Hey guys, this is my first post on this website as I only had my mavic for 2 weeks. But I'm glad to be here and would like open an interesting discussion based on my recent encounter. Let me start by saying that I'm a current aviation safety student with a uas minor. Next year I'd be seeking to work as an ATC. Therefore, I think im fairly familiar with NAS operations and uas operation regulations. However, what happened to me was definitely a first, One moggy morning I woke up quite early to drive my friend to the airport. On the drive up the visibility was awful (prob around 100 feet.) However on my way back it had improved drastically to where i could easily see a mile down the road. I was passing by some swampy area and decided to set up my Mavic to go right about 350ft and take some cinematic photos of the still low cloud ceiling of about (700 ft agl. pressure 30.06 inhg. temp 66F and dew 60F. time:10:20 AM local) my nearest airport was class D about 7miles NE of me so I didn't bother calling as I was also in class G surfce-1,200 feet. nevertheless i checked my METAR, my air map, and my flight radar to confirm it was safe and the only airplane overhead was at 4000 ft msl passing overhead. so all systems were go. After takeoff i just went straight up to 350 feet. I hovered for around 30 s. so i can scan the area and adjust my camera. When all the sudden a crop dusting single engine just speeds over some trees and begins to turn left and heads right under my mavic maybe at 250-300 feet about 100 years in front of me so well within line of sight. After calling few people i received three different answer of who was at fault. first i called my friend who was ironically working his atc shift at the class d airport mentioned above. He said it would have been purely my fault. Second i got in my car and went to a small uncontrolled airport about 5 miles E of me to see if that plane landed. He did not but the ramp agent said it was totally his fault and that a similar plane flies like "idiot" and you should file an FAA complain. I just said thanks and walked away cause he seemed to be mad about that airplane but i wonder if anonymous report to FAA would be a good idea? Lastly, two of my professors (one with phd) that teach ATC NAS and UAS classes, told me that no one was at fault. Which in reality is true as it was over not populated class G airspace. What do you guys think should be done? Should mavic pilots have some kind of HF radio built in the controller? or should the FAA make new rule to prevent incidents like that? sorry for the long post
My close encounter
- Thread starter Chillz_Vibez
- Start date
I'd be very reticent to ask random people a question such as this without referring to the relevant CFR.
Crop dusting operations have waivers for low alt flying, but only during dispensing operations.
CFR 137.49
"Notwithstanding part 91 of this chapter, during the actual dispensing operation, including approaches, departures, and turnarounds reasonably necessary for the operation, an aircraft may be operated over other than congested areas below 500 feet above the surface and closer than 500 feet to persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures, if the operations are conducted without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface.
Other than that, they are bound by 91.119.
Over congested area, 1000' above anything within 2000'.
Other than congested, 500' above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas, not any closer than 500' from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
So, it would depend on the actual operation, which you would not know about unless you talked to him or whoever was paying him.
If it was me, I would either blow it off or try to find the guy and ask him what he was doing.
I would not report it unless he was repeatedly doing something dangerous, or refused to acknowledge his certificate responsibilities.
A few other notes on your post.
Note the regs say "congested," not populated. There have been rulings that three houses constitutes congested. Crop dusters can get around that by filing a plan regarding how they plan to minimize risk in congested areas.
Also, you mentioned HF radio. ATC uses VHF radio frequencies. HF is used on routes where VHF range is not possible, such as overwater international routes or extremely sparsely populated areas that have no VHF capability.
Your's is another story of why those traffic apps should not be relied upon for all traffic information.
A normal, non squawking crop duster is not going to show up.
Take care.
Crop dusting operations have waivers for low alt flying, but only during dispensing operations.
CFR 137.49
"Notwithstanding part 91 of this chapter, during the actual dispensing operation, including approaches, departures, and turnarounds reasonably necessary for the operation, an aircraft may be operated over other than congested areas below 500 feet above the surface and closer than 500 feet to persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures, if the operations are conducted without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface.
Other than that, they are bound by 91.119.
Over congested area, 1000' above anything within 2000'.
Other than congested, 500' above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas, not any closer than 500' from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
So, it would depend on the actual operation, which you would not know about unless you talked to him or whoever was paying him.
If it was me, I would either blow it off or try to find the guy and ask him what he was doing.
I would not report it unless he was repeatedly doing something dangerous, or refused to acknowledge his certificate responsibilities.
A few other notes on your post.
Note the regs say "congested," not populated. There have been rulings that three houses constitutes congested. Crop dusters can get around that by filing a plan regarding how they plan to minimize risk in congested areas.
Also, you mentioned HF radio. ATC uses VHF radio frequencies. HF is used on routes where VHF range is not possible, such as overwater international routes or extremely sparsely populated areas that have no VHF capability.
Your's is another story of why those traffic apps should not be relied upon for all traffic information.
A normal, non squawking crop duster is not going to show up.
Take care.
Im sorry but your right about VHF radio and yes I was thinking for some reason that military uses vhf but they use uhf, so my fault. Secondly, I agree with what you said and I know for a fact he was not dispensing any chemicals within the 5 mile radius, as I saw him on my drive to the incident and I have a brief footage of him flying higher and then just descending for no reason. And yea I just blew it off, but when I think about it, then it makes me wonder of what the FAA should do to stop these types of encounters or who would have been at fault if there was an accident? Just curious if anyone had a similar encounter. And totally agree that we cannot rely on automation or apps 100%, but there is a definite need for accurate self separation technology for uas and ga. Thanks
Other points aside, the fact is that he could well have been operating legally.
If you were operating legally as well, its a simple accident.
Nobody's at fault, but based on current wording, the drone operator is in more jeopardy if both were operating legally.
If you were operating legally as well, its a simple accident.
Nobody's at fault, but based on current wording, the drone operator is in more jeopardy if both were operating legally.
Xtreme Drone Pilot
Well-Known Member
Sometimes in aviation **** just happens, and you can't do anything about it, even if you (and even both parties) do everything right.
For example, one day I was flying my wingsuit after jumping out of a perfectly good airplane (you see, the door was open
). I was at about 10,000ft AGL when a Cessna appears out of nowhere flying at a small angle to my trajectory, almost heads on. I didn't even have time to react, the Cessna pilot either; we missed each other by about 20ft. Talk about Big Sky! Now, like every dropzone, it is marked on aviation charts as skydiving operations. Moreover, before I boarded the plane, the staff warned jumpers that there's some plane flying right over the DZ. So my whole jump I was scanning the sky spinning my "gimbal" all around me. And yet, I missed the plane. At 200mph+ closing speeds and Cessna flying out of bright horizon, it's just impossible to see until it's too late. Another thing is that we don't have a 360 degree vision, turning your head takes time, making it easy to miss visually small fast moving objects.
That Cessna shouldn't have been flying directly over the DZ, but OTOH with the glide ratio of modern wingsuits (3:1) and having 2 miles of usable altitude, we can fly up to 6 miles; he could have been flying not over the DZ and the close call still could happen.
Once your feet (or drone) leave the terra firma and you're in the air, you're in trouble. The only way to be safe is to stay on the ground, or in the nuclear bunker to be 100% safe.
**** happens.
For example, one day I was flying my wingsuit after jumping out of a perfectly good airplane (you see, the door was open
). I was at about 10,000ft AGL when a Cessna appears out of nowhere flying at a small angle to my trajectory, almost heads on. I didn't even have time to react, the Cessna pilot either; we missed each other by about 20ft. Talk about Big Sky! Now, like every dropzone, it is marked on aviation charts as skydiving operations. Moreover, before I boarded the plane, the staff warned jumpers that there's some plane flying right over the DZ. So my whole jump I was scanning the sky spinning my "gimbal" all around me. And yet, I missed the plane. At 200mph+ closing speeds and Cessna flying out of bright horizon, it's just impossible to see until it's too late. Another thing is that we don't have a 360 degree vision, turning your head takes time, making it easy to miss visually small fast moving objects.That Cessna shouldn't have been flying directly over the DZ, but OTOH with the glide ratio of modern wingsuits (3:1) and having 2 miles of usable altitude, we can fly up to 6 miles; he could have been flying not over the DZ and the close call still could happen.
Once your feet (or drone) leave the terra firma and you're in the air, you're in trouble. The only way to be safe is to stay on the ground, or in the nuclear bunker to be 100% safe.
**** happens.
Dam that's crazy,but your totally right. I go up from time to time with my friends in Archers or Seminoles and you cannot even see another GA aircraft in sunny conditions (Never mind a person or a drone). But the FAA's regulations are still written with blood. If something tragic was to happen during your dive or until someone flies a uas into a plane in class G, nothing will be done. P.S. I'm about to go on my first skydive.
A few long winded thoughts.
It seems you took prudent measures to ensure you were safe and legal prior to your flight.
By your own admittance, you were flying in about 1 visibility in G airspace so you were legal under 91.155. At the same time so was the manned aircraft. I think the issue is if he was legal under FAR 91.119(c).
91.119(c)Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
I've heard of some FAA inspectors consider one person within one square mile as the baseline for the 500' altitude and distance requirement. If you violate sections of FAR 91.119, the FAA will generally say you were operating an aircraft "careless or recklessly." So now hold that thought.
The FAA maintains volumes of policy and procedures called Flight Standards Information Management System 8900.1 or FSIMS. This is basically the guidance the FEDs will use when conducting day to day operations and investigations. Although FSIMS isn't regulatory, the guidance therein is usually tied to an actual FAR and the rationale vetted by an army of lawyers. Under Volume 14 of the FSIMS you have guidelines for Compliance and Enforcement. Volume 14, Chapter 3, section 5 deals with reckless operation. Here's what it says;
14-3-5-1 REGULATORY BASIS. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 91, § 91.13 provides that, “No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.” Neither Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) nor the 14 CFR define “reckless” or “reckless manner.” The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), however, has in several cases dealt with the allegation that a particular operation was “reckless” within the meaning of § 91.13, and has thus contributed towards a definition of the phrase, “reckless manner.”
A. NTSB Case History. The cases studied by the NTSB indicate that recklessness involves deliberate and willful conduct (i.e., conduct that reflects a wanton disregard for others’ safety).
1) The inspector can infer a deliberate and willful disregard of the regulations or safety standards from the circumstances surrounding a violation.
a) It need not be established that a pilot intended to be reckless but only that he or she intended to engage in deliberate or willful action which resulted in a deviation from 14 CFR or from safety standards and created actual or potential danger to the life or property of another.
b) For example, the NTSB said of a pilot whom it found to have been reckless when the pilot deliberately operated an aircraft within 50 to 200 feet of another aircraft for a period of 5 to 10 minutes:
“… so long as the respondent intends to do the particular acts complained of, and the resulting action widely departs from the norm of reasonably prudent conduct, a finding of reckless operation does not require proof of the state of the pilot’s mind but can be inferred from the nature of [the pilot’s] acts or omissions and the surrounding circumstances.”
2) In one violation, the airmen flew visual flight rules (VFR) in formation and proceeded into a mountainous area in instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions at dusk without ascertaining the weather conditions. Neither pilot held an instrument rating and one aircraft had an inoperative radio. The NTSB declared that the conduct of such a flight was reckless. The NTSB found that the conduct was “… so devoid of basic safe operating practices and adherence to critical safety regulations that it constituted a reckless operation.”
B. Conduct Deemed Reckless. The fact patterns of some individual cases tried before the NTSB provide guidance about the kind of conduct that the NTSB will deem reckless. For example:
1) The pilot of an aircraft, in an attempt to land on a highway in a non-emergency situation, approached from the rear and struck a moving truck. The truck was substantially damaged, and the person who was sitting in the middle of the front seat of the truck was seriously injured. The NTSB, after considering the circumstances surrounding the incident, found that the respondent operated the aircraft in a reckless manner.
2) In another case an airman willfully and deliberately made several extremely close passes near a van for the purpose of causing apprehension or bodily harm to the occupants of the van. The NTSB wrote, “Such piloting can only be characterized as reckless operation which created a serious hazard to the van.”
3) The allegation of recklessness was affirmed by the NTSB in a case where an air carrier pilot operating an aircraft in scheduled air transportation took off from an airport after being advised that the reported visibility was 1/16 of a mile. The takeoff minimums were 1/4 of a mile. The NTSB held that the “… knowing violation of one of the standards applicable to air carrier pilots forms the basis of the finding of reckless operation.”
4) In another case where the NTSB found recklessness, the pilot violated several regulations in 14 CFR. The airman carried passengers on several flights when not rated in the aircraft, had no instruction or experience in the aircraft, the aircraft had not been issued an airworthiness certificate nor had been inspected for the issuance of the certificate, the aircraft had not undergone an annual inspection, and the aircraft carried no identification markings. The NTSB considered the entire range of circumstances and the broad areas of noncompliance with the regulations under which numerous flights were conducted, many on which passengers were carried, a reckless operation.
5) In another case, the airman was acting as pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft on a VFR, passenger-carrying flight carrying parachutists for compensation. The pilot deliberately performed an aileron roll. The seriousness of this violation was accentuated by the fact that the aircraft was not certificated for aerobatics, two parachutists were in the air when the roll was performed, the roll took place at an altitude of 500 to 800 feet over a group of persons on the ground, and the flight was made for compensation. The NTSB found the respondent’s violations to be deliberate and knowing and, therefore, reckless.
6) In another case, the pilot in command (PIC) flew the pilot’s personal aircraft on a VFR, passenger‑carrying flight. During the course of the flight, the aircraft entered clouds and subsequently crashed into a mountainside. The NTSB held that the “… respondent’s continued VFR flight into clouds in the vicinity of mountainous terrain demonstrated inherently reckless conduct.”
7) A pilot was found to be reckless when that pilot ignored specific air traffic control (ATC) instructions. Contrary to ATC instructions, the pilot failed to report downwind, landed the aircraft instead of going around, made a 180-degree turn on the runway, and departed via a taxiway. The NTSB noted that the go‑around instruction was given four separate times by the controller, yet the pilot persisted with the approach and landing. The NTSB also stated that, “… it appears that [the pilot] made up his mind to land the aircraft and no amount of instruction from the tower could keep him from that goal.” The pilot’s operation of the aircraft was characterized as reckless.
C. Conclusion. While there is no regulatory definition of the term, “reckless,” it has been defined in cases decided by the NTSB. A reckless operation results from the operation of an aircraft conducted with a deliberate or willful disregard of the regulations or accepted standards of safety so as to endanger the life or property of another either potentially or actually. Accordingly, any such reckless behavior violates § 91.13.
So that's the guidance the FAA will use in determining a reckless operation.
So let's say the pilot was over a "sparsely populated area" and there were no persons or structures (to the pilot's knowledge), then legally that pilot could operate lower than 500'. At that point he would be expected to maintain "see and be seen" vigilance, as described in
FAR 91.113(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
My bold
Then to further add to this, FAR 101.41(d) says;
101.41(d) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft
In the end it will be a matter of considering if he was violating 91.119(c), then applying 91.113(b) and 101.41(d).
IMO, you did nothing wrong. You obviously took action in FAR 101.41(d) once a potential hazard was encountered. Hope this helps
It seems you took prudent measures to ensure you were safe and legal prior to your flight.
By your own admittance, you were flying in about 1 visibility in G airspace so you were legal under 91.155. At the same time so was the manned aircraft. I think the issue is if he was legal under FAR 91.119(c).
91.119(c)Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
I've heard of some FAA inspectors consider one person within one square mile as the baseline for the 500' altitude and distance requirement. If you violate sections of FAR 91.119, the FAA will generally say you were operating an aircraft "careless or recklessly." So now hold that thought.
The FAA maintains volumes of policy and procedures called Flight Standards Information Management System 8900.1 or FSIMS. This is basically the guidance the FEDs will use when conducting day to day operations and investigations. Although FSIMS isn't regulatory, the guidance therein is usually tied to an actual FAR and the rationale vetted by an army of lawyers. Under Volume 14 of the FSIMS you have guidelines for Compliance and Enforcement. Volume 14, Chapter 3, section 5 deals with reckless operation. Here's what it says;
14-3-5-1 REGULATORY BASIS. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 91, § 91.13 provides that, “No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.” Neither Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) nor the 14 CFR define “reckless” or “reckless manner.” The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), however, has in several cases dealt with the allegation that a particular operation was “reckless” within the meaning of § 91.13, and has thus contributed towards a definition of the phrase, “reckless manner.”
A. NTSB Case History. The cases studied by the NTSB indicate that recklessness involves deliberate and willful conduct (i.e., conduct that reflects a wanton disregard for others’ safety).
1) The inspector can infer a deliberate and willful disregard of the regulations or safety standards from the circumstances surrounding a violation.
a) It need not be established that a pilot intended to be reckless but only that he or she intended to engage in deliberate or willful action which resulted in a deviation from 14 CFR or from safety standards and created actual or potential danger to the life or property of another.
b) For example, the NTSB said of a pilot whom it found to have been reckless when the pilot deliberately operated an aircraft within 50 to 200 feet of another aircraft for a period of 5 to 10 minutes:
“… so long as the respondent intends to do the particular acts complained of, and the resulting action widely departs from the norm of reasonably prudent conduct, a finding of reckless operation does not require proof of the state of the pilot’s mind but can be inferred from the nature of [the pilot’s] acts or omissions and the surrounding circumstances.”
2) In one violation, the airmen flew visual flight rules (VFR) in formation and proceeded into a mountainous area in instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions at dusk without ascertaining the weather conditions. Neither pilot held an instrument rating and one aircraft had an inoperative radio. The NTSB declared that the conduct of such a flight was reckless. The NTSB found that the conduct was “… so devoid of basic safe operating practices and adherence to critical safety regulations that it constituted a reckless operation.”
B. Conduct Deemed Reckless. The fact patterns of some individual cases tried before the NTSB provide guidance about the kind of conduct that the NTSB will deem reckless. For example:
1) The pilot of an aircraft, in an attempt to land on a highway in a non-emergency situation, approached from the rear and struck a moving truck. The truck was substantially damaged, and the person who was sitting in the middle of the front seat of the truck was seriously injured. The NTSB, after considering the circumstances surrounding the incident, found that the respondent operated the aircraft in a reckless manner.
2) In another case an airman willfully and deliberately made several extremely close passes near a van for the purpose of causing apprehension or bodily harm to the occupants of the van. The NTSB wrote, “Such piloting can only be characterized as reckless operation which created a serious hazard to the van.”
3) The allegation of recklessness was affirmed by the NTSB in a case where an air carrier pilot operating an aircraft in scheduled air transportation took off from an airport after being advised that the reported visibility was 1/16 of a mile. The takeoff minimums were 1/4 of a mile. The NTSB held that the “… knowing violation of one of the standards applicable to air carrier pilots forms the basis of the finding of reckless operation.”
4) In another case where the NTSB found recklessness, the pilot violated several regulations in 14 CFR. The airman carried passengers on several flights when not rated in the aircraft, had no instruction or experience in the aircraft, the aircraft had not been issued an airworthiness certificate nor had been inspected for the issuance of the certificate, the aircraft had not undergone an annual inspection, and the aircraft carried no identification markings. The NTSB considered the entire range of circumstances and the broad areas of noncompliance with the regulations under which numerous flights were conducted, many on which passengers were carried, a reckless operation.
5) In another case, the airman was acting as pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft on a VFR, passenger-carrying flight carrying parachutists for compensation. The pilot deliberately performed an aileron roll. The seriousness of this violation was accentuated by the fact that the aircraft was not certificated for aerobatics, two parachutists were in the air when the roll was performed, the roll took place at an altitude of 500 to 800 feet over a group of persons on the ground, and the flight was made for compensation. The NTSB found the respondent’s violations to be deliberate and knowing and, therefore, reckless.
6) In another case, the pilot in command (PIC) flew the pilot’s personal aircraft on a VFR, passenger‑carrying flight. During the course of the flight, the aircraft entered clouds and subsequently crashed into a mountainside. The NTSB held that the “… respondent’s continued VFR flight into clouds in the vicinity of mountainous terrain demonstrated inherently reckless conduct.”
7) A pilot was found to be reckless when that pilot ignored specific air traffic control (ATC) instructions. Contrary to ATC instructions, the pilot failed to report downwind, landed the aircraft instead of going around, made a 180-degree turn on the runway, and departed via a taxiway. The NTSB noted that the go‑around instruction was given four separate times by the controller, yet the pilot persisted with the approach and landing. The NTSB also stated that, “… it appears that [the pilot] made up his mind to land the aircraft and no amount of instruction from the tower could keep him from that goal.” The pilot’s operation of the aircraft was characterized as reckless.
C. Conclusion. While there is no regulatory definition of the term, “reckless,” it has been defined in cases decided by the NTSB. A reckless operation results from the operation of an aircraft conducted with a deliberate or willful disregard of the regulations or accepted standards of safety so as to endanger the life or property of another either potentially or actually. Accordingly, any such reckless behavior violates § 91.13.
So that's the guidance the FAA will use in determining a reckless operation.
So let's say the pilot was over a "sparsely populated area" and there were no persons or structures (to the pilot's knowledge), then legally that pilot could operate lower than 500'. At that point he would be expected to maintain "see and be seen" vigilance, as described in
FAR 91.113(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
My bold
Then to further add to this, FAR 101.41(d) says;
101.41(d) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft
In the end it will be a matter of considering if he was violating 91.119(c), then applying 91.113(b) and 101.41(d).
IMO, you did nothing wrong. You obviously took action in FAR 101.41(d) once a potential hazard was encountered. Hope this helps
Last edited:
Thanks for the great examples of "reckless". I would think along the same lines. Even though he had no idea that I was there, that particular area is well known for people going rtv and dirt bike riding as well as shooting guns. I just think that it wasn't smart or necessary for him to go that low because if someone was shooting an AR and one of the bullets ricochet and hit him then he could have had a bad day.
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 8,476
- Reactions
- 7,963
- Age
- 62
AGL is more important than ATOP when skydiving hey ?
Makes you wonder how pax aircraft pilots see or recognise drones in those occasional near misses, doesn't it ? !
Seriously, a lucky escape there.
I imagine that Cessna either shouldn't have been there at all or at least had contact with skydiving ops and any of their planes / jumpers up ?
What's the SOP there ?
Xtreme Drone Pilot
Well-Known Member
We usually land at the same altitude AMSL as the TOP, so AGL and ATOP are the same.
If a pax pilot can see a drone, they should become an astronomer as they can see life on Mars with naked eye.
DZs are marked on aviation charts, I have no idea what's typical awareness of that is among GA pilots, but I've been on a jumplane many times when there's traffic below us. We do check it before jumping out. But with wingsuit freefall flight time of ~3 minutes and range of several miles, it obviously doesn't always work.
Sky jumping areas are noted on VFR aviation charts.
They are so rarely in use that I doubt many folks think about them, unless they fly regularly in the area.
They are not noted on IFR charts.
There is certainly no requirement to be in radio contact.
And again, the original poster has never provided any indication he knew what the crop duster was doing, and judging it to be reckless or stupid is a judgement without evidence.
There could well be a reason for why he was doing what he was doing.
They are so rarely in use that I doubt many folks think about them, unless they fly regularly in the area.
They are not noted on IFR charts.
There is certainly no requirement to be in radio contact.
And again, the original poster has never provided any indication he knew what the crop duster was doing, and judging it to be reckless or stupid is a judgement without evidence.
There could well be a reason for why he was doing what he was doing.
If a pax pilot can see a drone, they should become an astronomer as they can see life on Mars with naked eye.
Why does this obviously spurious argument keep being repeated? I've numerous times observed individual birds when on final in airliners, and that's not even with the benefit of the forward view from the cockpit. Consumer UAVs are pretty distinctive, and while grey Mavics may be less obvious than white Phantoms, it's not even remotely challenging to see airborne objects of that size when flying at 150 - 200 kts if you are actually paying attention.
Xtreme Drone Pilot
Well-Known Member
They are, with a parachute symbol and name of DZ, example:
Maybe it was you in that Cessna?
They are, with a parachute symbol and name of DZ, example:
Maybe it was you in that Cessna?
I haven't flown VFR in 35 years.
Xtreme Drone Pilot
Well-Known Member
So, in 35+ years of flying, you never knew about skydiving operations marked on charts?
What airline? So, in 35+ years of flying, you never knew about skydiving operations marked on charts?
I'm not sure what you are implying.
If I didn't know about skydiving areas, I wouldn't have mentioned that they are marked on charts.
Arrival and departure routes that airliners and other IFR traffic fly do not transit skydiving areas at altitudes that skydiver operate.
US Navy, then American Airlines.
m0j0
Well-Known Member
m0j0
Well-Known Member
Xtreme Drone Pilot
Well-Known Member
My apologies, somehow I read "Sky jumping areas are noted on VFR aviation charts" as "not noted", reading too quick. Duh! I'm an idiot! But no surprise here - I jump from perfectly good airplanes.
Well, close calls happened many times still, a quick search gave me a few examples:
Airline jet fly under during freefall : Dropzone.com Skydiving Forums
Near Mid-Air in Utah w/ jump plane & SkyWest Airliner : Dropzone.com Skydiving Forums
Skydive Tecumseh, MI -- close call with Spirit Airlines jet : Dropzone.com Skydiving Forums
Xtreme Drone Pilot
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
DJI Air 2S Fly More Combo (w/ 4th Battery) FOR SALE $650- Started by Dan AISCF
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Forum statistics
