and set it down.

 

[787steve]

@787steve, you are editing your posts after the fact bud, not good practice.
I could say your a ( Mod Removed ) wait for you to respond, and then go back and edit my post calling you a superstar....
Not on..

So sorry . What was the enatureof the EDIT you are referring to? Sometimes, I just realize I didn't state exactly what I meant to say. I also have a medical condition that makes my hands shake. It is called an essential tremor. Sometimes I accidentally Post before I am done. I NEVER edit as a result of a reply.
My mistake. I thought the edit button was for after you posted.
BTW, It took about five minutes to type this response due to the tremor. You ought to watch me on a three foot putt. Not pretty.

 

[787steve]

Sorry, but I just had to edit my post about edits. I dont think it changed the nature of the post. Apologies, all around.

 

[rfc]

And of course, without waiting for the full report we're *sure* it wasn't flown there (or placed there), by a Reservist or other employee of the Naval Air Station on his day off, aren't we? Or possibly even part of a program not even the F-16 pilot was aware of? It wasn't a DJI bird, which would fit with the fact that US military have put the Kibosh on using DJI products since last summer. Would love to have more facts.

 

[787steve]

Some people are just not responsible. ..... the fact they say we have to register our drones is now false.... when I got my drone the setup stated we no longer have to register your drones

The regs have changed back to having to register. The regs are under a lot of flux. And stories like this one are not going to help them flux the way we would want them to.