Newark airport shut down in US due to drone sightings

[sar104]

They owne it?

It's Olde English.

 

[JDawg]

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.

LOL. At 3 m/s is there any chance that you could damage a prop when you attempted to fire it back up?

 

[JDawg]

It's Olde English.

Of course

 

[Maviac]

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.

My apologies. I shouldn't comment before making sure I have the whole context.

 

[sar104]

LOL. At 3 m/s is there any chance that you could damage a prop when you attempted to fire it back up?

You mean at 20 m/s? I doubt it - that's less than their maximum rated airspeed horizontally, and there are numerous videos of Phantoms and Mavics being restarted from motors-off freefall.

 

[AMann]

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.

There may be a situation where a fast descent would be prudent- I havent had to do it yet, but there are places where one can fly legally out here in the desert and be totally suprised by low level military aircraft. What perameter changes do you recommend?

 

[Drone on]

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.

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.

Agree. However, the vast majority of us are old, and we have learned to play by the rules. We may not like it, but..

Those who need attention or have a political agenda could easily use software like no limit drones, or even firmware roll backs to change or eliminate altitude restrictions.

I'm old, and I was easily able to change the sport mode switch to atti mode using only DJI assistant 1.1.2 (I think)

Those born with computers in the crib (generation after millenial generation - has never known analog; only digital) have the energy, skills, and possibly the interest to quickly make the necessary changes.

Usually, organizations with an agenda claim responsibility. I don't recall that ever happening at Gatwick. (Do we want to start that again?)

Has there been any such publicized claim of responsibility in this incident?

Real or not, the amount of attention these events are generating could lead to more and more clamp down.

When the clamp down comes (not if), and someone is finally caught, they should have to pay us back for our investment in this to be grounded equipment.

 

[sar104]

There may be a situation where a fast descent would be prudent- I havent had to do it yet, but there are places where one can fly legally out here in the desert and be totally suprised by low level military aircraft. What perameter changes do you recommend?

You can change "g_config_mode_normal_cfg_vert_vel_down" to increase descent speed. I wouldn't go much beyond -5 to avoid instabilities in normal flight.

 

[AMann]

You can change "g_config_mode_normal_cfg_vert_vel_down" to increase descent speed. I wouldn't go much beyond -5 to avoid instabilities in normal flight.

Thanks, when I am in those situations, it may be good to do.

 

[Weaponized]

Its New Jersey. We shouldn't rule out Corey Booker riding a broom.

 

[JDawg]

Its New Jersey. We shouldn't rule out Corey Booker riding a broom.

Ivanka and her inflatables.

 

[Weaponized]

According to a NBC news report...

One pilot told air traffic control that the object in the skies "definitely looks like a drone," and it came "about 30 feet away from the right wing."

I've been on approach behind another aircraft, in a platform used to fly through hurricanes and I can tell you with certainty that the wake turbulence created by a heavy jet passing that close would have crashed virtually any drone. If that report is accurate...there should be wreckage somewhere.

 

[ascension]

According to a NBC news report...

One pilot told air traffic control that the object in the skies "definitely looks like a drone," and it came "about 30 feet away from the right wing."

I've been on approach behind another aircraft, in a platform used to fly through hurricanes and I can tell you with certainty that the wake turbulence created by a heavy jet passing that close would have crashed virtually any drone. If that report is accurate...there should be wreckage somewhere.

That turbulence only exists behind an airplane, not to the side.
Thus, the ability to fly "welded wing" in airshows and other demonstrations, done countless times.

 

[sar104]

That turbulence only exists behind an airplane, not to the side.
Thus, the ability to fly "welded wing" in airshows and other demonstrations, done countless times.

However - the drone isn't holding station with the aircraft, and so it will end up behind it and within the region of turbulence. It's not likely to cause a quad to crash, although it will get bounced around somewhat.

 

[Weaponized]

That turbulence only exists behind an airplane, not to the side.
Thus, the ability to fly "welded wing" in airshows and other demonstrations, done countless times.

Not true. The vortex created can extend outwards some distance from the wings. We would purposely offset our track and could still feel it. There's a difference between demonstration flight of small aircraft, doing it on purpose, and what's created by large aircraft. I've been to many airshows and performed in a few... I don't recall any 727s flying in tight formation.

 

[ascension]

Not true. The vortex created can extend outwards some distance from the wings. We would purposely offset our track and could still feel it. There's a difference between demonstration flight of small aircraft, doing it on purpose, and what's created by large aircraft. I've been to many airshows and performed in a few... I don't recall any 727s flying in tight formation.

The vortex is created and propagates behind and under the wing, and to a minor extent laterally, but always low and behind.
It does not extend laterally anywhere near perpendicular.
I've flown in a few myself.
Turbulence when flying abeam would exist for an F-18 as for an airliner.
That is why the "slot" for the Blue Angels flies in the position he does.
A few feet otherwise and he would be getting rocked.
A 727, to use your example, could fly wing on another and not be impacted by wake.
On the North Atlantic Track System, which is about as close to formation flying as airliners ever do, there is no problem being abeam or slightly aft of abeam.
That is the basis for the approved "strategic offset" that we all use.
The problem is when you are behind and slightly below.

 

[Meta4]

I don't recall any 727s flying in tight formation.

As close as I've seen:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Weaponized]

The vortex is created and propagates behind and under the wing, and to a minor extent laterally, but always low and behind.
It does not extend laterally anywhere near perpendicular.
I've flown in a few myself.
Turbulence when flying abeam would exist for an F-18 as for an airliner.
That is why the "slot" for the Blue Angels flies in the position he does.
A few feet otherwise and he would be getting rocked.
A 727, to use your example, could fly wing on another and not be impacted by wake.
On the North Atlantic Track System, which is about as close to formation flying as airliners ever do, there is no problem being abeam or slightly aft of abeam.
That is the basis for the approved "strategic offset" that we all use.
The problem is when you are behind and slightly below.

I'm not buying the 30' distance report at all. This encounter was not planned nor performed by 2 craft working in harmony. If accurate, It was a chance encounter and would have been a matter of dumb luck for the drone to recover, not only from the turbulence, but from the large metal object screwing up its compass at approximately the same time.

 

[packnrat]

You can change "g_config_mode_normal_cfg_vert_vel_down" to increase descent speed. I wouldn't go much beyond -5 to avoid instabilities in normal flight.

ya, what he said....

i am 59 and that line is gibberish to me.
but then i try to not club my computer with the big stone rock on a stick..

 

[packnrat]

till there is a video showing any drone, i say bs to all these reports.
the antis will say and do most anything (including telling lies) to hurt any they do not like. (and not just for drones).