New Jersey Drone Sightings May Not Be Drones. By Professor Will Austin.
- Thread starter The Droning Company
- Start date
Have you, or anyone, seen conclusive evidence of actual drones [other than that one clip of police launching their own]? Not just some blinking lights which are most likely a normal aircraft. Actual drones?
Oh please, that's an ancient story from way back in July 2014, more than 10 years ago!
At the time, the only FAA regulation applicable to "Model Aircraft" was the one about not putting manned aviation or people on the ground at risk. There was no specific altitude restriction for drones.
The story was reported as though the drone supposedly charged at the helicopter. That's not true. The DJI Phantom drone was being flown over and around the George Washington bridge, when the police helicopter spotted it and flew to intercept the drone. According to the helicopter pilot, the drone never came closer than 800ft away from the helicopter.
Consider that, even flying head-on, it's perfectly acceptable for full-sized airliners to pass each other with only 1000ft separation. A drone 800ft away from a helicopter presents no risk whatsoever!
The helicopter chased the drone back to the operator, who was then arrested by a patrol car unit and subsequently charged with reckless endangerment.
It was the police helicopter that initiated the dangerous situation by crowding the drone, not the other way around.
No worries, no judgment from me; I found it entertaining. Sorry I didn't realize the story was so old. What I was actually focusing on was how quick and nimble and fast the police claimed the drone to be; I found that surprising. And now, I'm doubling surprised if they actually thought that 10 years ago. And then the other aspect was he claimed how it was a near-miss as if there was nearly a collision and that ended up being 800 feet away. I've often believed if your drone could be seen, it's going to be a problem.
So yeah I remember flying drones way back in 2014 and I couldn't imagine flying a drone at 2000 feet more than 2 miles away, that's a lot; but there you are. Not sure why the story ended up in my feed but it's probably has more to do with the police looking for crime when there wasn't one and maybe the word "confiscated" triggered it. I bet you anything what you saw in that video is almost nearly identical what is *still* happening today which is why I posted this (I really thought it was more recent).
It's further evidence how humans (even trained pilots of police helicopters
) are incapable of accurately estimating size/distance/speed of mysterious objects at night. (i.e. Truck-sized drones hovering stationary over my house vs. actual full-sized airliners flying miles away at speed.)That police helicopter pilot estimated the drone climbed from zero to 2,000 feet within merely 2 seconds. That's 682 mph straight up! Not too shabby for a DJI Phantom ten years ago.
It's missing only the FAA mandated red/green/white nav lights and strobe beacons. Other than that, it looks exactly like one of these:
That video was posted on YouTube only yesterday, giving it the appearance of a brand new incident. I was sure I'd heard this story before. Yup, the video description says it's an incident that occurred back on July 7th 2014.
Drones are being vilified for everything. In 2014 it wasn't illegal to fly a camera drone around the George Washington Bridge. The FAA's Part 107 didn't even exist until two years later in June 2016.
The police helicopter pilot obviously didn't know what it was. He claims it climbed, "I'd say zero to about 2000, in less than two seconds." "He has to be military. He's moving!"
The bridge deck is 212ft above the water, and the support towers stand 604ft high. Even if the drone climbed from zero height to the top of the towers [only 604ft, not 2000ft] in less than 2 seconds, that's still a climb rate of better than 302ft/s, or 206mph!
The drone was used to do what small drones are designed to do -- record video that would otherwise be impossible or much more dangerous to achieve using a full-sized manned aircraft. If it can be done without putting manned aircraft or people on the ground at risk, it was NOT illegal in 2014.
The police helicopter initiated the risky situation by crowding the drone's airspace, not the other way around. The drone operator responsibly took evasive action to get away from the helicopter, but the helicopter chased and tracked the drone back to the operator's location, where he and his "accomplice" were arrested and charged with reckless endangerment.
It was a long time ago, but I vaguely remember the case was thrown out since they had not actually done anything illegal and had actively tried to avoid interacting with the manned helicopter. If I'm wrong about that, somebody please correct me.
The guy who uploaded this video yesterday, Flight Follower, obviously is trying to profit from the current drone paranoia. Absent concrete evidence of any actual drone activity over New Jersey, he dredged up this ancient lame story as click-bait to attract hits for his own channel.
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,911
- Reactions
- 2,468
FAA temporarily bans drones in parts of New Jersey, notice threatens 'deadly force' for 'imminent security threat'
FAA temporarily bans drones in parts of New Jersey, notice threatens 'deadly force' for 'imminent security threat'
It's a little late to issue a TFR.
We'll see if the "drones" stop flying but if they do, here's the excuses that will be offered:
1.These are manned aircraft (all along) and manned aircraft are not banned from flying.
2.Recreational drone pilots continue to ignore the rules and regulations as they have done for years and today is no different.
3.A TFR is published but there's no mechanism to disseminate it to drone pilots effectively. A TFR does not block a drone from flying in that area.
4.Some drones are still capable of getting authorization to fly during a TFR so what you are seeing could be legal flights like police or military or others who are approved.
Unless the law has changed, since when does an imminent security threat allow a shootdown? What are these drones doing during the TFR that they weren't doing before the TFR which makes them an "imminent security threat?"
More walking back.....
We'll see if the "drones" stop flying but if they do, here's the excuses that will be offered:
1.These are manned aircraft (all along) and manned aircraft are not banned from flying.
2.Recreational drone pilots continue to ignore the rules and regulations as they have done for years and today is no different.
3.A TFR is published but there's no mechanism to disseminate it to drone pilots effectively. A TFR does not block a drone from flying in that area.
4.Some drones are still capable of getting authorization to fly during a TFR so what you are seeing could be legal flights like police or military or others who are approved.
Unless the law has changed, since when does an imminent security threat allow a shootdown? What are these drones doing during the TFR that they weren't doing before the TFR which makes them an "imminent security threat?"
More walking back.....
As a casual drone flyer that colors within the lines, one thing happening now that does seem odd. With perhaps an upside that has a lot of drone flyers upset: news says the FAA is now sending out notams / tfrs restricting all drone flight below 400' and essentially asking LEO to collect the drones in selected regions.
US temporarily bans drones in parts of New Jersey (BBC often has better coverage of US news than US News sites.
I note this is after RFID has come into force, so compliant drones will be easy to find; rebel drones will be more difficult to find, but doable. And LEO will be focused on this. But the timing with relation to RFID is curious. Three months is about the purchase cycle of most agencies to become equipped with smaller things like drone finders.
I'm waiting for that other shoe to drop, when these state county and city agencies see the opportunity as a way to now fine operators and make drones a new revenue source. Think speed cameras, where driving 36 in a 35 zone gets you a $200 summons in the mail. Imagine the same for overshooting 400' as you were flying over a tree on a small hill in your path: the drone reports altitude AGL from launch, but not terrain changes.
The upside is now that there are restrictions, law abiding flyers can get still clearances even within tfr/notam zones and fly legally - - not sure LEO will understand that and may still net these drones, too - - but the focus means they will be looking and perhaps culling some of the operators who routinely blemish the hobby by doing stupid things like flying into restricted airspace. Though, I truly expect the reports of drones taken down will be infinitesimally small compared to the number of reported sightings, and we'll still be hearing the media shouting from the rooftops of the ongoing conspiracy.
US temporarily bans drones in parts of New Jersey (BBC often has better coverage of US news than US News sites.
I note this is after RFID has come into force, so compliant drones will be easy to find; rebel drones will be more difficult to find, but doable. And LEO will be focused on this. But the timing with relation to RFID is curious. Three months is about the purchase cycle of most agencies to become equipped with smaller things like drone finders.
I'm waiting for that other shoe to drop, when these state county and city agencies see the opportunity as a way to now fine operators and make drones a new revenue source. Think speed cameras, where driving 36 in a 35 zone gets you a $200 summons in the mail. Imagine the same for overshooting 400' as you were flying over a tree on a small hill in your path: the drone reports altitude AGL from launch, but not terrain changes.
The upside is now that there are restrictions, law abiding flyers can get still clearances even within tfr/notam zones and fly legally - - not sure LEO will understand that and may still net these drones, too - - but the focus means they will be looking and perhaps culling some of the operators who routinely blemish the hobby by doing stupid things like flying into restricted airspace. Though, I truly expect the reports of drones taken down will be infinitesimally small compared to the number of reported sightings, and we'll still be hearing the media shouting from the rooftops of the ongoing conspiracy.
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
I don't need to see it myself to find other accounts credible. If I had to personally experience something to believe it I wouldn’t believe we landed on the moon in 1969. But there is sufficient indirect evidence and testimony by people I find credible that I don't need to have been there on the moon to believe it.
I note there are, nonetheless, people who genuinely believe the landing was faked. They have abundant theories for what really happened.
Has a familiar ring to it...
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
Sorry, not flying. That's from Evel Knievel's redo of the Snake River Canyon jump, Truck Edition. Can't fool me.
Aside: If you're old enough to know who I'm talking about, find a way to watch the Evel Knievel Documentary, Being Evel... you will love it, and a wonderful trip down memory lane.
Last edited:
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
This is simply about credibility.
At this point, I find both those arguing they're certain there's nothing to this and it's all hysteria as well as those that are certain there's some National Security threat about equal in lacking credibility.
At this point, I find both those arguing they're certain there's nothing to this and it's all hysteria as well as those that are certain there's some National Security threat about equal in lacking credibility.
I'm curious: how can you find accounts credible when the majority are clearly flawed as proven by the photos the report includes? I have yet to see even ONE report that is a photo that shows a drone in flight.
I was watching the departures last night and saw a few that I know were jets leaving the area; some though had a new lighting system with long blink strobes - probably LED based instead of xenon strobe lamps - they did look odd because I hadn't really noticed them before. A few others turned in ways that made the lights wink out in ways I found odd when trying to picture a jet turning; then realized there were clouds moving in I couldn't see that the jets were flying through/behind.
With regard to the moon landing, plenty of circumstantial evidence it actually happened, no need for eye witnesses. Even you can buy a big laser and look for the laser reflector they planted on the moon that they use to test gravitational theory, and other things. Just as the flat earth stupidity club, there are those that want to believe and live in an alternate reality while being in this one.
Lunar Laser Ranging experiments - Wikipedia
Video: Tracking the moon with laser beams - The American Ceramic Society
For more than 50 years, the Apollo-era Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment helped scientists track the moon’s orbit and distance from Earth. The efficiency of the moon-based reflectors decreased over time, though, so NASA scientists looked to reflect light from a spacecraft-based reflector...
ceramics.org
There is some level of irony or humor when you sarcastically mention conspiracy in the same post where you theorize that the reason for the NOTAMs is to create a new revenue stream.
Mark
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
Because there are a minority that are causing legitimate concern from people I find credible. Pretty simple. There's always lots of noise in anything like this.
And your anecdotal testimony from your Barcalounger is among those datums that does not make my "credible" list. It's in the "noise" category.
As is most of the theory and argument in this thread. And the large majority of "sitings". But not all.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
Help with first entry with CP2112 and EV2400 adapter
- Started by jftman
- Replies: 1
-
Mini 4 PRO Fly more combo $859? Is this a mistake?- Started by Bad Santa
- Replies: 9
-
Forum statistics
