Another irresponsible UAS Pilot

[Hollow Dog]

Look, This well may have happened like the FB person claims, and it is possible all the claims are accurate and true.
But taking this off FB and running around showing it off like a new toy and seriously believing it to be fact just make you look gullible.
Should a UAV been flying anywhere near a plane? Of course not.
Does getting worked up about this random person's claim and FB photo make any sense? Of course not.

 

[ac0j]

That winglet comes apart like paper when the "whatever" hits it, The "drone" took the impact better than the plane wing. I call BS.

 

[Lon Denard]

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.

Oh I hadn't really meant them as "arguments"... I find the whole thing strange. I don't own a Phantom but I didn't know they had lights on top. That you could see in broad daylight from that kind of distance... Then to pinpoint what brand and model drone from this picture?

Besides, the story is they were by an airport or coming in on approach but at commercial jetliner speeds 5 miles goes by very quickly. We actually don't see any evidence they were within 100 miles of an airport. I really don't know. I've flown by an airport, with permission of course, so I guess it's possible. You can also make arrangements with a local airport and DJI if you live near one.

 

[Lon Denard]

That winglet comes apart like paper when the "whatever" hits it, The "drone" took the impact better than the plane wing. I call BS.

Umm yes, I said it was a fake story from the offset. However, it was widely reported before being debunked.

 

[sar104]

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.

Push what forwards. It's not as if we don't already know that UAVs are being flown in these kinds of locations - courtesy of pilots who self-incriminate on YouTube and forums like these. All kinds of stuff is "widely reported". Are you not able to apply reasonable criteria to decide for yourself what is credible and what isn't? I'm sure that you realize that the veracity or otherwise of any one report has no bearing on any other report.

And what on earth does the NY helicopter incident have to do with all this? Flakey? What do you mean by that? They know exactly what happened because they have the parts, they have the ATC radar record, they have the helicopter's flight track and they have the Phantom pilot's log file. Still not good enough for you? If you think that's fake too then you are clearly inventing your own reality.

 

[LivinLarge]

I remember reading a few years ago about an experiment that was done at an air field where pilots in small aircraft tried to spot drones in the air below them They were flying at much slower speeds than a jetliner on approach. Even though they knew there were drones there and were specifically looking for them, they were almost always unable to spot them.

 

[sar104]

Oh I hadn't really meant them as "arguments"... I find the whole thing strange. I don't own a Phantom but I didn't know they had lights on top. That you could see in broad daylight from that kind of distance... Then to pinpoint what brand and model drone from this picture?

Besides, the story is they were by an airport or coming in on approach but at commercial jetliner speeds 5 miles goes by very quickly. We actually don't see any evidence they were within 100 miles of an airport. I really don't know. I've flown by an airport, with permission of course, so I guess it's possible. You can also make arrangements with a local airport and DJI if you live near one.

Have you ever flown on a commercial airliner? If so, is it not completely obvious to you that the aircraft is only a couple of thousand feet AGL in that photo? Since it's clearly not climbing out it is obviously on approach.

Phantoms don't have lights on top but at that viewing angle you would clearly see its lights. A Phantom is a very distinctive shape. Easy to identify at that distance.

On final the airspeed will be 200 kts or less. 5 miles goes by in around 90 seconds, but I've no idea where you were going with that observation. I've no idea whether or not the Phantom was there legally. Likely not, since it appears to be well over 400 ft AGL on an airport approach, but I was not commenting on that - only on that it was visible to a passenger.

 

[Xtreme Drone Pilot]

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

As a skydiver, I've seen plastic bags picked up by dust devils/wind/thermals thousands of feet in the air, many times. Both while in freefall and under parachute. And of course, tons of happy birthday balloons.

 

[BigAl07]

For those who might be looking at the "UAS" taking the winglet off here is the making of that video:

 

[Lapeer20m]

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.

Dji sells equipment to airports and government agencies that will detect and map dji drones within a particular radius

 

[sar104]

Dji sells equipment to airports and government agencies that will detect and map dji drones within a particular radius

Yes, but it won't work that far out if it's deployed at the airport.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Yes, but it won't work that far out if it's deployed at the airport.

It was a 10 mile radius as I recall.

 

[MQuinn]

Last time I saw picture of a winglet ripped off in flight

That was after it hit a 737 at 36,000 ft ripping the wing off the 737 causing it to kill all 154 aboard the 737. The 7 on the Embriar didn't even know they hit another plane till they landed and were detained.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

That winglet comes apart like paper when the "whatever" hits it, The "drone" took the impact better than the plane wing. I call BS.

Pretty sure this one was already called out as fake here on this forum and others.
Just saw BigAls post, and this Drone Strike

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Pretty sure this one was already called out as fake here on this forum and others.

Absolutely computer generated. Post 29 shows how it was done.

 

[sar104]

It was a 10 mile radius as I recall.

Aeroscope is specified to have a 5 km range, although it can be extended with remote antennas. However, it would be problematic detecting drones out to 10 miles from the airport since there will likely be plenty of entirely legal drones beyond the 5 mile radius.

 

[RayOZ]

seems like it could be >5km from airport. why didnt he take a video, instead of a grainy photo? could be a UFO.

 

[4wd]

Not sure what the picture shows or if it's genuine but the quote doesn't make much sense considering the different speeds.
We all know that even continuously staring at it soon after 1000 feet it's a tiny dot.
How far did the plane travel in "a few seconds". It must have been moving around 150mph minimum.
The phantom slowly approached and was seen to be 'hovering'

This all going on at what looks like a very high altitude for a phantom to be at all.
It looks like at least 2000 feet to me.
The photo is inconclusive if you look at the area before they 'enlarged' it, could be an object on the ground. They have done something to make the white object less blurry creating the impression it's nearer.


“[W]e were on final approach and, being the typical ‘looker out the window’, I saw flashing lights of what I first thought was a plane. They were ahead of us and just off to the left hand side, headed our way – but not fast.

“It took a few seconds to realize the thing wasn’t a plane and that it was just hovering. Then the little flashing lights dawned on me — it was a DJI Phantom of some sort.

 

[Xtreme Drone Pilot]

Not sure what the picture shows or if it's genuine but the quote doesn't make much sense considering the different speeds.
We all know that even continuously staring at it soon after 1000 feet it's a tiny dot.
How far did the plane travel in "a few seconds". It must have been moving around 150mph minimum.
The phantom slowly approached and was seen to be 'hovering'

This all going on at what looks like a very high altitude for a phantom to be at all.
It looks like at least 2000 feet to me.
The photo is inconclusive if you look at the area before they 'enlarged' it, could be an object on the ground. They have done something to make the white object less blurry creating the impression it's nearer.


“[W]e were on final approach and, being the typical ‘looker out the window’, I saw flashing lights of what I first thought was a plane. They were ahead of us and just off to the left hand side, headed our way – but not fast.

“It took a few seconds to realize the thing wasn’t a plane and that it was just hovering. Then the little flashing lights dawned on me — it was a DJI Phantom of some sort.

Good analysis. The only way a photo of a drone could be taken from a plane is to have a camera ready and release the shutter within 1 second window at most. This guy sounds like he was able to write an article while looking at the drone, and then finally decided to take a picture. Totally ridiculous.

More likely than not, this article just a clickbait riding the wave of recent negative articles about DJI (notice how it has DJI right in the title, although the make of the drone has nothing to do with its danger).

And notice that they blew up a bright blotch of several pixels and that many bright spots (buildings, warehouses) can be similarly blown up to reveal a whole army of (sic) *DJI* drones attacking the plane.

 

[4wd]

Looking at LAX on google earth it looks far more built up than that shot too.
Does anyone recognise it?
There is bit of coastline but not sure which direction they would be approaching from.