Another irresponsible UAS Pilot

[ATLDroner]

Apparently someone else was flying their Phantom near LAX, close enough to a commercial plane for a passenger to get a picture of it...

Man's Photo Shows DJI Drone Near His Plane While Landing in LA

 

[LucVN]

I wonder how many deadly car accidents there were that day?
Just saying...

 

[ATLDroner]

I wonder how many deadly car accidents there were that day?
Just saying...

I'm not sure I see the connection.

 

[sar104]

I'm not sure I see the connection.

There isn't one. It was just a silly attempt at deflecting from a real issue. It should also put to bed the ridiculous, repeated assertion that it's impossible to spot a small UAV from a moving aircraft, even when it's obvious that if you can see birds (which you can) then you can see UAVs, and even the simplest back-of-the-envelope calculation demonstrates that it should not be difficult at all.

 

[Lon Denard]

Did you guys read the comments? Kind of funny.

Here's one,

"Our analysis has been based on actual bird strikes, not near misses or simple sightings. We find in general that small UAS under 2kg pose a negligible risk to the safety of the national airspace. We estimate that 6.12x10−6 collisions will cause damage to an aircraft for every 100,000 hours of 2kg UAS flight time. Or to put it another way, one damaging incident will occur no more than every 1.87 million years of 2kg UAS flight time. We further estimate that 6.12x10−8 collisions that cause an injury or fatality to passengers on board an aircraft will occur every 100,000 hours of 2kg UAS flight time, or once every 187 million years of operation. This appears to be an acceptable risk to the airspace."

https://www.mercatus.org/pu..

 

[Lon Denard]

I do have another question... Why is everyone automatically believing this story? Didn't some of you get burned with that New York hoax about a plane striking a drone partially destroying the wing?

 

[ac0j]

we need the myth busters to fire a drone from a air cannon into a 727. So everyone will understand how devastating the damage could be. Oh the humanity.........

 

[sar104]

Did you guys read the comments? Kind of funny.

Here's one,

"Our analysis has been based on actual bird strikes, not near misses or simple sightings. We find in general that small UAS under 2kg pose a negligible risk to the safety of the national airspace. We estimate that 6.12x10−6 collisions will cause damage to an aircraft for every 100,000 hours of 2kg UAS flight time. Or to put it another way, one damaging incident will occur no more than every 1.87 million years of 2kg UAS flight time. We further estimate that 6.12x10−8 collisions that cause an injury or fatality to passengers on board an aircraft will occur every 100,000 hours of 2kg UAS flight time, or once every 187 million years of operation. This appears to be an acceptable risk to the airspace."

https://www.mercatus.org/pu..

Yes - a fine selection of comments, as usual, a good many of which start with the usual erroneous assumption that mass is the only important parameter in impact dynamics. It's become obvious that this particular field of physics is way too far beyond most of them to have any hope that they will ever understand, no matter how many studies are published.

 

[sar104]

I do have another question... Why is everyone automatically believing this story? Didn't some of you get burned with that New York hoax about a plane striking a drone partially destroying the wing?

Outstanding. One false report implies all subsequent reports are false. Why didn't I think of that? Fake news....

 

[Hollow Dog]

Outstanding. One false report implies all subsequent reports are false. Why didn't I think of that? Fake news....

You're taking it as fact.
Did the airport confirm the UAV?
People claim BS all the time.(this is from FB no less)
I really don't know what happened and will wait for more info to make a conclusion.
At this point it's just some random person making a claim.
And if this is all it is (some random person making a claim) it is fake news.

 

[LivinLarge]

I can't tell from that photo if it is a Phantom or a seagull.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

It may or may not be true/accurate.
I'll just leave this link right here... “Drone” that hit British Airways jet was likely a plastic bag

 

[sar104]

You're taking it as fact.
Did the airport confirm the UAV?
People claim BS all the time.(this is from FB no less)
I really don't know what happened and will wait for more info to make a conclusion.
At this point it's just some random person making a claim.
And if this is all it is (some random person making a claim) it is fake news.

No - I'm taking it as a credible report, backed up by a photo. How would the airport confirm it?

 

[Hollow Dog]

"No - I'm taking it as a credible report, backed up by a photo. How would the airport confirm it?"

I'm not sure how airports know things are flying around near them, but I think they have some special equipment that lets them know.
Also I have heard that there are ways to manipulate photographs. I know this is disturbing news but i'm pretty sure it's true.

 

[Lon Denard]

Outstanding. One false report implies all subsequent reports are false. Why didn't I think of that? Fake news....

No of course not but why the automatic acceptance? It's like some of you want it to be true. I view all stories with some skepticism because they are too often skewed to the author's beliefs.

On a different note, the story calls for the "drone" to have been a 100 feet away but my experience skydiving tells me that sun shining on a white surface makes the object appear larger from above. Oh and I'm sorry but I'm still not convinced that is a drone. It could be a white bird in mid flap of it's wings. Where's the rest of the pictures? A professional photographer only took one picture of something unusual? He was the only person with a camera? Wait, what was he doing with a bunch of camera equipment out if they were coming in for a landing? I don't know, I'm not going to just accept this story on face value.

Just in case you didn't see this,

 

[sar104]

"No - I'm taking it as a credible report, backed up by a photo. How would the airport confirm it?"

I'm not sure how airports know things are flying around near them, but I think they have some special equipment that lets them know.
Also I have heard that there are ways to manipulate photographs. I know this is disturbing news but i'm pretty sure it's true.

Radar will not show Phantoms at that kind of distance. And while there are ways to manipulate photos I'd say, firstly, if someone wanted to manipulate an image of such an event then they would likely make a better effort at it and, secondly, if you are going to take that approach to photographic evidence then nothing is reliable.

 

[ac0j]

 

[Hollow Dog]

Likely manipulated, but who knows for sure?

Me personally, I don't believe everything I see on FB.

 

[sar104]

No of course not but why the automatic acceptance? It's like some of you want it to be true. I view all stories with some skepticism because they are too often skewed to the author's beliefs.

On a different note, the story calls for the "drone" to have been a 100 feet away but my experience skydiving tells me that sun shining on a white surface makes the object appear larger from above. Oh and I'm sorry but I'm still not convinced that is a drone. It could be a white bird in mid flap of it's wings. Where's the rest of the pictures? A professional photographer only took one picture of something unusual? He was the only person with a camera? Wait, what was he doing with a bunch of camera equipment out if they were coming in for a landing? I don't know, I'm not going to just accept this story on face value.

Just in case you didn't see this,

I hadn't seen that video. Very clever but obviously not real. As I already stated, this one appears to be a credible report. The only extent to which I was somewhat pleased to see it was in terms of refuting the repeated assertions that it's impossible to see a small UAV from an aircraft. Of course I had not taken into account that instead it would simply be dismissed as fake.

Based on the photo it certainly could be a bird, but the photo is simply backing up the observation by the passenger that it was a Phantom. Birds don't have flashing lights, as he described. As for why only one photo, it doesn't say how many he took. Maybe he only had time for one, or maybe he took more and that was the best one. Or maybe he faked the whole thing and just isn't very good with Photoshop, but I see no reason to choose that explanation.

The rest of your arguments are not arguments. There are no airline regulations preventing passengers from taking photos during approach and landing - I often take photos on approach. Nothing about this implies he was the only passenger with a camera, or even that he was the only passenger who saw it.

Anyway - unless further witnesses come forwards I can't see this one being confirmed by more evidence, so those who choose to dismiss it can probably do so without fear of being proven wrong. I think it's more likely than not to be a real sighting based on the circumstances and the nature of the existing evidence.

 

[Lon Denard]

Radar will not show Phantoms at that kind of distance. And while there are ways to manipulate photos I'd say, firstly, if someone wanted to manipulate an image of such an event then they would likely make a better effort at it and, secondly, if you are going to take that approach to photographic evidence then nothing is reliable.

I agree with this but where's the rest of the evidence? It's just seems like a situation where there's a narrative without proof and they'll latch onto any shread to push it forward. That video I posted is a perfect example. That was widely reported as happening. The London airport situation. Even the New York helicopter incident might be a little flakey because I've heard that the pilot in question has been reprimanded for "fly bys" before and might have been under 400' over a residential neighborhood.