WestJet plane reports drone next to wing at 4000 ft.

[787steve]

I do not understand the report.- How can a drone fly alongside an aircraft?

The fastest a ANY drone can fly is far slower than the speed by which ANY aircraft would already have fallen out of the sky.

He probably meant that there was a drone flying and it was off their left wing. Not that it was flying along, keeping position off their left wing. I once encountered a kite (yes, a common cartoon variety kite) being flown on short final at about 900' which passed just by the left side of our aircraft.

The bad part, which no one wants to address is that what if it wasn't a stupid immature drone pilot, but a bad person will ill intent. If it somehow actually was "pallet sized" (which I doubt), that would have scary implications. Back before 9/11 no one would have been concerned if the person in front of them in security screening emptied his pockets, and along with the change and keys they saw a little box cutter. Everyone seems to assume that any time a drone is reported near an airliner's flight path it is just some immature jerk. I hope that is all it is. That is why pilots and FAA security types get a bit more upset than you might expect.

 

[allen deckard]

My father was a long haul truck driver for over 50 years. They have a zero tolerance policy for alcohol, get tested regularly,he drove well over a million miles a year. My father was an average truck driver, but will all the above under his belt nobody in the country (USA being this in an international forum) would hesitate to blame the truck driver after a crash.

All my point is, is that a commercial pilot is a human as susceptible as anyone else when it comes to making a mistake about anything.

Few years ago I had a pelican come threw my window while driving across a bridge. Swear the **** thing materialized out of thin air yet came right at me so I can’t imaging seeing a drone from 500 ft while moving at commercial airline speeds.

Infact just thinking back I’m sure everyone here has lost los on ther drone at least once just got turned around if not for your screen or being able to hear it how close would it need to be before you did see it?

Lastly I’d like to add one more thing.
I’m not sure where many of you live or if I’m just the luckiest guy out there but I’ve never had anyone come up to me with anything more than friendly questions or just want to watch me fly around that includes neighbors (knocks on wood)

And to be honest maybe once a year, if that, have I seen anything in the news about drones coming close to planes or in nfz’s, and once a year is being really generous to be honest I can’t remember the last time I saw anything in the news about drones and close encounters.

Not at all saying that they don’t make the news but please remember this site is drawing news reports from large and tiny alike from around the entire planet making what is honestly that much of an issue into what looks like a monster of a problem. Most of the world never thinks about drones.

Think of it this way. You probably rarely see a red 73 VW beetle these days that is unless you buy one and drive it around at that point you seem to see them everywhere. You might still think they are getting really rare till you join a vw club and start going to the vw beetle car shows at which point you’d swear everyone in the country has one in there garage.

It’s a micro look at an issue threw goggles designed to see only one thing. You own one so you see them everywhere, you frequent this site and possibly others that shall not be named [emoji12] so you see everything bad that might happen.

I think it’s just the way people are wired.

 

[dewster]

Regulations are hard to enforce on operators. I’m sure one incident will force consumer drone manufacturers to dumb down and limit the capabilities of their craft. All the naysayers will say “see! Drones are bad”

 

[lmel2005]

Talking about statistics, to defend pilots and plane accidents vs car accidents, is really the correct path, to get a conclusion.

Let's do the same with drones. How many people were killed last year, because of drones? How many injured?
This would be serious talking.

Some pilots said, they saw a drone with a vw beetle size, flying 700m lower. Ok. If you are sure it was a drone, and if it was flying in an NFZ or above height limit, tell the police.
All this drama, about thousands of people that COULD have killed, IF there was a collision, is not very serious. It's a conspiracy talking.

 

[Thwyllo]

Regulations are hard to enforce on operators. I’m sure one incident will force consumer drone manufacturers to dumb down and limit the capabilities of their craft. All the naysayers will say “see! Drones are bad”

They'll do exactly that to keep their sales channels open and avoid an outright ban such as some countries have already implemented. It's exactly the same as Google now brown-nosing the Chinese and ignoring their alleged "motto" of "do the right thing", from which they omitted the words "...to maximise profits".

The next step could be a version of DJI Go that connects to the internet anyway when you're back online and is given the latest firmware update and won't let you fly until it's installed. And/or won't run on a device that isn't internet connected.

 

[gnirtS]

IF there was a collision, is not very serious. It's a conspiracy talking.

Depends if you class tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in inspections, delayed flights for inspections and possible damage as "not very serious".
If something hits a plane, that plane isnt going anywhere until its inspected. That doesn't take zero time and cost zero money.

 

[lmel2005]

Depends if you class tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in inspections, delayed flights for inspections and possible damage as "not very serious".
If something hits a plane, that plane isnt going anywhere until its inspected. That doesn't take zero time and cost zero money.

I agree with you. IF.
I could write 2 pages with IFs too.

 

[gnirtS]

You're denying there's a chance a drone could hit a plane?! Its already happened.
It causes damage.

Or is your idea of risk management just stick your head in the sand and pretend all is well until something actually happens and only then address the problem?

 

[lmel2005]

You're denying there's a chance a drone could hit a plane?! Its already happened.
It causes damage.

Or is your idea of risk management just stick your head in the sand and pretend all is well until something actually happens and only then address the problem?

No, I'm not denying it. It could happen.
But it is already addressed as a problem. NFZ and other regulations, are supposed to cover this danger.

Ok, I know. According to your head, everyone who's not screaming like a lunatic, about thousands of supposed victims, and millions of supposed damaged costs, IF there was a collision, has his head in the sand.

Come on, address the problem, before something bad happens.

 

[gnirtS]

NFZ and regulations don't solve the problem, there are too many brain dead knuckle draggers and thats the problem. The current regulations still allow airspace conflictions to occur.

There has been a collision. The photos and details are in this thread. It cost tens of thousands of dollars. Wheres the "if". Its a known and proven problem.

If the morons continue flying like uncaring 12 year old kids the regulations are going to get tighter and tighter until flying becomes difficult anywhere or possibly at all in some areas.

Claiming a collision "isnt that serious" is complete and utter nonsense. It costs money, real, actual money. It could have a safety implication but it CERTAINLY will have a fairly heavy financial implication even if it doesnt.

 

[lmel2005]

NFZ and regulations don't solve the problem, there are too many brain dead knuckle draggers and thats the problem. The current regulations still allow airspace conflictions to occur.

There has been a collision. The photos and details are in this thread. It cost tens of thousands of dollars. Wheres the "if". Its a known and proven problem.

If the morons continue flying like uncaring 12 year old kids the regulations are going to get tighter and tighter until flying becomes difficult anywhere or possibly at all in some areas.

Claiming a collision "isnt that serious" is complete and utter nonsense. It costs money, real, actual money. It could have a safety implication but it CERTAINLY will have a fairly heavy financial implication even if it doesnt.

First of all, didn't say a collision is not serious, but a NON collision is not so serious, and if there was a rules violation, it is an authorities case.

If you only have to show me, ONE collision in the whole universe, statistically is not a danger, and is perfectly covered by today's regulations.

I wonder, how regulations in an NFZ would be stricter. Practically, no drones allowed in it. Period.

You are afraid of other drone users, and you should be glad to fly alone in the earth. It's not possible, you have to deal with it.
You are afraid of stricter regulations, but YOU are proposing them, claiming that the today's regulations are not enough !!

Go out to fly, and let other people do the same. Police will arrest the bad guys, and you will be safe. And security will cover the damage, some idiot caused, and you won't have to pay for it.
Relax.

 

[Classic flyer]

And people wonder why I am all for increased regulations on drones. I'd even be in favor of having people pass a test before they're so much as allowed to buy a drone, and I wonder if it could very well come to that if people keep pulling these stupid stunts. I really wouldn't mind it, either.

I agree...maybe they should have to show training certification in order to purchase

 

[Classic flyer]

First of all, didn't say a collision is not serious, but a NON collision is not so serious, and if there was a rules violation, it is an authorities case.

If you only have to show me, ONE collision in the whole universe, statistically is not a danger, and is perfectly covered by today's regulations.

I wonder, how regulations in an NFZ would be stricter. Practically, no drones allowed in it. Period.

You are afraid of other drone users, and you should be glad to fly alone in the earth. It's not possible, you have to deal with it.
You are afraid of stricter regulations, but YOU are proposing them, claiming that the today's regulations are not enough !!

Go out to fly, and let other people do the same. Police will arrest the bad guys, and you will be safe. And security will cover the damage, some idiot caused, and you won't have to pay for it.
Relax.

The regulations currently in place are good...they just need to be enforced...be safe fly safe

 

[Classic flyer]

I don't care if your son is Captain America. Let's have a few facts shall we? Firstly, a drunk pilot will kill a heck of a lot more people than a drunk driver. Secondly, did you know that in the US alone more than 100 commercial pilots a year enter rehab having lost their licenses -and are nearly always able to regain them. No 'career ruined'.

Thirdly, the number of alcohol tests conducted in the US numbers under 13,000 in a year. That's against a backdrop of 87,000 flights EVERY DAY, and if you had any idea of the typical off duty lifestyle of a lot of flight personnel, that should worry you.

Nobody is suggesting for a minute that airport NFZs are a bad idea so why are you implying they did? My point was about commercial pilots being too easily credited with superhuman powers of observation when it suits the media or authorities.

Well said sir...be safe fly safe

 

[BJR981S]

WestJet pilots notify Edmonton police of ‘drone flying off left wing’


People are just really stupid.

You should read the article before you post this alarmist thread title and make an assumption that People are just stupid.

The title should have read "here is another false claim by the media."

The drone was not next to wing but reported flying 2,000 feet below.

And don't blame Hobbyists for this little indiscretion. At 2,000 feet away it was described as the size of a crate.

They need to blame the Military. They are the only ones with Drones of that size.

Its BS reporting by the media that is destroying this hobby. Not the hobbyist. (I must admit their are some really irresponsible people flying drones. but not that many)

Somebody should write to the paper and complain about their drone sensationalisation. Any Canadians here?

Is it just me or has the number of UFOs sightings gone down as much as the number of Drone sightings gone up.

How many people have complained that a drone (ie Venus) was hovering over their property taking pictures of a night.

My brother would be one. Any others you know of?

 

[JDawg]

Another UFO I bet. And some people say they dont exist.... PPFFFFTTT!

Palletdrones, it's how the aliens are arriving.

This is just the start.

 

[Classic flyer]

Palletdrones, it's how the aliens are arriving.

Every thing today ships via pallet...even aliens...lol

 

[raymo]

You should read the article before you post this alarmist thread title and make an assumption that People are just stupid.

The title should have read "here is another false claim by the media."

The drone was not next to wing but reported flying 2,000 feet below.

And don't blame Hobbyists for this little indiscretion. At 2,000 feet away it was described as the size of a crate.

They need to blame the Military. They are the only ones with Drones of that size.

Its BS reporting by the media that is destroying this hobby. Not the hobbyist. (I must admit their are some really irresponsible people flying drones. but not that many)

Somebody should write to the paper and complain about their drone sensationalisation. Any Canadians here?

Is it just me or has the number of UFOs sightings gone down as much as the number of Drone sightings gone up.

How many people have complained that a drone (ie Venus) was hovering over their property taking pictures of a night.

My brother would be one. Any others you know of?

Much of the original story does not make any sense. What do they mean by a drone "pallet sized"? It was 2000 feet below them in altitude which means it would have had to have been even further LOS. Even at a shorter distance, a pallet sized drone would have to be very small visually. I have a 1.3 metre drone and at that distance, you can hardly see it. If it didn't have a lot of lights, it would be virtually invisible. A MP pretty much disappears 90 metres up which is legal in Canada. Yes, I am a Canadian! This actually sounds more like a kite than a drone. I have a 2 metre kite that I built for the grandsons, and it would easily fly up to 3,000 feet, probably a lot more if I had the string to do so.

I know that the media can sensationalize the story, so we really need to look at the filed incident report. Can someone access that and see what was actually reported?

 

[sar104]

Much of the original story does not make any sense. What do they mean by a drone "pallet sized"? It was 2000 feet below them in altitude which means it would have had to have been even further LOS. Even at a shorter distance, a pallet sized drone would have to be very small. I have a 1.3 metre drone and at that distance, you can hardly see it. If it didn't have a lot of lights, it would be virtually invisible. A MP pretty much disappears 90 metres up which is legal in Canada. Yes, I am a Canadian! This actually sounds more like a kite than a drone. I have a 2 metre kite that I built for the grandsons, and it would easily fly up to 3,000 feet, probably a lot more if I had the string to do so.

I know that the media can sensationalize the story, so we really need to look at the filed incident report. Can someone access that and see what was actually reported?

A kite is an interesting possible explanation.

 

[raymo]

It seems this WestJet aircraft would have been on "final" and it is my impression that in the cockpit, there's a lot going on at that time. Not sure just how much time a crew has to observe and make an accurate determination. It would be interesting to give pilots a test similar to what we take with eye tests to see how accurately they might identify a variety of object they could encounter. @sar104 confirms what I think might be possible, and with the variety of kites out there, some of them about this size, it may have simply been a kite. Might be time to retrofit "dash cams" on all commercial aircraft. A GoPro or equivalent might be useful in a case like this to confirm what the pilots think they observed. My buddy, who is a pilot for Air Canada, has never seen a drone while flying. He's flown my older Phantom 2 and loved it so he is reasonably familiar with drones of that size. The incident report may have more info, so I will see if my buddy can access that.

Did a quick check on the CADORS Transport Canada system and found nothing reported. Will update as I hear more. CADORS system search on following site.

CADORS: Query