Reported near miss at LHR

Clinton1 · Oct 27, 2018

BJR981S said:
Indeed, unfortunately there are still videos from drone pilots that significantly put the general public at risk. My favourite one is "Flying above the clouds."

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

I am not for, or against what this guy did, but please dont post stuff that is 4 years old. At that time there were not many drones around. It is like you post a video from 1960 where no one had to wear safety belts in cars, and trying to justify it with today.

BJR981S · Oct 27, 2018

Clinton1 said:
I am not for, or against what this guy did, but please dont post stuff that is 4 years old. At that time there were not many drones around. It is like you post a video from 1960 where no one had to wear safety belts in cars, and trying to justify it with today.

While you may say that, the general public do not care when the videos are posted. Just that is a drone breaking the law and flying in airspace where they may be traveling in a commercial aircraft.

And why do they do this. Why do they post videos like this.

To get hits and earn money.

These people put our entire hobby at risk by this behaviour. The behaviour sells newspapers and advertisement revenue. They put the general public and the authorities offside and cause draconian legislation be created to control all of us.

Clinton1 · Oct 27, 2018

@BJR981S i agree on what you say, but i hope you understand my viewpoint also. Lets rather post stuff that has happened not long ago, so that everyone can see of what the idiots are doing now, with all the regs. that we already have.

lmel2005 · Oct 27, 2018

4 years ago, was it illegal to fly high?

covpack · Oct 27, 2018

Common sense tells you that this story is probably not true. Like in the story, experts believed another case it was a plastic bag. Even then a plan going around 200 mph will most likely not see a two-foot diameter drone as they fly by at 200 plus mph.

sar104 · Oct 27, 2018

covpack said:
Common sense tells you that this story is probably not true. Like in the story, experts believed another case it was a plastic bag. Even then a plan going around 200 mph will most likely not see a two-foot diameter drone as they fly by at 200 plus mph.

Please try not to massacre basic logic - one case turning out to be a plastic bag rather than a drone doesn't mean that all reported sightings are therefore plastic bags.

covpack · Oct 27, 2018

It is common math. He would have less than 1 second to ID the drone before it passed him by. He is going 525 fps. To ID a typical mavic he would probably spot it out about 500 to 1000 feet, if he was looking right at it, and then it would only be a spot in the sky. Most likely it would mean at 200 feet before he would have spotted the drone and maybe ID as a drone.. That is less than 1/2 second. That is basic logic.

By the way a party balloon can reach up to 32,808 feet. He was flying at 3200 feet.

covpack · Oct 27, 2018

sar104 said:
Please try not to massacre basic logic - one case turning out to be a plastic bag rather than a drone doesn't mean that all reported sightings are therefore plastic bags.

It is common math. He would have less than 1 second to ID the drone before it passed him by. He is going 525 fps. To ID a typical mavic he would probably spot it out about 500 to 1000 feet, if he was looking right at it, and then it would only be a spot in the sky. Most likely it would mean at 200 feet before he would have spotted the drone and maybe ID as a drone.. That is less than 1/2 second. That is basic logic.

By the way a party balloon can reach up to 32,808 feet. He was flying at 3200 feet.

ac0j · Oct 27, 2018

covpack said:
It is common math. He would have less than 1 second to ID the drone before it passed him by. He is going 525 fps. To ID a typical mavic he would probably spot it out about 500 to 1000 feet, if he was looking right at it, and then it would only be a spot in the sky. Most likely it would mean at 200 feet before he would have spotted the drone and maybe ID as a drone.. That is less than 1/2 second. That is basic logic.

By the way a party balloon can reach up to 32,808 feet. He was flying at 3200 feet.

Save your breath, (or should I say fingers

)
This one is convinced that all drone sightings are fact, Because there is no reason for a pilot to make false claims.... And once it is in writing, it is fact.
And appears to him that drones are going to account for most air accidents that happen from now on. Even though they cant seem to prove that a drone hit is worse than a bird hit. Even when they make cannons to shoot the drone directly at a weak points.
There has only been 2 collisions in history, Neither caused any emergency. But instead of arguing FACTS about what has happened , we argue about possibilities of what MIGHT happen.

sar104 · Oct 27, 2018

covpack said:
It is common math. He would have less than 1 second to ID the drone before it passed him by. He is going 525 fps. To ID a typical mavic he would probably spot it out about 500 to 1000 feet, if he was looking right at it, and then it would only be a spot in the sky. Most likely it would mean at 200 feet before he would have spotted the drone and maybe ID as a drone.. That is less than 1/2 second. That is basic logic.

By the way a party balloon can reach up to 32,808 feet. He was flying at 3200 feet.

So it takes you more than 1/2 second to identify a drone if you see one? Have you never flown on a commercial airliner? Have you never spotted birds on approach? Or were you unable to identify them as birds?

ac0j · Oct 27, 2018

sar104 said:
So it takes you more than 1/2 second to identify a drone if you see one? Have you never flown on a commercial airliner? Have you never spotted birds on approach? Or were you unable to identify them as birds?

See it or not, what is the difference? It seems a pilot doesnt have time to evade because of that 1 or 1/2 second. I would still be 100 times more worried about hitting a 14 pound goose that out numbers drones by what......100 to 1?, 1000 to 1?, 10,000 to 1?

covpack · Oct 27, 2018

ac0j said:
Save your breath, (or should I say fingers )
This one is convinced that all drone sightings are fact, Because there is no reason for a pilot to make false claims.... And once it is in writing, it is fact.
And appears to him that drones are going to account for most air accidents that happen from now on. Even though they cant seem to prove that a drone hit is worse than a bird hit. Even when they make cannons to shoot the drone directly at a weak points.
There has only been 2 collisions in history, Neither caused any emergency. But instead of arguing FACTS about what has happened , we argue about possibilities of what MIGHT happen.

So if a pilot says so then it is true. In that case, aliens are visiting earth and flying saucers fly the skies. (ha)

covpack · Oct 27, 2018

sar104 said:
So it takes you more than 1/2 second to identify a drone if you see one? Have you never flown on a commercial airliner? Have you never spotted birds on approach? Or were you unable to identify them as birds?

Actually I have been in the cockpit of KC-10 aircraft and in the backseat of an F-15E strike eagle. I am prior Air Force and was assigned to a unit that flew KC-10 tankers. It was common for me to take a pulldown seat behind the pilot as they flew and to be in the back in the back watching the crew do midair refueling. The F-15E strike fighter flight was an incentive flight. Yes, I have seen birds on runways as we sometime landed and took off. The biggest fear was stricking a bird at takeoff, especially if you are in a KC-10 laden with a lot of fuel. That aircraft is heavier than any comparable civilian DC-10 wide-bodied jet.
But I think that most bird striker will happen with no notice, especially at altitude. It is the take off and landings when going must slower when it is dangerous. Pilots will not see it happening but see a blur and then hear a noise as the aircraft is striked.
See

sar104 · Oct 27, 2018

covpack said:
Actually I have been in the cockpit of KC-10 aircraft and in the backseat of an F-15E strike eagle. I am prior Air Force and was assigned to a unit that flew KC-10 tankers. It was common for me to take a pulldown seat behind the pilot as they flew and to be in the back in the back watching the crew do midair refueling. The F-15E strike fighter flight was an incentive flight. Yes, I have seen birds on runways as we sometime landed and took off. The biggest fear was stricking a bird at takeoff, especially if you are in a KC-10 laden with a lot of fuel. That aircraft is heavier than any comparable civilian DC-10 wide-bodied jet.
But I think that most bird striker will happen with no notice, especially at altitude. It is the take off and landings when going must slower when it is dangerous. Pilots will not see it happening but see a blur and then hear a noise as the aircraft is striked.
See

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

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

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

All of which demonstrates that it is possible not to see an approaching object, not that it is impossible to see one. And that seems consistent with your own experience. In the first video, for example, the bird is hidden from the camera by the center windshield pillar until it is very close.

ac0j · Oct 27, 2018

Everyone knows that birds are thousands of times more likely to cause an accident than a drone.
But the FAA and pilots except the risk and fly anyway. I mean, It would be pretty hard to put numbers on all those winged creatures, and get them to cough up a $5 fee, let alone take any test.
Its easier to try to make drones look like a bigger risk.

WithTheBirds · Oct 28, 2018

ac0j said:
Everyone knows that birds are thousands of times more likely to cause an accident than a drone.
But the FAA and pilots except the risk and fly anyway. I mean, It would be pretty hard to put numbers on all those winged creatures, and get them to cough up a $5 fee, let alone take any test.
Its easier to try to make drones look like a bigger risk.

It’s easier to regulate the UAV impact- for obvious reasons...

covpack · Oct 28, 2018

sar104 said:
All of which demonstrates that it is possible not to see an approaching object, not that it is impossible to see one. And that seems consistent with your own experience. In the first video, for example, the bird is hidden from the camera by the center windshield pillar until it is very close.

Mostly pilot we see flocks of birds vs a single bird. Flocks of birds can cover a large junk of sky. However, most drones do not fly in flocks. I still think it was not a drone but another object, such as a balloon the pilot saw. Balloons have have caused crashes, but mostly with small aircraft. Maybe the FAA should require all balloons be registered and limited to below 400 feet.

WithTheBirds · Oct 28, 2018

covpack said:
Mostly pilot we see flocks of birds vs a single bird. Flocks of birds can cover a large junk of sky. However, most drones do not fly in flocks. I still think it was not a drone but another object, such as a balloon the pilot saw. Balloons have have caused crashes, but mostly with small aircraft. Maybe the FAA should require all balloons be registered and limited to below 400 feet.

Intel had managed to have 2018 Drones under simultaneous control, that would be a sight and a half for a pilot...