WestJet plane reports drone next to wing at 4000 ft.

[dfozter]

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.

totally agree.. the closing speed of of 300 or 400 mph would make it all but impossibe to see anything the size of a small drone, period. let alone it flying along side...

 

[sar104]

totally agree.. the closing speed of of 300 or 400 mph would make it all but impossibe to see anything the size of a small drone, period. let alone it flying along side...

I don't think that the pilots were trying to claim that the drone was keeping up with them, although it's hard to be sure quite what they were trying to report with the contradictory statements.

However, the common assertion that you can't see a drone if you are flying at several hundred mph is simply not true. You can easily see birds on climb out and approach at speeds around 200 mph - they are often visible for a second or more. You can see rodents and even insects on the road ahead of you while driving at 60 mph. Speed and length scale linearly - a two inch object at 60 mph subtends the same visual angles for the same length of time as a 10 inch object at 300 mph.

 

[Lapeer20m]

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.

I read some government report that indicates they are preparing for terrorism utilizing drones in the near future in the USA.

Myself, I prefer freedom over safety. I don’t think you can stop terrorist minded people from doing terrorist things even if you make laws making those activities even more illegal.

On the other hand, drones do pose a significant security threat. If I were in command of a domestic military base or in charge of stadium security, the fear of malicious use of drones would likely keep me up at night.

Also, many “terrorists” we prosecute in this country tend to be people with low iq who have not the means, ability, or plans to engage in such activities before a paid fbi informant becomes their friend and provides all the ingredients necessary to form a “plot.” The good news is that there are likely far fewer bad guys looking to commit atrocities than we are lead to believe.

 

[Fried Eagle]

FACTS.
1. No one is crediting pilots with superhuman powers of observation.
2. Of the approx 13,000 tests per year, the normal number of positive tests (above 0.4 BAL vs driving limit of .80 BAL) has been between 5 and 10 per year. Not 5-10%, thank goodness. 5-10 total failures out of 13,000 tests. That is an extremely small percentage. That small number is the reason the FAA only does 13,000 tests.
3. Yes, a pilot "will kill a heck of a lot more people than a drunk driver." And that sounds quite sensational. But if you look at the number of people in the US actually killed by drunk drivers vs the number killed by drunk pilots in the past forty years, the count is something like 1,600,000 to 0. The last fatal accident in the US of an large commercial jet was on a cargo airplane, in 1977. All 5 people on board died. So, 41 years, times 365 days, tines 87,000 flights per day means 1 in 1,301,995,000 flights. It doesn't seem to be a major issue.

Your reporting of the pilot stats is very similar in style to the media's reporting of UAS events. It seems as if you are trying to scare people and sensationalize this particular issue at the detriment of the safest transportation system in history. And as for your "superhuman" comment. Even in the original Superman movie, the man of steel said that flying is still the safest form of travel.

Fly safe.

NOTHING BUT NET.

 

[polecat]

This is exactly why we don't have flying cars or jetpacks yet.

 

[Billyboy72]

The area the supposed drone was flying in, is a NFZ. What the increased regulation, could be?

What test will prevent illegal attitude? Car drivers, who violate speed limits (for example), don't have passed driving tests?

It's just an illegal action. Police will investigate the case, I suppose.
A drone with this size, is a little difficult to be hidden.

they even drink a gallon of alcohol and still drive. I think theres something somewhere about not drinking and driving too lol. Some people will never be happy even with tests and blah blah blah.

 

[Billyboy72]

The pilot claimed the drone was near his wing at 4000 feet up? 4000? I wasn't aware we could make it that high very easily. Then again I wont exceed 400 for more than a few seconds. Ya never know and I like my 1600 dollar drone in one piece

 

[Billyboy72]

View attachment 43059

I know this is a serious topic but that was funny lol.

 

[Billyboy72]

There was a UK (luton i think) drone hysteria story like this before.
A drone passed within 20ft of the aircraft.
....and according to the pilots at the time they were descending through 6000ft and described it as 2m long. If that was a drone its the air force they need to be asking as clearly they've lost yet another Watchkeeper!

The media never queried this physical impossibility and neither did the AAIB who chalked it down as yet another one of hundred "drone incidents". The AAIB have been saying how the number of drone incidents is increasing massively yet never actually seems to validate whether the reports are physically impossible.

What USED to be near misses of things like helium and weather balloons, plastic bags, random debris whipped up by the wind and so on now automatically become "drone". It suits a narrative.
The closure that caused chaos in sequencing with london airports due to a "drone" operating inside the airport perimeter (to the extent NATs issued a video) turned out to be a white plastic bag blowing in the wind. Obviously the media never published the follow up.

That said there are more than enough knuckle dragging morons who do fly their drones dangerously and close to places they shouldnt which really doesn't help. There seem to be a lot of them too that no matter how much education is tried, it fails as they're just too arrogant to think rules apply to them.



Any commercial/passenger aircraft i'd agree. But light aircraft can stall out slower than a mavic in sport mode. I've operated smaller stuff that'll still manage to stay in the sky at 32kts etc, especially if theres wind involved.

That makes much more sense.. I cant picture a pilot going so many hundreds of miles per hour spotting my Mavic pro at 4000 feet. I cant picture a helicopter hovering spotting my MavicPro at 4000 feet. As a matter of fact I dont think my MavicPro isn't making 4000 feet. Can it do that?

 

[beejAMG]

Some people would believe everything they hear or read without proper research or simple COMMON SENSE.

And then, comes some “grown men” who reacts like a lil girl who easily gets scared of the boogeyman.

 

[Eddington]

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 will never understand why people want to add more complications for people who do follow the rules, which will only be ignored by people who are doing these things in the first place?

What exactly will more regulation do to prevent stupid/lazy people from doing stupid things? Nothing. It's the same with cars and guns.

There's already a lot of regulations and laws about driving a car and yet unlicensed and uninsured drivers still chance it. And now I get the privileged of carrying (paying for) more insurance to protect myself against them.

There's a lot of laws and regulations about guns and yet people who shouldn't have them are getting them.

New laws, guidelines, rules, regulations just get ignored by the same people who already ignore what's in place.

Just my 0.02c...

And no, I'm not equating drones to guns, just the idea of more regulation without understand what's causing the current regulations to be ignored, which means it won't do any good.

 

[sar104]

I will never understand why people want to add more complications for people who do follow the rules, which will only be ignored by people who are doing these things in the first place?

What exactly will more regulation do to prevent stupid/lazy people from doing stupid things? Nothing. It's the same with cars and guns.

There's already a lot of regulations and laws about driving a car and yet unlicensed and uninsured drivers still chance it. And now I get the privileged of carrying (paying for) more insurance to protect myself against them.

There's a lot of laws and regulations about guns and yet people who shouldn't have them are getting them.

New laws, guidelines, rules, regulations just get ignored by the same people who already ignore what's in place.

Just my 0.02c...

And no, I'm not equating drones to guns, just the idea of more regulation without understand what's causing the current regulations to be ignored, which means it won't do any good.

So the solution is no laws at all, because some people will ignore them?

 

[beejAMG]

So the solution is no laws at all, because some people will ignore them?

Some peoples logic deserves a quadruple face palm if thats even possible.

 

[sar104]

Some peoples logic deserves a quadruple face palm if thats even possible.
View attachment 43209

Agreed - hence my comment.

 

[beejAMG]

Agreed - hence my comment.

That face palm was for your comment of “no laws because people will just ignore them”.

Eddington didnt say scrap all laws, he said dont need to add more. Just need to be implemented.

And you even agreed to my face palm reply. How clueless can you be?

 

[Thwyllo]

So the solution is no laws at all, because some people will ignore them?

That's not what he said, he talked about more rules on top of those already in existence. And he's right; that just raises the entry barrier, encouraging more people to break the law.

 

[sar104]

That face palm was for your comment of “no laws because people will just ignore them”.

Eddington didnt say scrap all laws, he said dont need to add more. Just need to be implemented.

And you even agreed to my face palm reply. How clueless can you be?

Yes - I thought that's what you meant but I figured I'd at least give you a chance to avoid making a complete fool of yourself. Pointless, I guess.

What he appeared to be pushing was the often-used assertion that regulating drone use is ineffective because some people already ignore other laws. That meme both misunderstands the purpose and effectiveness of regulation, in that the simple existence of law-breakers says nothing about whether the regulation is working because no regulation is followed by everyone all the time. So, unfortunately, the logical extension of the "we don't need more laws because people break existing laws " argument is identical to the "we don't need laws at all" argument. Hence my request to clarify if he really was taking that position.

 

[sar104]

That's not what he said, he talked about more rules on top of those already in existence. And he's right; that just raises the entry barrier, encouraging more people to break the law.

That's not what he said, but it's the implication of what he appeared to be saying. If certain actions or behaviors are undesirable, you don't not (excuse the double negative) regulate just because some people will ignore the regulation.

 

[Thwyllo]

That's not what he said, but it's the implication of what he appeared to be saying. If certain actions or behaviors are undesirable, you don't not (excuse the double negative) regulate just because some people will ignore the regulation.

Then you apparently don't read too well. There are at least five different places where he talks about "more laws", "new laws" etc.. It's abundantly clear to the rest of us what he meant.

 

[sar104]

Then you apparently don't read too well. There are at least five different places where he talks about "more laws", "new laws" etc.. It's abundantly clear to the rest of us what he meant.

You are still missing the point. Try reading post #57 - maybe that will help.