Drone closes busy airport

[ascension]

There's so much in your post that I'm not going to quote it.
Just a few items that really stand out

This nonsense about pilots is a waste of time, whatever stereotypes exist.
As well, the nonsense of people guessing what can or cannot be seen from the flight deck is an additional waste.
What is seen is relative motion.
When you are flying on a constant course, things that are stationary kind of fade and are not noticed. Things that suddenly move are what get noticed.
That's how most animals hunt, and its the same for humans.
Either way, its irrelevant because when more than one person reports the same thing, and I'm sure others saw the object as well, its probably credible.
.
Nobody is going to make a decision on what is or isn't a dangerous situation based on googling battery life in a situation like this, at least nobody with any kind of authority.
On lasers, I've been lazed three times that I know of. Once in Sao Paulo and twice in Buenos Aires.
Each time, there is a period where the laser light is visible but not exactly on target. It takes the operator a few seconds to get the aim correctly. During that time you can protect yourself by positioning your head to block the pin-point light source.
I've never been lazed really close to landing, since the operator would have to be very close to the airfield boundary and very vulnerable to getting caught.
I know a few years ago, when this was more common, Miami police would position squad cars near the approach paths in case there was a report.

Regarding wildlife, I've seen quite a few times where operations were affected by wildlife, but always very briefly. Never disregarded.
I've never seen nor heard of anyone, intentionally fly "through enormous flocks of geese," etc., or TKO or land with animals on the runway. Gone around a few times because of it though.

Regarding your summation of airlines and their safety priority, I could not more strongly disagree.
In my experience, and that includes the company I worked for and close contact with ex service friends who work for just about every major US carrier and their various unions, your claims that it is not the first priority are patently false. There are some that do things a little different, but the consequences of an accident are so overwhelming that it would be extremely rare.

Further, all the verbiage you post about disruption and the consequences are precisely arguments that are not considered until after the issue is resolved. Its trouble, but you don't risk a potential midair with a drone over them.
That's called negligent operation, and would open up punitive damage claims, as well as just being stupid.

 

[lisadoc]

As well, the nonsense of people guessing what can or cannot be seen from the flight deck is an additional waste.
What is seen is relative motion.
When you are flying on a constant course, things that are stationary kind of fade and are not noticed. Things that suddenly move are what get noticed.

It's not a waste of time. In fact, there's been reams of studies on the topic and it's a crucial issue for CRM (Crew Resource Management) as well as issues for the military, for example in determining the effectiveness of pilots and mechanical systems utilized during air-to-air combat. It's also critical in the determination of human factors in accident investigation and prevention, and there have been many human-in-the-loop studies to decide the required visual conspicuity for target acquisition performance by pilots. There are whole experts in this field alone, and though I am not one, I work with several and I am well familiar with the breadth and detail of their work.

These types of issues are important for pilots and decision-makers, engineers, and manufacturers in determining how to best make something visually conspicuous to a pilot in the cockpit. There are whole fields of research dedicated to finding out why pilots miss visual indicators and what can be done to improve pilot awareness during flight (like adding auditory alarms). By way of example, here's an article that discusses the factors behind pilot's missing visual panel indicators literally flashing right in front of them and what is required to improve those systems:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap1401_3

Not to delve too long into the details of this, but pilots often have a false sense of their visual acuity and their ability to detect an object. There have even been a number of studies trying to determine why a significant number of pilots miss seeing another aircraft sitting at the end of a runway they were landing on. As you note, a lot of that has to do with the contrast of the object and its relative motion to the background. If a fighter pilot can miss seeing an A-10 sitting at the end of a runway, it's not a stretch to imagine how difficult it would be to see a hovering drone on final approach, with operational attention focused elsewhere.

There have been a number of studies showing that a pilot requires roughly 10-12 seconds to visually acquire an object in flight (like another aircraft or a missile coming at them). This is of course greatly degraded by the lack of motion, the visual conspicuity of the object against its background, and the multi-tasking attention required during critical phases of flight. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the pilot would have perfect awareness and the contrast of the drone would be significant against the background (almost assuredly not the case here).

A back-of-the-napkin calculation would give us the following: at final approach, a commercial aircraft would be traveling at roughly 140 knots, or in better terms, 236 feet per second. If 10 seconds is required to visually acquire an object in flight, this would mean that the pilot would have to acquire the target at roughly 2,400 feet in distance, or approximately half a mile. A 1-foot high object at that distance would take up roughly 5 pixels for an equivalent photo captured by a camera with a sensor approximating human vision. (This is all very rough, as the apparent size would change over time, but there are even more negative confounding factors that would offset this like time of day, conspicuity, inattentional blindness, multi-tasking, and lack of apparent motion). Would it be impossible for a pilot to visually acquire this size of an object at that speed? No. But it is not hard to see why this task would be considerably difficult and generally unreliable.

Either way, its irrelevant because when more than one person reports the same thing, and I'm sure others saw the object as well, its probably credible.

It's not irrelevant. Just because two pilots report seeing something does not make it true. One only need to look at the hundreds of scientific articles citing the reliability (or lack thereof) of eyewitness testimony in criminal trials to understand the fallibility of human perception. I'm sure confirmation bias also assumes a role here too, as a second pilot is more likely to see any aberration as a drone after a report by the previous pilot (along with the first pilot's bias that any airborne object is likely a drone).

Either way, I would grant your assertion that two pilot reports make it more likely than one pilot reporting but I do not assume that it is, as you say, credible. In any case, even assuming arguendo that the reports were accurate, my issue is not with their credibility but with the over-blown response to such reports.

Nobody is going to make a decision on what is or isn't a dangerous situation based on googling battery life in a situation like this, at least nobody with any kind of authority.

I didn't say they should. My response was in answer to the poster's question about "how could they know such a thing?". The point was that it's not too hard to find out. My bigger point is that if the airport officials have decided that such a course of action is appropriate upon the sighting of a drone, then they should have done the research into finding out what the scenario would entail.

Regarding wildlife, I've seen quite a few times where operations were affected by wildlife, but always very briefly. Never disregarded. I've never seen nor heard of anyone, intentionally fly "through enormous flocks of geese," etc., or TKO or land with animals on the runway. Gone around a few times because of it though.

My point was simply that if one wished to throw out anecdotal stories in support of their argument about a specific instance, I could easily counter with dozens of equally anecdotal stories of aviation personnel reacting in the complete opposite manner. Anecdotal stories do not prove an argument.

And "never disregarded"? I find that impossible to believe. Ignoring wildlife hazards is so routine that if it were otherwise, commercial aviation would grind to a halt. The US Air Force is better with it, as they have rules implemented that enforce safety procedures, but even those procedures are routinely ignored by airmen or "adjusted" by ground personnel to fit the desired outcome for continued operations.

Regarding your summation of airlines and their safety priority, I could not more strongly disagree.
In my experience, and that includes the company I worked for and close contact with ex service friends who work for just about every major US carrier and their various unions, your claims that it is not the first priority are patently false.

Pilots have a different perspective than do administrators and executives. I know that pilots are generally given the benefit of the doubt when they conduct themselves with safety as their main priority, but what is more inherent in the system (and counter to safety measures) is the underlying culture and the financial and operational incentives and indirect pressure placed on performance over safety. If your airline placed safety above all else, then kudos to your airline. But I'm sure you would admit that there is still undue pressure on pilots to maximize performance coming from management and other executives. And many airlines have no compunction about placing performance first. It is, after all, a business, and a highly competitive one at that. If they weren't financially motivated and only concerned themselves with safety as their number one priority, I wouldn't have a job (or at least my job would be a lot easier). If they didn't act this way, my favorite catch-phrase to airport and airline execs wouldn't be "If you think safety is expensive, try an accident".

Now with the advent of SMS, this attitude is slowly changing but I will say that even so, the attitude still permeates the industry, even if an airline's pilots operate with safety as their first priority.

Further, all the verbiage you post about disruption and the consequences are precisely arguments that are not considered until after the issue is resolved.

Do you really believe that? If true, then the airport is operating by the seats of its pants and that's no way to conduct business. Operational disruption is generally the first thing an airport considers when taking any kind of action (from closing a runway to fixing a jetway bridge). Drones aren't a new thing and this type of situation is not novel. Maybe 5 years ago I would give a pass to an airport that was reacting to such a circumstance without a full understanding of the situation. But nowadays any airport of significant size or operations should have considered this issue to a great degree. I deal with airports that are already considering employing technological responses to the presence of drones, let alone considering their operational responses that were in place years ago. Being caught with one's pants down because the consequences have not yet been considered is not legally negligent but it is certainly financially negligent and I can promise you that this airport will now likely have to deal with the backlash over their response.

 

[ascension]

There is too much nonsense in your post for me to continue.
Suffice it to say, you are grossly misinformed about how airlines, airline pilots and airports operate, and really grossly uninformed about seeing moving threats.
I wouldn't notice the space shuttle holding short and not moving.
I would notice a raccoon crossing the runway in the landing zone.

More importantly, your conjecture about airline safety is preposterous.
Not just foolish......Preposterous.
Same as your theory about how airports operate.

 

[Sky King]

Please, enough already, my head is aching.

 

[pixl]

Please, enough already, my head is aching.

They both stopped days ago. Why bring it to the surface again?

 

[ac0j]

No one has mentioned the possibilty of the drone pilot in the OP could be a PILOT. Therefore, the NFZ, firmware updates and original manufacturer control software does not apply. They know all the rules.

(sarcasm of course, but you know that is what the drone pilot involved would be thinking)

 

[107Droner]

Hey Guys,
It's simple. To avoid having the airspace completely taken away from us, stay away from airports. The day is coming when drones self-report to other aircraft and Air Traffic Control who they are and where they are. We need to self-police our activities or we will lose the limited freedom we have totally.

 

[Dw911]

Hey Guys,
It's simple. To avoid having the airspace completely taken away from us, stay away from airports. The day is coming when drones self-report to other aircraft and Air Traffic Control who they are and where they are. We need to self-police our activities or we will lose the limited freedom we have totally.

Exactly right, well said and if some people feel the need to need to fly at an airport or over a crowded football stadium or whatever stupid things these people dream up, then please at least keep it to yourself and dont post it up on utube or social media or better still, seek the help of a psychiatrist or a genital surgeon, as posting such stuff on utube wont make you anymore attractive to women and it wont make it any larger or even avarage size, except maybe in your head

 

[s2seyecle]

It was a joke... It seems that you are a pilot of some type but are still unaware of the stereotype that pilots consider themselves "special". Heck, some of the best "pilots think they're God" jokes come from pilots themselves (the rest come from flight attendants and mechanics). Lighten up. No one is trying to offend pilots here. The point is only that they can (and do) make mistakes. And many pilots (and members of the media and public) nowadays are "drone" conscious, and every moving object in the air caught out of the corner of one's eye must be a drone. So despite the fact that the immediate reaction of anyone these days seems to be "it was a drone", I hesitate to come to that conclusion without some further evidence. And I simply posed the question about how the pilots, in those environmental conditions, could positively identify a drone. Or is that not a legitimate question?



Well, they do have Google don't they? If I type in "maximum flight time drone" into a Google search, the 1st result I get is this: Top 10 Drones with Longest Flight Time for 2017

which lists the top 10 drones with long flight times in 2017, showing the longest with 30 minutes and number 10 at 22 minutes. What I'm saying is that if they have a protocol in place for responding to the presence of a drone (shutting down the airfield), then they should have some information and education to back up their designated response. If they don't have a SOP in place, then this type of response is simply "on the fly" and there's no place for shutting down an entire airfield on such a whim.



I'd agree. But why would one automatically assume that the operator had ill intentions? Isn't it more likely that it's some idiot or novice that decided to fly somewhere they shouldn't? Operating a drone (even in the wrong place) without intentionally attacking a plane (the stories didn't mention that behavior) is far different than intentionally "lazing" an aircraft. Even then I wouldn't consider it terrorism, as you're suggesting. But either way, my point is still valid. People "lazing" an aircraft are intentionally doing it (we know this because it would be bizarre to accidentally shine a laser pointer at an aircraft on approach at night) and yet, even with this intentional "attack" on an aircraft, we don't shut down the airfield and divert flights for 2 hours. Why would we do it for a drone?



I didn't say I'm smarter. But rational risk analysis and risk mitigation in aviation is important. If this response to the mere sighting of a drone (confirmed or otherwise) was enacted each time any pilot saw a drone, civil aviation would come to a screeching halt. I'm suggesting that this reaction was way overblown and maybe we should think about this before doing the same thing the next time a drone is spotted anywhere near an airfield.

I admire the Brasilians and their risk mitigation efforts. I routinely work with the folks from CENIPA and ANAC and have even helped them during the past several years in their risk mitigation analysis and rule-making. But though they are ahead of the game in some areas, they are far behind in others. And this reaction was not a national protocol enacted by any aviation authority. It was simply a knee-jerk reaction by airport officials.



Do you believe that lasers and hot air balloons pose less of a risk to aviation than drones do? If so, I'd like to see your data. Risk mitigation should be determined by scientifically-based safety data, not public opinion or perceived threats. I've made this argument in another long-winded thread on this forum, but instead of restating it, I'll simply link to it and you can read for yourself:
Professional investigator concludes - "what's the fuss about?"
Professional investigator concludes - "what's the fuss about?"

The bottom line is that the data currently shows that drones pose almost no risk to aviation and even if the potential risk is assumed, the actions taken should still be proportionate to the actual risk to aviation (not some perceived threat coming from entities that haven't carefully examined the facts).



Again, I never claimed to be. But I do know more than nothing. And I have an opinion. And data. And like you, I am simply trying to express my opinion (and based on the facts as I know them). Aviation safety is my profession and I spend a lot of my time working through these very types of issues. Engaging in dialog is a good thing and I endeavor to avoid the reactionary steps taken by airport officials in just such circumstances. Shutting down airports after the sighting of a singular drone does no one any good. It doesn't make the public/passengers appreciate such efforts. They may tolerate it once or twice but if it was routine, the outrage would be palpable. It doesn't do well for drone operators either. It also doesn't help pilots or even airport officials address the real aviation risks in an appropriate manner.



By the way, it's "no way" for them to determine, not "know way" for them to determine.

Boring... more heat than light.