4000 FEET? LOL
Ok if someone was able to fly that high its dangerous and should not happen but really? 4000 ft? not saying it cant be done but lol
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/ ... ty-debate/
Airline Pilots and a little EMBELLISHMENT
- Thread starter eckoner
- Start date
4000 FEET? LOL
Ok if someone was able to fly that high its dangerous and should not happen but really? 4000 ft? not saying it cant be done but lol
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/ ... ty-debate/
If you can fly a P2 a distance of 1.5 miles what's 4000' straight up. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. :roll:
Reading is fundamental. You are no rocket scientist either.jason said:
We are not claiming flying a drone at 4000' is impossible, we are claiming the pilot may be embellishing his story just a bit.
U.M.
On what basis?eckoner said:
737s on final approach at 4000 feet are not usually doing 600 mph.flybynight said:
Flying 1.5 miles horizontally is a lot different than going up the same distance. Density altitude has a lot to do with it. It takes more power to climb than to hover.jason said:
Uncle Meat said:
For all you skeptics out there including you (meathead) watch is video. He reach 1.2km (3937.01) at 3:43 in the video.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2aKr4wOd8Q[/youtube]
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,301
- Reaction score
- 9,243
When the story is about ...
A Reaper with a wingspan of 65 feet!!
I guess a drone is a drone - particularly when you're pig-ignorant and wanting to scare people.
The retired pilot is concerned that
I wonder if these drone sightings by pilots at altitude are as reliable as all the flying saucers they reported back in the 50s & 60s??
They use this illustration ...
A Reaper with a wingspan of 65 feet!!
I guess a drone is a drone - particularly when you're pig-ignorant and wanting to scare people.
The retired pilot is concerned that
Hmm .. damaging two engines might be a bit of a stretch.
I wonder if these drone sightings by pilots at altitude are as reliable as all the flying saucers they reported back in the 50s & 60s??
lol some of you guys are funny.
I have not seen where anyone stated it was not possible to fly 4000 ft (but some arguing that point)
youtube has tons of videos you guys have called the pilots idiots about i call them cloud climbers lol we have all seen this stuff
The point of the post is simply to cast doubt about this "Sighting" is all and nobody needs to be interrogated on being a rocket scientists or even knowing how to solve a math equation.
Some of you act as though your competing for points or money if your able to poke holes in ones opinion or theory lol pretty funny stuff
I have not seen where anyone stated it was not possible to fly 4000 ft (but some arguing that point)
youtube has tons of videos you guys have called the pilots idiots about i call them cloud climbers lol we have all seen this stuff
The point of the post is simply to cast doubt about this "Sighting" is all and nobody needs to be interrogated on being a rocket scientists or even knowing how to solve a math equation.
Some of you act as though your competing for points or money if your able to poke holes in ones opinion or theory lol pretty funny stuff
eckoner said:lol some of you guys are funny.
I have not seen where anyone stated it was not possible to fly 4000 ft (but some arguing that point)
youtube has tons of videos you guys have called the pilots idiots about i call them cloud climbers lol we have all seen this stuff
The point of the post is simply to cast doubt about this "Sighting" is all and nobody needs to be interrogated on being a rocket scientists or even knowing how to solve a math equation.
Some of you act as though your competing for points or money if your able to poke holes in ones opinion or theory lol pretty funny stuff
That's Jason from some pisswater suburb of Detroit who does that. Makes him feel better about not having a life and what little he has he wastes on being negative. I think he just has a hardon for conflict. He's a tool and need to go away.
More like 140 to 150 knots. But I can guarantee you from flying hundreds of approaches at that speed , there is simply, absolutely no way a pilot could recognize a drone in the very brief time that it's in view. The airplane is moving at 250 ft per second. Can you even see your Phantom at 250 ft?Clipper707 said:
The Airline Pilots Association is encouraging their members to make drone reports in order to build the hysteria. It will add credibility to their argument to ground all drones when the ALPA comments on the forthcoming NPRM.
Pilot to co-pilot - did you see something?
co-pilot - no, was it a bird?
pilot - I dunno, let's just call it a drone.
Steve, I've never flown or landed a plane, so I defer to pilots' opinions on what's identifiable at that speed. I easily spot seabirds from my window seat when landing at SFO. Then again, I'm not landing a plane and/or monitoring instruments.
Question: I don't get that an airplane moving at 250 fps is the same as being 250 feet away. Seems one is a rate of speed and one is a distance, but I may be missing something here. Can you clarify? Thanks in advance and back to the original topic.
Embellishment is wrong on both sides of the argument. We all should stick to the facts and present speculation as such. Maintaining accuracy is key to maintaining our credibility.
Question: I don't get that an airplane moving at 250 fps is the same as being 250 feet away. Seems one is a rate of speed and one is a distance, but I may be missing something here. Can you clarify? Thanks in advance and back to the original topic.
Embellishment is wrong on both sides of the argument. We all should stick to the facts and present speculation as such. Maintaining accuracy is key to maintaining our credibility.
My point of 250 fps is that you have to be looking in the right area of the sky, spot the drone 250 feet away and identify it - all in one second. Then it's gone. Behind you. Really unlikely. If the pilot has Superman vision and can see a drone more than 250 feet away, then he might have two seconds. I don't know anyone who can - in one second - find a drone 250 feet away.Clipper707 said:
As a 30 year airline pilot I have to disagree with you. You could identify it as a drone at that speed but I agree you would have to be looking at that area to see it. However anything moving in your peripheral would catch your eye and if I can identify a seagul or a hawk - which I have many times on approach - I'm sure I could identify a quad. Bottom line is. Don't fly near airports - a quad probably won't bring down an airliner but if sucked into an engine will probably cause the engine to fail.
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
Not to discredit pilots, but they have been reporting all sorts of wild sightings since the dawn of aviation.
If an aircraft strikes a drone on approach - whether it results in a crash or not - I would hate to see the repercussions in the form of Draconian legislation to further limit our hobby. Don't fly near airports at high altitudes- period. Should be common sense - unfortunately some people seem to lack that. Just like pointing lasers at aircraft - it's stupid and very dangerous.
