Newark airport shut down in US due to drone sightings

[thefrozenhawaiian]

I get that you think it's not possible. But I did see a drone at 38k. Well, maybe it wasn't a drone. But it was a small fixed wing aircraft, with no windshield or windows, a sizable dome on the front, and an inverted "v" tail. Looked like a drone to me. If it wasn't, feel free to tell me what it might have been. Certainly wasn't a Cessna up there... It was over the west side of Chicago on a crystal clear daytime flight from Denver to Newark, ironically enough. I'm guessing from your response this isn't a common occurrence?

a military drone and a recreation drone a very different animals. a fixed wing military drone at those altitudes isn't unreasonable at all. what you're describing sounds like an MQ-9 reaper.

 

[ascension]

I get that you think it's not possible. But I did see a drone at 38k. Well, maybe it wasn't a drone. But it was a small fixed wing aircraft, with no windshield or windows, a sizable dome on the front, and an inverted "v" tail. Looked like a drone to me. If it wasn't, feel free to tell me what it might have been. Certainly wasn't a Cessna up there... It was over the west side of Chicago on a crystal clear daytime flight from Denver to Newark, ironically enough. I'm guessing from your response this isn't a common occurrence?

I don't know what you may have seen.
I do know that the US does not fly drones in class A airspace without notifying the FAA, and they really don't do that, ever. They operate them in MOA's or other Special Use Airspace.
If they have to transport them, they do it on the surface.
Your claim that it was within 300' or so is not possible, not would you be able to tell.
In addition, there are some airplanes with anhedral wings. Maybe one of them, but certainly using standard separation criteria.
No. It isn't a "common occurrence."
Flew airliners for 32 years, Navy fighters before that, and still keep up on things via the pilot's website for the largest airline in the US, and never heard such a thing.

 

[gjmphoto]

View attachment 60225
Fox News thinks the drones were flying at 35,000 feet, not 3,500 feet as reported. What drone is that? I want one . I hate it when I add that extra zero, when it isn't necessary.

Is it true that Russell Baker died at 930?

 

[BearSwartz]

I don't know what you may have seen.
I do know that the US does not fly drones in class A airspace without notifying the FAA, and they really don't do that, ever. They operate them in MOA's or other Special Use Airspace.
If they have to transport them, they do it on the surface.
Your claim that it was within 300' or so is not possible, not would you be able to tell.
In addition, there are some airplanes with anhedral wings. Maybe one of them, but certainly using standard separation criteria.
No. It isn't a "common occurrence."
Flew airliners for 32 years, Navy fighters before that, and still keep up on things via the pilot's website for the largest airline in the US, and never heard such a thing.

I won't say absolutely positively it was within 300 feet. I said it was a few hundred feet higher and within 800 feet horizontal. It can be hard to judge distance. But it was close enough to make me think Wtf? That thing is way too close for comfort. I'm one of those guys who spends a lot of time on a flight staring out the window. I've seen many jets fly by at normal separation, this was far closer than the normal. Now I'm curious if it was intentional, or a close call.

 

[Maviac]

I'm skeptical, but it's not impossible, or even that improbable (I would have probably said otherwise before I saw folks here posting videos of drones going even higher). In Class B they're going no more than 250kts. I don't fly jets but I've flown turboprops going around that speed and in visual conditions that low, pilots are scanning very carefully. You can see birds from a distance and often follow it for a bit until it passes. If they saw it and kept their eyes on it, I can't entirely discount their ID as some sort of drone.

 

[ascension]

I won't say absolutely positively it was within 300 feet. I said it was a few hundred feet higher and within 800 feet horizontal. It can be hard to judge distance. But it was close enough to make me think Wtf? That thing is way too close for comfort. I'm one of those guys who spends a lot of time on a flight staring out the window. I've seen many jets fly by at normal separation, this was far closer than the normal. Now I'm curious if it was intentional, or a close call.

That would be reported as an extremely dangerous "near miss," and certainly would have gotten exposure on airline pilot's forums, and ATC forums.
I've never heard of such a thing, and given that a number of airline pilots control drones as part of their Military Reserve gigs, I'm quite sure it would have gotten out.
By the way....You said Denver to Newark, and at 38000'.
Eastbound flights fly at odd altitudes.

 

[BearSwartz]

That would be reported as an extremely dangerous "near miss," and certainly would have gotten exposure on airline pilot's forums, and ATC forums.
I've never heard of such a thing, and given that a number of airline pilots control drones as part of their Military Reserve gigs, I'm quite sure it would have gotten out.
By the way....You said Denver to Newark, and at 38000'.
Eastbound flights fly at odd altitudes.

It was a few years ago... I do remember we were going up and down a few times trying to find smoother air. Wanna say we bounced between 37 and 39k... Would that be a possible explanation? I don't know for sure what the exact altitude was at the moment I saw the drone. It was a United flight if I recall, and they had a WiFi on the plane that had the flight stats, but I don't know if it was real time or not. Would have been the Thursday or Friday before Super Bowl 2014, I only remember that because I could see the crowds around the stadium when I flew out of Newark that Sunday. So January 30th or 31st.

 

[Point Zero]

Warning
View attachment 60155

GENIUS LOL!

 

[Beachboy]

I’m thinking maybe drunk pilot!

 

[sar104]

Climbing vertically is a LOT more power intensive than flying horizontally or hovering. Try it yourself, look how much the flight time remaining drops when you just climb and keep it held there. And thats without the air getting appreciably less dense as you hit proper altitudes.
Unlocked mavic ones could just about hit 8,000 or so before having to land due to battery - they didnt actually GO anywhere. Sparks and Airs are substantially lower due to the smaller batteries, smaller props and so on.

Ultimately those drones have to be unlocked which is something the vast majority are (i) unaware is even possible and (ii) requires effort on their part to actually do and its an absolutely tiny minority have done it.

Most people own drones that are capped to 500m or so and although they'll go to the max thats it.

So when seeing all these drone reports of drones at 3500ft, 8000ft, 11000ft and 18500ft (figures from the last few "incidents") it pays to be very sceptical indeed.

If you extrapolate the Mavic's own internal calculations for switching to autoland in order to be able to land with an acceptable reserve (it uses around 20%) together with existing data on battery% as a function of height climbed, you can estimate how high it would go before trying to land:



That suggests that a Mavic could climb around 5800 ft and still return with about 20% battery.

 

[JDawg]

GENIUS LOL!

Not mine but it never gets old (IMO).

 

[sar104]

I've got a lot of miles in jets and can tell you that when you see another jet flying by it is like a flash. A tiny drone at 470 Mph is like seeing a fly while driving a motorcycle.

That would be a big fly. Simple geometric considerations would tell you that a drone at 470 mph would be like an object one tenth the size (so about an inch across) at 47 mph.

 

[warlock 31]

Yeah but the Dems owne it at this point.

 

[neggy]

I call BS on this one.....

 

[Maviac]

That would be a big fly. Simple geometric considerations would tell you that a drone at 470 mph would be like an object one tenth the size (so about an inch across) at 47 mph.

Nobody's flying 470 mph at that altitude, not legally at least (and if they were flying illegally they wouldn't report it since they're on radar). I'm not saying I believe it, but yes, you can make out birds and other objects at a speed around 200kts.

 

[AMann]

Yeah but the Dems owne it at this point.

Please dont bring the thread down.

 

[AMann]

If you extrapolate the Mavic's own internal calculations for switching to autoland in order to be able to land with an acceptable reserve (it uses around 20%) together with existing data on battery% as a function of height climbed, you can estimate how high it would go before trying to land:

View attachment 60273

That suggests that a Mavic could climb around 5800 ft and still return with about 20% battery.

What is the fastest “controlled” descent any Mavic can do (power %)? Just wondering if it could achieve this by cutting power, falling then restarting above the ground.

 

[sar104]

Nobody's flying 470 mph at that altitude, not legally at least (and if they were flying illegally they wouldn't report it since they're on radar). I'm not saying I believe it, but yes, you can make out birds and other objects at a speed around 200kts.

Right - I wasn't addressing anything other than the assertion about the fly. There is no question that drones (or medium-sized birds - to consider comparable objects) are perfectly clearly visible at these kinds of speeds.

 

[sar104]

What is the fastest “controlled” descent any Mavic can do (power %)? Just wondering if it could achieve this by cutting power, falling then restarting above the ground.

The calculations are based on the default descent speed of 3 m/s. You can increase that with a parameter change. Free fall would be the fastest descent, at maybe 20 m/s, if you are brave enough to trust a restart.

 

[JDawg]

Yeah but the Dems owne it at this point.

They owne it?