Newark airport shut down in US due to drone sightings

[owg666]

400 vs 3500 is a big difference. I wouldn't think many consumer drones could go that high. DJI has a firmware limit of 500m (about 1500ft) limit from takeoff..

It's possible, but not very probable.

There’s a firmware version (hack) for the Yuneec Typhoon Q500 4K that allows it to surpass 8000 feet. Of course those drones are big and heavy (I have one) and have crappy batteries. So flying that high seems unlikely. The power needed to climb that high would consume the battery pretty quick. Not to mention fighting winds.

 

[Prmath]

There’s a firmware version (hack) for the Yuneec Typhoon Q500 4K that allows it to surpass 8000 feet. Of course those drones are big and heavy (I have one) and have crappy batteries. So flying that high seems unlikely. The power needed to climb that high would consume the battery pretty quick. Not to mention fighting winds.

On GoogleEarth you can go to 8000ft SAFELY and see about the same thing

 

[Claybond]

There are a number of YouTube videos of Mavics flying much higher then 3,500 feet.

Way,way higher dude! I'm a skeptic too but pal join reality of what people have done and continue to stretch the limits of what these babies can do. 3500 ft is not even shocking to hear about in today's day.

 

[jpbluzharp]

How may YouTube videos have we seen of imbecilic drone enthusiasts pushing the vertical limits of their aircraft? Some have even done it through dense cloud cover subverting every FAA guideline...

Abusers will ruin our hobbies and livelihoods with reckless stunts like this.

I’m hoping they’ll be found and punished. The majority of drone pilots are responsible and therefore safe members of a great community. Clowns... not so much.

 

[ScubaBob]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/22/us/newark-drone-sightings/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/

Flights into and out of New Jersey's Newark Liberty International Airport were disrupted Tuesday night after two drones were reported flying over nearby Teterboro Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Greg Martin told CNN that the agency stopped flights at the airport after the drones were reported over the smaller regional airport some 15 miles away. Both airports serve the greater metro New York City area.
The two drones were flying at 3,500 feet and have since cleared the airspace over the airport, Martin said.

I found this hard to believe. The wind at 3500 feet would be extreme. I don't understand how a drone could remain over EWR for very long with that wind.

 

[sar104]

I found this hard to believe. The wind at 3500 feet would be extreme. I don't understand how a drone could remain over EWR for very long with that wind.

That's not necessarily true. The winds on the ground were calm at KTEB that evening. Winds at 3500 ft are likely to be different but, for example, right now the winds there at ground level are out of the west at around 9 kts, while the winds aloft at 3000 ft are showing 17 kts. Perfectly flyable.

 

[JanB]

Footage of high flying drones here:

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

 

[STKNRUD]

I few commercially for 40 years. Having seen many birds during departures and arrivals, it would be very easy in most cervumstances to distinguish a drone from a bird. I can tell you for sure, no commercial pilot would ever knowingly make a false report if he knew there was the slightest chance it would cause a shutdown of a major airport. The expense of diversions, delays, missed flights, diverted crews to name only a couple is incredible. Remember, he is not in the cockpit alone and both pilots would be spending a lot of face time with investigators, chief pilot, etc. A lot of commercial pilots are “territorial” and hate drones but not to that degree.

 

[erkme73]

What are the odds that the 'drones' are actually part of the nanny state in that part of the world? I recall reading that NYC was actively using drones now for surveillance. Call me a paranoid skeptic, but talk about hitting two birds with one stone: Breed public anger over personal drones, while simultaneously shredding what remains of our privacy 'rights' against unwarranted .gov surveillance.

 

[TheRoach]

The latest on this is that they are now fairly certain it was NOT a drone. As in most cases, including Gatwick, we have another industry blaming incident that wasn't an incident.

The Gatwick incident turned out to be police surveillance drones.

 

[Dkotinsky]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/22/us/newark-drone-sightings/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/

Flights into and out of New Jersey's Newark Liberty International Airport were disrupted Tuesday night after two drones were reported flying over nearby Teterboro Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Greg Martin told CNN that the agency stopped flights at the airport after the drones were reported over the smaller regional airport some 15 miles away. Both airports serve the greater metro New York City area.
The two drones were flying at 3,500 feet and have since cleared the airspace over the airport, Martin said.

 

[Rick W]

In addition to the battery drain to get to 3500 AGL, the winds aloft on most days would make drone flying a challenge-impossible and battery life very limited. The investigation should start and perhaps stop with wind speed that day at 3500. Wind speed increases significantly with altitude.

 

[jagraphics]

There are a number of YouTube videos of Mavics flying much higher then 3,500 feet.

I seem to remember seeing at least one with an indicated higher of 7,000 feet above sea level. I think (from memory it was a DJI Mavic (not sure which) The video was shot on the coast so it went up from the beach about 7K feet and back down.

It depends the hight above mean seal level of the airport as to the max hieght a multi rotor drone can fly.

found one video on YT that suggests a max hight of 8K feet above sea level

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

 

[czechmark]

The latest on this is that they are now fairly certain it was NOT a drone. As in most cases, including Gatwick, we have another industry blaming incident that wasn't an incident.

The Gatwick incident turned out to be police surveillance drones.

Can you provide an link regarding "The latest on this. . . ."?

 

[sar104]

The latest on this is that they are now fairly certain it was NOT a drone. As in most cases, including Gatwick, we have another industry blaming incident that wasn't an incident.

The Gatwick incident turned out to be police surveillance drones.

Do you have a reference for either of those assertions?

 

[dondi]

Whoever made this statement, "There are a number of YouTube videos of Mavics flying much higher then 3,500 feet".
Prove it and give me details otherwise this is another opinion without any bases of fact. Get a life

 

[jagraphics]

The latest on this is that they are now fairly certain it was NOT a drone. As in most cases, including Gatwick, we have another industry blaming incident that wasn't an incident.

The Gatwick incident turned out to be police surveillance drones.

I understand some of the later sitings were LEA drones (unclear if it was Police or an "associated organisation") but for obvious embarrassment no one if going to admit that publicly if they can get away with it. However I was told that the origional siting and most of the subsiquent ones were not an LEA UAV.

 

[sar104]

Whoever made this statement, "There are a number of YouTube videos of Mavics flying much higher then 3,500 feet".
Prove it and give me details otherwise this is another opinion without any bases of fact. Get a life

You tell him. It's completely unacceptable that whoever posted that was not aware of your evidentiary requirements, and did not realize that you are incapable of using a search engine.

 

[JanB]

Whoever made this statement, "There are a number of YouTube videos of Mavics flying much higher then 3,500 feet".
Prove it and give me details otherwise this is another opinion without any bases of fact. Get a life

Google is your friend!

 

[raymo]

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).

They were Canada geese, but not from Canada, just to be technically correct.