- Joined
- Jul 20, 2015
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 4
- Age
- 58
Anyone else see this news? 12 really?!
- Thread starter Darron Brown
- Start date
They should spend more time worrying about Allegiant Airlines running out of fuel.
Seems these pilots have extraordinary eyesight. I can hardly see my P-3P at 400 vertical feet! Its just a move by the pilots union to report as many drones as they can, before the FAA comes up with new Communistic rules for them, fake or otherwise. The good flyers and the rescues,and the other good deeds don"t get "Air Time"..lol sorry
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
This article details that the military has the exact same issues with their drones that we are faced with! They have fly aways, and loss of signal, and loss of FPV, and equipment failures that cause crashes, and even one boneheaded female military drone pilot who didn't realize she was flying the drone upside down! Many, if not most, are pilot error! Just like here!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/20/when-drones-fall-from-the-sky/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/20/when-drones-fall-from-the-sky/
Last edited:
"reported seeing a drone with colored lights at an altitude of 12,000 feet" ... of course they did /s
You people can claim pilots are just making it up all you want, however with the correlation between skyrocketing aerial photography and FPV popularity, this should come as no shock there is a sudden surge in reports of sightings by reckless model aircraft operators. While I agree many of these 'sightings' appear far fetched, many of them are plausible. The hard truth of it is people flying FPV recklessly need to stop pretending that because they live in America they have a right to do whatever the hell they want. Even if you don't fly VLOS or under 400 feet, flying close to aircraft and airports is unacceptable and will be the reason this hobby gets heavily regulated.
And if you're wondering why no pilot ever takes a photo of these sightings it's because it's illegal to use almost any electronic device as a pilot and I'm sure they'd be more focused on avoiding the nearby object than getting a photo for the skeptics.
And if you're wondering why no pilot ever takes a photo of these sightings it's because it's illegal to use almost any electronic device as a pilot and I'm sure they'd be more focused on avoiding the nearby object than getting a photo for the skeptics.
Last edited:
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
The reckless FPV flyers simply don't care about the consequences. It's not about a perceived right. When drones are outlawed, only outlaws will fly drones. Nothing will change. These drones under discussion have up to a 60 mile control distance. The drones are all DIY built from unserialized parts. The owners don't put their name and number on them! If one of these larger drones in commercial or private plane airspace ever does take out a real airplane, good luck finding the pilot! It won't matter how illegal it is, or becomes, to fly in this reckless manner! 
The only chance you would ever have of finding the reckless pilot is if they managed to fly the drone back to their location, which won't happen in case of a midair collision!
The only chance you would ever have of finding the reckless pilot is if they managed to fly the drone back to their location, which won't happen in case of a midair collision!
I know reckless FPV flyers probably don't care much about the consequences, but my point is that it's time people here stop pretending that all of these reports of model aircraft operators endangering others is a conspiracy against us by the FAA and licensed pilots or something crazy like that.
It's not. I just remember Lockheed putting out false reports of SR-71 Activities to prove that sonic boom reports were false. It worked. People seem to jump on the bandwagon to get attention or whatever. It's irrational but it's human.
Lockheed is a company which gained by putting out false reports of SR-71 activities. Pilots are just ordinary people who gain nothing by regulating the radio control hobby.
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
Actually, they do! Right now, they are the only ones who can legally fly them for commercial use with a 333 exemption!
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
It's not a conspiracy, but it is fearmongering! The so called proof and evidence is about as scientific as random but frequent UFO sightings being proof of extraterrestrials in our air space. Instead of UFO's, they are all now "seeing" drones because it makes them seem less crazy!
I am a pilot myself, and many pilots don't know a whole lot about the hobby because they can just do the same thing UAS pilots are doing, but much better in a manned airplane already, so they don't even bother with this hobby. Especially the airline pilots who already have a nicely paying job have no use to make money flying UAS's. Besides, what's to gain as a Section 333 Exemption holder by regulating recreational UAS operators?...with a 333 exemption!
Last edited:
And your point is?
This is what we in the rational world call "Fear Mongering".
A solitary drone in an accident with an airliner is never going to bring down the airplane. It took a flock of geese to bring down the "Miracle on the Hudson". A catastrophic crash is so remarkably unlikely that it probably won't happen in my lifetime or my kids' lifetimes. The most likely first contact between a personal drone and a civil aircraft is going to go unnoticed by the crew.
Really, Steve? Never?
Just because USAir 1549 was brought down by a flock of geese doesn't mean a single bird can't bring down an airplane. You're using an anecdotal example here. Aircraft have been brought down by solitary birds before.
I'm not sure what you think you're proving by citing the Miracle on the Hudson. Captain Sullenberger himself might disagree with you.
"Imagine what a device containing hard parts like batteries and motors can do that might weigh 25 or possibly up to 55 pounds to bring down an airplane. It is not a matter of if it will happen. It is a matter of when it will happen."
Consider a few things.
- If a solitary drone brings down a Cessna, the FAA and everyone else, myself included, will believe a solitary drone can bring down a Boeing or an Airbus.
- An airliner/drone collision doesn't need to be catastrophic. If a solitary drone causes an airliner to declare an emergency, the FAA and the public will believe it can bring down an airliner, even if it lands safely.
- Neither you nor anyone else has fired drones into jet engines, windshields and landing gear of airliners. Some drone parts are considerably harder and denser than birds. Some drones carry DSLRs. How many Nikons have been through compressor blades or windshields in tests?
Your reply contributes to the fear mongering - keep it in perspective. Read my statement again: "A solitary drone in an accident with an airliner is never going to bring down the airplane." No multi-engine airline aircraft has ever been brought down by one bird. Find me a reference that says otherwise.
I never said anything about small single-engine aircraft because the news article was promoting fear mongering to the flying public. I only know of a few single-engine Cessnas in scheduled airline use. Yes, there have been fatal accidents in singles from bird strikes, but again - keep it in perspective.
On April 7, 1981 a Lear 23 (Oh, wait, that's a twin-engine aircraft) at 4000 ft over Cincinnati, OH struck a loon estimated at 8 pounds that penetrated the right windscreen, killing the copilot and injuring the pilot.
On December 26, 1991 a Piper PA31 (Another twin) at Maasi-Mara, Kenya, A 12 pound White headed vulture struck the aircraft and penetrated the windshield at about 250 feet. The aircraft lost control and crashed, killing all nine passengers and crew.
On January 25 1992 a Cessna 401 (two engines, again) at the same Maasi-Mara, Kenya airport the aircraft in cruise struck a bird suspected to be a Marabou stork weighing about 13 pounds. The impact caused separation of a wing tip fuel tank and aileron. All seven passengers and crew were killed.
On January 20, 1995 a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet (not a scheduled airline) taking off from Le Bourget Airport, Paris crashed after the airplane caught fire from a bird strike.
The greatest loss of life from a bird strike was October 4, 1960 when an Electra 188 taking off from Boston, MA ingested starlings into three of its four engines. Engine one was shut down and engines two and four lost power. The aircraft stalled and crashed into Boston Harbor, killing 62 of the 72 passengers and crew.
Keep it in perspective. In smaller aircraft, one bird can cause a crash, but it is exceedingly rare. (The data I quoted is from a site that caters to fear mongering: Airsafe.com). There is not a single report of a multi-engine transport class aircraft crashing as a result of a single bird. From that I claim that a solitary drone is unlikely to cause a transport class airline crash.
Also, airline (transport) aircraft are certified to 14 CFR §25 which do have to withstand a 4-pound bird strike into the engines (14 CFR §25.571) and wind screens (14 CFR §25.775). Smaller aircraft are certified to 14 CFR §21 which has no such requirement.
Similar threads
