Another irresponsible UAS Pilot

[Genzeka]

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.

There is a connection. His point is drones (at least the smaller ones we fly) are not going to take a plane out of the sky. Planes can run one engine is absolutely necessary. People are up in arms about these recreational drones taking down a plane but you would need two or four to do so. Our baby drones will NOT be the problem. The real problem will be corporations taking over the sky with their bigger delivery drones carrying unknown packages. That will be the bigger issue.

 

[MAVA4]

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

You're kidding, right?

 

[Madara]

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...

Here's the thing, while birdstrikes are probably more dangerous than drones, the feds, however, won't outlaw birds. The more stories like this are going to hurt responsible fliers. A reason to be extra cautious when flying near airports.

 

[Archangel]

So a few things. Yep! I can tell that’s a “DJI camera drone” moving that that fast in an airplane. 2, as soon as I saw that white fuzzy object in the picture I immediately knew it was a drone. And lastly, I’m a graphic designer and if I was a drone hater and wanted to cause a stir, could show you a picture of the wicked witch of the west flying atop a DJI drone if you wanted me to.

 

[raymo]

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.

View attachment 26915

View attachment 26916

Good comments. First, I read the article and the guy says he saw a DJI product. REALLY! First off, there are many UAVs out there that are white and X-shaped. Not all are Phantoms. Second, he reports lights on the unit. REALLY! He's above it and can see the Phantom's lights. The Phantom lights are on the bottom of a Phantom and CANNOT be seen from above. In fact, you will have a hard time seeing the lights of a Phantom at 200 feet if you are directly below it in broad daylight. Only way is if the guy had installed some kind of strobes on the top. Third, this is one cool shape-shifting Phantom. Last time I looked at my 2 Phantoms, they did not have outboard disks that were clearer to see than the main body of the airframe. The blown-up shot of the drone shows a dark area in the middle (could be a dark skin), but the arms and outboard disks? dominate this photo. In a court of law, the defence attorney would take this thing apart in a few minutes. Might be interesting to pursue this story and find out if it is a fraud. I'm certainly not convinced by what I see and by what I can do in Photoshop. (I can easily convince you that someone is in a photo when they weren't anywhere near the place where we took the photo.) Any forensic experts out there who can take this one apart more than what I have said? As I have said before, my airline captain friend has never seen a drone, nor have any of his pilot buddies ever positively identified a drone in their travels. Does it represent a potential risk - sure. Have we seen dumb things on the internet, yes! But that doesn't make this one credible, at least not yet.

 

[Alvinito]

I read thru all this in a bit of dis belief. There is no scenario, no matter how remote, in which it is ok to fly a drone where it causes such negative response toward our hobby from the public in general or the FAA in specific. The odds are irrelevant...the perception is everything.

I've been flying drones since no one even heard of them and we built and programmed our arduino control systems ourselves. It was a very nice time. People actually loved it when we were at the beach, or the park or what ever and thought it was totally awesome. We were all ex RC plane flyers very familiar with AMA rules & liability and used MUCH better judgement than today when any Yahoo with a couple hundred bucks can take to the sky with absolutely no understanding of proper flying etiquette or potential liability . They do stupid irresponsible things that mess this hobby up for all the rest if us that know how to fly like mature, responsible adults.

Odds aside, one real mishap at any level with an aircraft or a severe personal injury can bring any freedoms we have left in this sport to a potential end. Wise up folks!

 

[Roamer105]

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?

Just look at the proportions of the drone vs wing. The drone would have to be within 5 feet of a rear seat window. With the plane flying at 150MPH. This is just like a UFO hoax.

 

[Hollow Dog]

The psychology of this thread is both entertaining and disturbing.

 

[sar104]

There is a connection. His point is drones (at least the smaller ones we fly) are not going to take a plane out of the sky. Planes can run one engine is absolutely necessary. People are up in arms about these recreational drones taking down a plane but you would need two or four to do so. Our baby drones will NOT be the problem. The real problem will be corporations taking over the sky with their bigger delivery drones carrying unknown packages. That will be the bigger issue.

I'm sorry, but you are making an assertion with no evidence to back it up. Yes - commerical airlines should be able to take a drone strike to one engine and still fly. But what about control surfaces? No studies have established that yet. What about GA, where most likely the windshield will not survive, let alone control surfaces? And your fundamental point, which appears to be that it's okay to take out an airliner engine because it should still be able to fly and that isn't a problem, is patently ridiculous.

 

[Awolfe57]

I can't say the photo provides irrefutable proof that there is a drone near a plane landing in LA. But based on the fact that stupid people own drones and they seem to believe that they are free to do anything, I think this is more likely to be true than manufactured. Yes, I realize there are stupid people that fake drone sightings and near misses.

And while I agree that some sightings may be similar to seeing bigfoot, the number of sightings is up and it is a valid safety concern.

UAS Sightings Report

 

[Dkotinsky]

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?

I agree , guy said it took a couple seconds to realiZe it’s a drone lol. And said it was hovering outside the plane. Makes no sense . Landing plane going at least 150mph

 

[gjhick]

I read thru all this in a bit of dis belief. There is no scenario, no matter how remote, in which it is ok to fly a drone where it causes such negative response toward our hobby from the public in general or the FAA in specific. The odds are irrelevant...the perception is everything.

And yet ... the main theme of this thread is that odds are this was a fake report and photo. If the drone had really been where the guy claimed it was, no-one here would say that was "OK".

 

[archangel001]

Looks like moderator is removing my posts again. Alas, I do not give a fat horses butt

 

[airboyd]

The ASDE-X at the airport can detect drones within a range of approximately two miles.

 

[Stuart Wood]

You're kidding, right?

Hazard vs risk... far more dangerous to drive than fly, even with all these (fake?) drone sightings!

 

[Lon Denard]

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.

Inventing my own reality? Where did you get all of that info?

 

[Lon Denard]

Here's the thing, while birdstrikes are probably more dangerous than drones, the feds, however, won't outlaw birds. The more stories like this are going to hurt responsible fliers. A reason to be extra cautious when flying near airports.

My point is most of these stories are garbage and we can't stop that. However, we don't need to pile on as well.

 

[Rogat19]

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,

Got to love the heading "Drone hits plane on take off" the aircraft is oh so obviously on final approach haha

 

[Rogat19]

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.

Sar are you really an anti Droner ? disguised as an oh so impartial observer to reports of this dron or just playing Devils advocate? and in closing a couple of things, Simon baby our intrepid photographer has some serious camera gear that would have to be stowed for landing and also would be powerful enough to get a clear shot of said drone, and surprise suprise he runs a blog among other things, wonder how many extra hits he got on his web site from this little post? and last but not least the aircraft is nowhere near on final approach its probably around 6 or 7 thousand feet so probably rocking and rolling along at 300 to 400 miles an hour, 1 pretty amazing eyesight to spot a drone at those closing speeds plus a pretty amazing drone to be up at that height hanging around for a passing jet with a photog waiting to get a shot of it. my Verdict ? "FAKE NEWS" !!

 

[Cutaway]

LOL. This study failed to factor in the increasing number of yahoos flying in the restricted airspace.

Yes, these figures sound right if only certificated, trained, and responsible people flew the drones.

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..