Airline Pilots and a little EMBELLISHMENT

sdtrojan said:
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.

I guess if I were living in that shithole Detroit I too would be driven into becoming a massive internet troll. :lol:

U.M.
 
SteveMann 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, with all due respect, I consider the bold part of your post to be an empirical statement, but not sure about anything else that follows.

Do you imply ALPA wants its members to make false or unverified claims? If so, how would such encouragement be communicated to ALPA members?

It makes sense ALPA wants pilots to make drone reports. As an airline passenger, I want to know if drones are a danger to aircraft and see no reason for pilots not to be encouraged to report drone sightings.

I can honestly say I don't ever want to be on a plane that sucks in a drone. It's a little disturbing to hear the almost cavalier claim that a drone might take out an engine, but wouldn't take down the plane, as if that's acceptable. An engine failure is a major event and can take down an aircraft, especially if it occurs at the altitudes where our drones fly.
 
If you are referring to my post - trust me I am not at all cavalier about a drone being sucked into an engine. Airliners are built and pilots are trained to continue flying if one engine fails - there are many bird incidents each year that result in engine damage or failures - it is usually multiple bird strikes that result in an accident - the most known obviously the Hudson River incident which involved numerous birds and both engines. Having said that, yes it is a major event to have an engine fail and I certainly did not imply that in any way it is not. It is a pilots responsibility to report a drone near miss and in the interest of aviation safety ALPA has every right and responsibility to encourage it. It is our responsibility as drone operators to follow the rules to ensure it is never allowed to happen.
 
Steeleagle 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.
10+
I'm not an airline pilot, but I have seen a lot of hawks and seagulls from my plane when flying at anywhere from 100 to 150 knots. If something comes right over you, you would detect it very quickly - easily quickly enough to identify it as a quad.
Absolutely right - DON'T FLY NEAR AIRPORTS, DUMMY!
 
Steeleagle said:
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.
Out of the million or so drones sold by DJI, 3DR, and a dozen smaller manufacturers, there will be a small percentage of users who will just be stupid. No amount of laws or regulation will change that.
But, reading the FAA report of drone sightings I get the impression that someone at the FAA hasn't a clue. There is absolutely no factual evidence to support the fear and ignorance around small personal drones, even from the FAA.

How many of these sightings are actually verified? Remarkably few.

The most frequented word in the report was "UNKN" for "Unknown" followed by "No Evasive Action". Many of the reports are in Class E airspace where the separation requirements for VFR flight are pretty general - "see and avoid". Most amazing is that the pilots can even see a drone that far away?? Standing on the ground, looking up at a popular drone model, it becomes a barely perceptible speck at 200 ft yet quite a few of the reports say the sighted A/C was 500 ft away from them. (One even reported "a few hundred yards" - good eagle-eyes on that reporter). Another "3,000 feet below..." - that's a threat, how??

Two of the reports said they received a TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance Service) alert. An Express Jet over New Jersey and a National Guard helicopter both reported a TCAS alert. Umm, yeah. TCAS only reports aircraft with transponders. The lightest transponder available weighs 440g, plus an encoding altimeter and transponder antenna. (And it costs $2500). It is seriously doubtful that the TCAS alerts are small drone sightings.

The FAA database of drone sightings even includes complaints from private citizens complaining, for example "that a neighbor was flying a UAS over his home and neighboring homes at 100 feet the previous evening." Is the threshold for being on an FAA list of drone sightings that low?

In the 1960's pilots were encouraged to report UFO sightings, and today it's drones. No difference but the name of the sightings. There's usually nothing there.
 
Steeleagle said:
If you are referring to my post - trust me I am not at all cavalier about a drone being sucked into an engine. Airliners are built and pilots are trained to continue flying if one engine fails - there are many bird incidents each year that result in engine damage or failures - it is usually multiple bird strikes that result in an accident - the most known obviously the Hudson River incident which involved numerous birds and both engines. Having said that, yes it is a major event to have an engine fail and I certainly did not imply that in any way it is not. It is a pilots responsibility to report a drone near miss and in the interest of aviation safety ALPA has every right and responsibility to encourage it. It is our responsibility as drone operators to follow the rules to ensure it is never allowed to happen.

+1 to everything you say above.

Steeleagle, I wasn't referring to your post or even any engine-loss remarks on this particular thread, but elsewhere in the forum on other threads.

Nothing about your posts struck me as cavalier and I think it's great we have pilots (especially one with 30 years) on this forum to give us perspective from the cockpit. Glad to have you on the forum.
 
Clipper707 said:
It makes sense ALPA wants pilots to make drone reports. As an airline passenger, I want to know if drones are a danger to aircraft and see no reason for pilots not to be encouraged to report drone sightings.
When the sighted and unverified drone is more than a thousand feet from the aircraft, how is that a threat? the ALPA sees drones as a jobs threat more than a safety threat.
 
SteveMann said:
Clipper707 said:
It makes sense ALPA wants pilots to make drone reports. As an airline passenger, I want to know if drones are a danger to aircraft and see no reason for pilots not to be encouraged to report drone sightings.
When the sighted and unverified drone is more than a thousand feet from the aircraft, how is that a threat? the ALPA sees drones as a jobs threat more than a safety threat.


+1
 
Clipper707 said:
SteveMann 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.

Do you imply ALPA wants its members to make false or unverified claims? If so, how would such encouragement be communicated to ALPA members?

Where an organization like ALPA has an agenda (and I'm not saying air safety is not a valid agenda), I wouldn't put it past them. How do you organize the fictitious or embellished reporting...only by word of mouth or telephone calls. No paper or electronic trail.
 
Unfortunately all it takes is one drone at the wrong place and the wrong time. I don't disagree with you about the hype - unfortunately the first time a drone is involved in a civil aircraft incident or accident our hobby is the one that will take the repercussions - deserved or not. Our best defence is to try to prevent it from ever happening.
 
Steeleagle said:
Our best defence is to try to prevent it from ever happening.
How? Regulations? As I said, there will always be a percentage of people who take stupid as a compliment. How would regulations stop them?
When it happens, and I am as certain as the fear-mongers among us that it will I just don't feed the hysteria, a small drone will get sucked into a jet engine. The airplane will land on the remaining engine and the passengers will deplane and go about their business. The odds are that pieces of the drone no longer exist, so who do you blame for the damage?
 
SteveMann said:
Steeleagle said:
Our best defence is to try to prevent it from ever happening.
How? Regulations? As I said, there will always be a percentage of people who take stupid as a compliment. How would regulations stop them?
When it happens, and I am as certain as the fear-mongers among us that it will I just don't feed the hysteria, a small drone will get sucked into a jet engine. The airplane will land on the remaining engine and the passengers will deplane and go about their business. The odds are that pieces of the drone no longer exist, so who do you blame for the damage?

Unfortunately it's not about who you blame because we all will be painted with the same brush in the form of draconian legislation to further limit our hobby. I have been flying radio control aircraft and helicopters for over 20 years but the difference is here that drones can fly themselves - there is no skill involved
to learn the hobby and as a result less taking ownership of the safety factor. I agree. You can't legislate common sense. It is unfortunately a matter of time until it happens so enjoy the freedom we have with the hobby now - it will change.
 
SteveMann said:
Steeleagle said:
Our best defence is to try to prevent it from ever happening.
How? Regulations? As I said, there will always be a percentage of people who take stupid as a compliment. How would regulations stop them?
When it happens, and I am as certain as the fear-mongers among us that it will I just don't feed the hysteria, a small drone will get sucked into a jet engine. The airplane will land on the remaining engine and the passengers will deplane and go about their business. The odds are that pieces of the drone no longer exist, so who do you blame for the damage?

We prevent it from happening by admitting to the risks.

This thread went from "simply, absolutely no way a a pilot could recognize a drone" to two pilots saying they can distinguish hawks from seagulls.

Maybe it will take a few thousand drones shot through jet engines and into windshields for the public and the FAA to feel the risk is minimal. We should be asking for data, not denying the risk.

Maybe a drone collision really is as trivial as bugs on a windshield. We really don't know, do we?
 
I'd think there were far more UFO reports (or lack of) against a Drone report, you would surely have to be looking in a very close general area ahead to see the wee things at speed, it may not be brain surgery but a rocket scientist may indeed spot one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I

(you can never use this to much :) )
 
Maybe they should use a "drone" cannon... much like the much loved "chicken" cannon....

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCQ2oZtVNpg[/youtube]

Frozen drone anyone?
 
I don't get it in the us drones are becoming a problem but an automatic firearm is no problem this sounds very stupid to me. i can do much more damage with an firearm.
 
Clipper707 said:
Maybe a drone collision really is as trivial as bugs on a windshield. We really don't know, do we?

Mythbusters, your phone is ringing...
 
Greyfox51 said:
Clipper707 said:
Maybe a drone collision really is as trivial as bugs on a windshield. We really don't know, do we?

Mythbusters, your phone is ringing...

I was watching the local news last night here in Seattle, they did a spot on the biologists who work at SeaTac airport keeping the area clear of birds. They stated that a bald eagle hitting an airliner generates the same force as if the plane were hit by a 35 ton volleyball... Trying to find a link to the story now, but can't. I did find:

"A 12-pound, or 5.5-kilogram, Canada goose struck by an aircraft traveling 150 miles, or 240 kilometers, per hour at liftoff generates the force of a 1,000-pound, or 455-kilogram, weight dropped from a height of 10 feet, or three meters, according to Birdstrike USA."

And while 85% of bird strikes do no damage, the other 15% are the second leading cause of airline fatalities.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,352
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic