Newark airport shut down in US due to drone sightings

[Former Member]

The duties are pilot flying and pilot monitoring, and are interchangeable between the captain and FO. The PF is doing exactly that, and the PM calls out deviations in airspeed and sink rate, and if in instrument conditions, deviation from the course (localizer and/or glide slope). The PF in visual conditions is outside the cockpit almost exclusively....The roles are a bit different in instrument conditions, and far different when making an autolanding.

A standard airline decent profile is 3:1 - for every 300' AGL, you are 1 mile out on final. At 1/4 mile out, you are approx 75' AGL.

If I do my math right, if a pilot saw a drone while he was in the pattern at 3500', the pilot must be at around 12 miles out? 3500/300=12

The PF would have his attention outside the aircraft including looking forward. Airspeed 200 knots. Does that sound right?

How about climbout? Climbout at 200 knots? 6000fpm climb, it would take 30 seconds to be at 3500', and the plane would be 2 miles out when encountering the drone.

I think arriving aircraft have a much higher risk of encountering a drone than departing aircraft if the drone is within 2 miles of the airport.

Whats my point? Airline pilots have enough to do on approach, such as looking out for other aircraft and paying attention to ATC, aside from looking out for drones. We drone pilots need to make their lives easier, not more difficult. Im preaching to the choir here, because most people who read the forum in the first place fly responsibly. It's the other 90% that worry me.

 

[globeguy1]

If I do my math right, if a pilot saw a drone while he was in the pattern at 3500', the pilot must be at around 12 miles out? 3500/300=12

The PF would have his attention outside the aircraft including looking forward. Airspeed 200 knots. Does that sound right?

How about climbout? Climbout at 200 knots? 6000fpm climb, it would take 30 seconds to be at 3500', and the plane would be 2 miles out when encountering the drone.

I think arriving aircraft have a much higher risk of encountering a drone than departing aircraft if the drone is within 2 miles of the airport.

Whats my point? Airline pilots have enough to do on approach, such as looking out for other aircraft and paying attention to ATC, aside from looking out for drones. We drone pilots need to make their lives easier, not more difficult. Im preaching to the choir here, because most people who read the forum in the first place fly responsibly. It's the other 90% that worry me.

Assuming that the airliner was descending on the approach, the math would be roughly correct, but ATC instructions don't always follow what the pilot would prefer to fly. If he was just being vectored for the approach, it would be another story.

Rate of climb after takeoff wouldn't be 6,000fpm, or grandma would be wailing in the cabin, and there would likely be a fair amount of altitude busts as well. It's pretty rare that ATC ever gave us an intitial departure altitude above 10,000' and more often it was far lower. The standard from ORD for example, was 5,000.

As far as climb speed goes, we could accelerate to 250 kts below 10,000 once clear of the Class B airspace. The higher airspeeds gave better visibility over the nose - at 200 kts, you weren't seeing much right in front of the jet. Above 10,000', the normal climb speed was 320 kts up to Mach crossover speed.

 

[Former Member]

Assuming that the airliner was descending on the approach, the math would be roughly correct, but ATC instructions don't always follow what the pilot would prefer to fly. If he was just being vectored for the approach, it would be another story.

Rate of climb after takeoff wouldn't be 6,000fpm, or grandma would be wailing in the cabin, and there would likely be a fair amount of altitude busts as well. It's pretty rare that ATC ever gave us an intitial departure altitude above 10,000' and more often it was far lower. The standard from ORD for example, was 5,000.

As far as climb speed goes, we could accelerate to 250 kts below 10,000 once clear of the Class B airspace. The higher airspeeds gave better visibility over the nose - at 200 kts, you weren't seeing much right in front of the jet. Above 10,000', the normal climb speed was 320 kts up to Mach crossover speed.

Thanks again for you experienced reply.

So, in your opinion, is an airline pilot more likely at risk of striking a drone during takeoff or arrival?

 

[globeguy1]

Thanks again for you experienced reply.

So, in your opinion, is an airline pilot more likely at risk of striking a drone during takeoff or arrival?

From a visibility standpoint, it's tougher to see directly in front of the aircraft after takeoff than it is landing. The cockpit side windows have excellent visibility during all phases of flight. It's more likely that a drone would be encountered some distance from the actual airport - by and large, with the exception of the UK where continuous descents for landing are the norm, we spent more time at lower altitudes being vectored for, or actually flying the approach. Intermediate altitudes after takeoff were usually pretty short lived, therefore, I'd say drones during an arrival would be more of a concern, especially since the operator has a better chance of flying it from a location harder to detect further from an airport.

 

[Former Member]

From a visibility standpoint, it's tougher to see directly in front of the aircraft after takeoff than it is landing. The cockpit side windows have excellent visibility during all phases of flight. It's more likely that a drone would be encountered some distance from the actual airport - by and large, with the exception of the UK where continuous descents for landing are the norm, we spent more time at lower altitudes being vectored for, or actually flying the approach. Intermediate altitudes after takeoff were usually pretty short lived, therefore, I'd say drones during an arrival would be more of a concern, especially since the operator has a better chance of flying it from a location harder to detect further from an airport.

Thank you again. I think many of these irresponsible drone pilots are flying outside of LOS, flying FPV. Im not sure what altitude they are flying at when breaching Class B airspace, but according to what you say, a commercial jet pilot on departure probably wouldnt even be able to see the drone if it hit head on, and not be able to avoid it anyway. On approach, or low altitude vectoring, the pilots would be able to see the drone, but the question is, would they be able to avoid it at 200 knots? They probably would be on the lookout for other small aircraft, but to have to look out for drones as well is just asking too much of a pilot.

 

[ascension]

Check your data again. I live less than 100 miles from Teterboro, and the northwesterly's were whipping. And Teterboro is Class D

I don't need to check my data again.
The winds at EWR and Teterboro were under 10 knots.

Further, what I said was that being "around Teterboro in class B" which it cetainly would be if at 3500'.
Class B starts at 1800 there, and an airliner or drone would be in Class B if at 3500'.
Thus my statement.

 

[globeguy1]

Thank you again. I think many of these irresponsible drone pilots are flying outside of LOS, flying FPV. Im not sure what altitude they are flying at when breaching Class B airspace, but according to what you say, a commercial jet pilot on departure probably wouldnt even be able to see the drone if it hit head on, and not be able to avoid it anyway. On approach, or low altitude vectoring, the pilots would be able to see the drone, but the question is, would they be able to avoid it at 200 knots? They probably would be on the lookout for other small aircraft, but to have to look out for drones as well is just asking too much of a pilot.

See and avoid is hammered into pilots from day one for good reason. If one can do both, great day at the office! Clearly there isn't much of a visual footprint for a drone, and even with the vision of Chuck Yeager, it's tough. Now try it with the remains of smashed insects on the windscreen (while cold that day around EWR relatively speaking, jets could have flown in from those warmer bug striking climates). Maybe the remnants of some deicing fluid...I never saw a drone near my aircraft, but have hit a couple of smaller birds and seen many zip by out of the corner of my eye. The ones I hit got my attention to the point of thinking I'd need an underwear change before the next departure. The ones that just zipped by were just as terrifying, as there wouldn't have been any chance whatsoever to avoid them had I tried when I first acquired them visually. I'm thinking Captain Sully would probably concur, and those were some good sized birds (Canadian geese).

 

[Former Member]

See and avoid is hammered into pilots from day one for good reason. If one can do both, great day at the office! Clearly there isn't much of a visual footprint for a drone, and even with the vision of Chuck Yeager, it's tough. Now try it with the remains of smashed insects on the windscreen (while cold that day around EWR relatively speaking, jets could have flown in from those warmer bug striking climates). Maybe the remnants of some deicing fluid...I never saw a drone near my aircraft, but have hit a couple of smaller birds and seen many zip by out of the corner of my eye. The ones I hit got my attention to the point of thinking I'd need an underwear change before the next departure. The ones that just zipped by were just as terrifying, as there wouldn't have been any chance whatsoever to avoid them had I tried when I first acquired them visually. I'm thinking Captain Sully would probably concur, and those were some good sized birds (Canadian geese).

Birds have always been the bane of large airports, seems even with todays tech, we still cant keep them from being ingested.

I know how you feel about small birds zipping past your plane. Nothing you can do to avoid them, and just glad they didnt impact.

A little off the subject, but my wife came up with a rule when she and I drive. If there's a kid on the road, jam on the brakes, and dont hit them, same thing with a dog or cat. Unfortunately, squirrels, being lower on the food chain, dont even get my wife to let off the gas pedal.

 

[Joebie]

There was a lot of knowledge in this post. Nice to see from time to time!

Birds have always been the bane of large airports, seems even with todays tech, we still cant keep them from being ingested.

I know how you feel about small birds zipping past your plane. Nothing you can do to avoid them, and just glad they didnt impact.

A little off the subject, but my wife came up with a rule when she and I drive. If there's a kid on the road, jam on the brakes, and dont hit them, same thing with a dog or cat. Unfortunately, squirrels, being lower on the food chain, dont even get my wife to let off the gas pedal.

Yeah, had a young girl run into a power pole in front of my house while swerving for a squirrel. Cars happen to be my main thing, slamming on the brakes and quickly turning the wheel rarely ever ends well for most drivers (skill level) and their cars. It sucks killing any living thing, but it's not worth possibly dying over a squirrel.

 

[packnrat]

There was a lot of knowledge in this post. Nice to see from time to time!



Yeah, had a young girl run into a power pole in front of my house while swerving for a squirrel. Cars happen to be my main thing, slamming on the brakes and quickly turning the wheel rarely ever ends well for most drivers (skill level) and their cars. It sucks killing any living thing, but it's not worth possibly dying over a squirrel.

i drive for a living. and we have it worse than some airline pilots. only as in the critters come out of nowhere. and stop in front of us.
i do not want to kill any critter. even if no legs (rattlers maybe i will), four legged or even two legged. i want to sleep in my bed.
swerving a big rig can kill me and others to save??
then there are the kids with big rocks, trying to cause a accident, so they have something to do. and yes we hit birds. dogs, cats, skunks, geese, deer, moose, (elephants in those country's??).
sure speed is far less, buses carry people, i transport frozen food. but blocking any freeway can disrupt the lives of thousands (10's of thousands in some places -commute- )of people, get them stuck far away from home.

turn your flame throwers off.

i am not saying trucking and air transport are the same, just have some of the same kind of problems.

 

[neggy]

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.

Ahhh wing vortices rolling off the end of the wings ( not to be confused with wake vortices, which is why you have 2 mile separation, 5+ behind heavies, touchdown on a runway to avoid them, etc etc etc) will flip a small plane on an adjacent runway or taxiway, I have no reason to believe it would not send a drone into a unrecoverable situation

 

[Lubelaczek]

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.

Unfortunately for our hobby there is only one comment: DRONOROIA is on the rise...

 

[Cosmo SIX5]

Shirley that was a drone!

 

[Cymruflyer]

Do we need a thread called, speculation? while I remain skeptical that a pilot could have seen a small object, it’s not impossible, especially if said small object passed VERY close to the plane. As a private pilot I’ve seen all sorts of stuff up in the air. Balloons are frighteningly common, as are birds. Two addition speculations while we are at it.
1. Ultralight?
2. The type of person that would build or configure a drone capable of flight to such a height is EXACTLY the type of person who would do it.

Well if the winds are what they are reporting it would definitely not be an ultralight. Also and ultralight is far larger than any drone, so that would have been noticed easily and not confused with a drone. Also they report a drone but do not specify what type of drone, because not everything called a drone is a quad copter like a DJI aircraft.

In the past a drone was always a 3-axis remotely powered jet aircraft, as big and much bigger than a small civilian aircraft such as a Cessna or Piper and owned and flown by the military. Only in the last few years has the word "Drone" almost always been assumed to be a little hobby quad copter type aircraft, regardless of what it was that was being talked about.

Now we are hearing that this purported 3,500ft may have actually been 35,000ft and if that is really the truth, then no quad copter is going to be up there and if it were one of the types that we fly (though impossible to be that), then the pilot could not possibly have seen such a drone because he was at a cruise altitude and probably flying well over 400mph and this goes back to a fly passing a motorcycle.

 

[M_thoroughbred]

Why are most people thinking that it was a DJI drone? There are other drones, heck you can build your own as well.

 

[Smiffy62]

Any photographic or video evidence of these drones... Or is it the ghost drones of Gatwick, London that have crossed the pond?

 

[M_thoroughbred]

News outlets aren’t helping by exaggerating the facts. Cause creating mass panic and hysteria that is news. More and more regulations are coming sadly to the point where we won’t be able to fly at all. They aren’t sure if it was a drone even the pilots said that it looked like a drone but if they find out that it wasn’t a drone it won’t matter by then the fear of drones will have spread like a wildfire with the only way to extinguish it will be by banning it all together.

 

[Cymruflyer]

See and avoid is hammered into pilots from day one for good reason. If one can do both, great day at the office! Clearly there isn't much of a visual footprint for a drone, and even with the vision of Chuck Yeager, it's tough. Now try it with the remains of smashed insects on the windscreen (while cold that day around EWR relatively speaking, jets could have flown in from those warmer bug striking climates). Maybe the remnants of some deicing fluid...I never saw a drone near my aircraft, but have hit a couple of smaller birds and seen many zip by out of the corner of my eye. The ones I hit got my attention to the point of thinking I'd need an underwear change before the next departure. The ones that just zipped by were just as terrifying, as there wouldn't have been any chance whatsoever to avoid them had I tried when I first acquired them visually. I'm thinking Captain Sully would probably concur, and those were some good sized birds (Canadian geese).

That should be Canada Geese, not Canadian.

 

[ascension]

Ahhh wing vortices rolling off the end of the wings ( not to be confused with wake vortices, which is why you have 2 mile separation, 5+ behind heavies, touchdown on a runway to avoid them, etc etc etc) will flip a small plane on an adjacent runway or taxiway, I have no reason to believe it would not send a drone into a unrecoverable situation

I have no doubt that it is possible to flip a drone in wake turbulence.
In fact is is quite likely.
The point I made was that such turbulence does not exist on the side of the aircraft, and that claim comes up often in this site.

By the way, I am quite familiar with wake turbulence separation criteria, and your claim of "2 miles" is incorrect. It is extremely easy to watch this in an airliner, because the TCAS will show relative altitude differences with preceding aircraft, and as an experienced captain, you can see problems arising and adjust for them. If you get set up and the preceding aircraft on final is less than 1200' below you, you are inside the two minute standard.

The US FAA standards can be found here:
Wake turbulence separation minima

 

[globeguy1]

That should be Canada Geese, not Canadian.

Ya sure, eh?