Newark airport shut down in US due to drone sightings

[Meta4]

I 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.

There's very little steel in the wing of a plane and at 30 ft, what's there wouldn't have any effect on the drone's compass at all.

 

[Weaponized]

There's very little steel in the wing of a plane and at 30 ft, what's there wouldn't have any effect on the drone's compass at all.

There are a couple of large spinning steel grenades on the wings in addition to massive steel gear struts tucked within them, but I'd tend to agree with the caviat...I don't exactly know and I doubt its been tested in such a scenario. I also wouldn't rule it out. I know I get compass errors around steel structures sometimes in the 10-20 feet range. Either way, the textbook definition of wake turbulence ignores reality. Its tight immediately behind the aircraft which is why you can pull off formation flying but it expands greatly a few 100 yards behind. Much like a tornado that's tight at ground level, then widens at altitude. Given the "drone" was reportedly at an altitude where the operator likely couldn't see its attitude, recovering from this would have been purely chance. I don't see a commercial operator risking an expensive bird on such a stunt so that leaves us with a consumer unit. Its not too hard to do the math from there. I'm not saying this didn't happen, I'm saying if it did happen, something is "off" about the report, and if it did happen as reported, somebody likely found a drone on the ground.

 

[spamgnome]

While the reports DO seem unlikely, the drone(s) was spotted by 2 separate aircraft, and pilots.

 

[warloc66]

Considering that the air traffic control system is in a utter mess due to Trump's shutdown (don't @ me, he said he'd own it) this is going to happen a lot

[emoji106]

 

[warloc66]

Time for some reasonable thoughts on this.

The winds reported on the EWR METARS during this time frame last evening were all under 10 knots.
Military drones do not fly in the national airspace around NY without FAA approval.
There is no way a military drone would be around Teterboro, in Class B, without the FAA knowing about it.
Reports of passengers "spotting" drones within a few hundred feet at 38000' "somewhere over Chicago" are also not possible.
The claim that a "green" pilot was too frightened to land at Newark and invented this is just plain crazy.
Again, the view from the cockpit is completely different from a passenger seat, and you see a lot of different things. You can easily spot other airplanes at 20 miles at night, and 10 during the day.
Drones/balloons etc., are not that hard to see if you are looking in the right direction and they are moving.
I have no idea what was in the Teterboro vicinity at 3500' last evening, but I do know that the uninformed speculation in this thread is not close to accurate.

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

 

[sar104]

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

That was Tuesday evening, around 1745EST. These are the METARs from Teterboro:

METAR KTEB 222251Z 00000KT 10SM CLR M01/M16 A3060 RMK AO2​

SLP363 T10111156 $=​

METAR KTEB 222151Z 12005KT 10SM CLR M02/M16 A3060 RMK AO2​

SLP362 T10171156 $=​

The winds were definitely not whipping. Calm - 5, out of the east.

 

[Jackcutrone]

I'll tell ya, considering the weather in the Northeast the last few days, no sane drone pilot who values his equipment would have been flying

It’s the “sane” drone pilot part that - you’re right no sane one would it’s the others who cause the trouble.

 

[globeguy1]

Time for some reasonable thoughts on this.

The winds reported on the EWR METARS during this time frame last evening were all under 10 knots.
Military drones do not fly in the national airspace around NY without FAA approval.
There is no way a military drone would be around Teterboro, in Class B, without the FAA knowing about it.
Reports of passengers "spotting" drones within a few hundred feet at 38000' "somewhere over Chicago" are also not possible.
The claim that a "green" pilot was too frightened to land at Newark and invented this is just plain crazy.
Again, the view from the cockpit is completely different from a passenger seat, and you see a lot of different things. You can easily spot other airplanes at 20 miles at night, and 10 during the day.
Drones/balloons etc., are not that hard to see if you are looking in the right direction and they are moving.
I have no idea what was in the Teterboro vicinity at 3500' last evening, but I do know that the uninformed speculation in this thread is not close to accurate.

This is the most cogent response I've read on this subject. While I'm a green drone pilot, I recently retired from a 40 year airline pilot career. When it comes to spotting other aircraft or objects in flight, it is relative motion that really catches your eye. Objects with no relative motion are the ones hardest to spot and the ones you'd be most likely to actually collide with. At that time of day with the sun being at the angle it was, it's easy to speculate that perhaps it was sunlight reflecting off the object that caught their attention.

From a performance standpoint, the drone doesn't care how high above the ground it is, only how dense the air is at that altitude (density altitude). If your drone will lift off at Denver from your driveway, it will easily fly at 3,500 feet above Teterboro (Denver is roughly 5,400' above sea level) - available battery power would be far more limiting. I'd love to see a performance chart of a Mavic Pro or similar drone, but haven't found one yet.

I'd give far more credibility to the pilots who reported the sighting rather than those here who have stated it was BS. Like Spamgnome said: " 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."

 

[Former Member]

If you are flying a commercial airliner, at 3500' I'm guessing that you would be cleared for final and with your nose pitched up and flaps full down. When you are flying the "visual" can you actually see the runway while youre on short final or are you going by instruments only? Or are you only able to see outside through your port and starboard windows?

I'm not doubting anything an airline pilot has to say about drone sightings but with the nose pitched up and focus on the instruments on final I'm not sure they would even be paying attention to a 1' by 1' drone during their approach.

 

[sar104]

I'd love to see a performance chart of a Mavic Pro or similar drone, but haven't found one yet.

If you mean how high will a Mavic climb on a standard battery - I posted that in #70.

 

[sar104]

If you are flying a commercial airliner, at 3500' I'm guessing that you would be cleared for final and with your nose pitched up and flaps full down. When you are flying the "visual" can you actually see the runway while youre final or are you going by instruments only? Or are you only able to see outside through your port and starboard windows?

I'm not doubting anything an airline pilot has to say about drone sightings but with the nose pitched up and focus on the instruments on final I'm not sure they would even be paying attention to a 1' by 1' drone during their approach.

At 3500 AGL they will be only at initial flaps and around 210 kts, in a flat descent.

 

[Former Member]

At 3500 AGL they will be only at initial flaps and around 210 kts, in a flat descent.

Can you explain what you mean by a flat descent? Are they able to see anything but sky through their forward windows?

 

[sar104]

Can you explain what you mean by a flat descent? Are they able to see anything but sky through their forward windows?

Not nose up. Yes they will be able to see the ground just fine looking forwards. Visual approaches would be kind of tricky if that were not maintained all the way to the ground. Hence Concorde's droopy nose.

 

[globeguy1]

If you are flying a commercial airliner, at 3500' I'm guessing that you would be cleared for final and with your nose pitched up and flaps full down. When you are flying the "visual" can you actually see the runway while youre on short final or are you going by instruments only? Or are you only able to see outside through your port and starboard windows?

I'm not doubting anything an airline pilot has to say about drone sightings but with the nose pitched up and focus on the instruments on final I'm not sure they would even be paying attention to a 1' by 1' drone during their approach.

At that point in the approach, you're not likely fully configured for landing unless ATC has you slowed to final approach speed for sequencing. Most likely you would be gear up and flaps between 5-20 degrees (beyond 20 with the gear up on most airliners you get a very annoying gear warning horn). When the gear and flaps are extended, it takes more fuel to fly so final configuration isn't usually until around 1,500' AGL. The rule for my old airline was that we MUST be fully configured at 1,000 AGL.

Extending flaps does pitch the nose up due to increased lift, but it doesn't affect the visibility from the cockpit as far as the landing runway is concerned - it's in plain sight (weather conditions permitting) the entire time.

 

[globeguy1]

If you mean how high will a Mavic climb on a standard battery - I posted that in #70.

I was thinking in terms of actual aerodynamic performance - from my limited drone experience at my location, battery state will trump aerodynamic performance every time.

 

[Former Member]

At that point in the approach, you're not likely fully configured for landing unless ATC has you slowed to final approach speed for sequencing. Most likely you would be gear up and flaps between 5-20 degrees (beyond 20 with the gear up on most airliners you get a very annoying gear warning horn). When the gear and flaps are extended, it takes more fuel to fly so final configuration isn't usually until around 1,500' AGL. The rule for my old airline was that we MUST be fully configured at 1,000 AGL.

Extending flaps does pitch the nose up due to increased lift, but it doesn't affect the visibility from the cockpit as far as the landing runway is concerned - it's in plain sight (weather conditions permitting) the entire time.

Thank you for the clarification and your experience. Let's say someone is reporting a drone sighting above the airport. If a commercial airliner is on short final say a quarter mile out and in dirty configuration what are the pilot and copilot concentrating on? Is the pilot flying a plane visually and co-pilot as well? Or are they relying on their instruments and going through it through pre landing procedures?

 

[sar104]

I was thinking in terms of actual aerodynamic performance - from my limited drone experience at my location, battery state will trump aerodynamic performance every time.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by aerodynamic performance, since all the DJI aircraft are controlled to well within their theoretical limits. Maximum attainable altitude is really just an available energy issue.

 

[globeguy1]

Thank you for the clarification and your experience. Let's say someone is reporting a drone sighting above the airport. If a commercial airliner is on short final say a quarter mile out and in dirty configuration what are the pilot and copilot concentrating on? Is the pilot flying a plane visually and co-pilot as well? Or are they relying on their instruments and going through it through pre landing procedures?

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.

 

[globeguy1]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by aerodynamic performance, since all the DJI aircraft are controlled to well within their theoretical limits. Maximum attainable altitude is really just an available energy issue.

I admit to being a green drone guy, but what I was referring to was just the aircraft performance. For example, if one loads up his Beech Bonanza at a sea level airport on a cold day with a full fuel and passenger load, chucks in some baggage, he might well be within the performance envelope of the aircraft. If he tries the same thing at a Rocky Mountain airport with the same runway length on a 100 degree day, the NTSB will be writing an accident report.

There isn't much info on performance in the material that comes with the drones, hence my questions. Thanks for clarifying that bit for me - learning is a great thing!

 

[sar104]

I admit to being a green drone guy, but what I was referring to was just the aircraft performance. For example, if one loads up his Beech Bonanza at a sea level airport on a cold day with a full fuel and passenger load, chucks in some baggage, he might well be within the performance envelope of the aircraft. If he tries the same thing at a Rocky Mountain airport with the same runway length on a 100 degree day, the NTSB will be writing an accident report.

There isn't much info on performance in the material that comes with the drones, hence my questions. Thanks for clarifying that bit for me - learning is a great thing!

Okay - these quads are surprisingly good even at high altitudes. The quoted service ceiling is around 20,000 ft, and there are a number of videos of them flying at that elevation. I mostly fly between 7,000 and 12,000 ft, and while there appears to be a slight reduction in flight time I've not noticed a difference in handling from sea level. I think the reason goes back to the observation that the flight characteristics are limited by the firmware more than by the aerodynamic performance.