Drone spotted near Phoenix airport.

[len750]

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Agency-Air ... 01231.html

**** I wish our fellow Drone pilots could use just a LITTLE freakin common sense.

 

[len750]

This also just in.

PHOENIX (AP) — Phoenix City Council members want to provide personal privacy protections on the use of aerial drones by members of the public and by police.
According to the Arizona Republic (http://bit.ly/1rksCVg), an ordinance being drafted by Councilmen Sal Diciccio (dih-SEE'-see-oh) and Michael Nowakowsk (NO'-ugh-cow-ski) would make it a crime to use a drone to film or photograph people on their private property without their knowledge
The council members say they want to broaden the reach of "Peeping Tom" laws and to prepare for potential drone usage by police.
Under the proposed ordinance, a violation would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $2,500 fine and six months in jail, with each distributed image being a separate offense.
Exceptions would include making certain types of images for artistic or journalistic purposes.


Read more: http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/ap-s ... z3J0hBoeh8

 

[SteveMann]

**** I wish our fellow Drone pilots could use just a LITTLE freakin common sense.

I wish our local politicians would.... oh forget it.
The sensational news didn't say what airplane it was other than airliner, but 12 miles out the aircraft would be between 7,000 and 11,000 ft depending on which approach into PHX they were assigned.
And since when is 12 miles "near"?

 

[derrickduff]

Did you read the story? Here's a summary:

A drone was spotted 12 miles from the airport. The pilot did not mention the need to take evasive action. There's also a well known RC field in the area.

Must have been a slow news day in Phoenix.

 

[len750]

Not sure whose numbers to believe, but he said he did see it. I doubt the drone was between 7,000 - 11,000 feet up though.

 

[IflyinWY]

**** I wish our fellow Drone pilots could use just a LITTLE freakin common sense.

I wish our local politicians would.... oh forget it.
The sensational news didn't say what airplane it was other than airliner, but 12 miles out the aircraft would be between 7,000 and 11,000 ft depending on which approach into PHX they were assigned.
And since when is 12 miles "near"?

StevieMan, would you please stop saying "the plane would have been here"? Again I ask, when was the last time you drove an airliner? You say all this "stuff" like you've created it and it can't be any other way. Hello :?: Is anybody home :?: This is planet Earth, turd rock from the sun.

Do you really think everyone follows the rules? :lol: Airliners fly too low, drones fly too high.

 

[SilentAV8R]

I'm originally from Scottsdale (just east-NE of PHX). I grew up not far from McDowell and the 101 freeway. There is no "well known RC field even close to that point. There is an RC field located at Scottsdale Community College, which is at Chaparrel and the 101, about 3 or 4 miles north of where the reported siting took place. Traffic coming into Sky Harbor flies over and near that site, but they are about 8,000 feet AGL when they do. Sounds like pilots are starting to report anything and everything they see, even if it does not pose a threat to them.

 

[Fyod]

Arizona? More likely a UFO.

 

[ianwood]

StevieMan, would you please stop saying "the plane would have been here"? Again I ask, when was the last time you drove an airliner? You say all this "stuff" like you've created it and it can't be any other way. Hello :?: Is anybody home :?: This is planet Earth, turd rock from the sun.

Do you really think everyone follows the rules? :lol: Airliners fly too low, drones fly too high.

I think it's a safe assumption. Do you think the pilot is going to report a drone sighting when he realizes he's lower than he should be?

 

[SilentAV8R]

StevieMan, would you please stop saying "the plane would have been here"? Again I ask, when was the last time you drove an airliner? You say all this "stuff" like you've created it and it can't be any other way. Hello :?: Is anybody home :?: This is planet Earth, turd rock from the sun.

Do you really think everyone follows the rules? :lol: Airliners fly too low, drones fly too high.

I think it's a safe assumption. Do you think the pilot is going to report a drone sighting when he realizes he's lower than he should be?

That entire area where this took place is under direct radar control. In addition, this plane was on approach into Sky Harbor. Having flown a good deal in that area (not airliners, but still flying planes) I can tell you that EVERYBODY is equipped with at least an altitude reporting transponder (in accordance with FAA regulations) and if you are off altitude ATC is absolutely going to let you know about ASAP.

We need to stop using this idea that it is the fault of the full scale. It simply does not matter. It is OUR responsibility to avoid conflicts. In this case there does not appear to have been a conflict at all. Simply put, the "He was too low" argument is immaterial.

 

[N017RW]

I imagine may FS pilots are concerned at this point.
To be expected.

In fact some here have said so.

With that in mind there may be some embellishment of these stories as well as just plain fabrication of others.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

 

[eyecon82]

Stupid Media is villainizing drones

 

[Suwaneeguy]

Since when has the restricted fly space been increased to 12 miles?
Ok so the pilot spotted a drone. He took no evasive action so he did not consider it a threat.

During the approach to the airport at what altitude are airliners flying 12 miles from the airport?
To my knowledge, the phantom at least, loses signal at around 2600 feet.
So at 12 miles the airliner would have to be at 3,000 feet or less.
And the pilot saw the drone? That means the drone was within 200 feet.
Hell, I lose sight of mine around 180 feet.

Then why are the city police investigating the incident?
Was there a violation of a city ordinance or state law?
City police have no authority to enforce FAA rules I'm aware of.

Just another example of the FAA and cops trying to enforce a law that does not exist.

In your opinion, at what point in time is it not safe to fly "near" an airport?
Define what "near" means to you.

 

[len750]

Stupid Media is villainizing drones

Yes they are!

 

[len750]

Since when has the restricted fly space been increased to 12 miles?
Ok so the pilot spotted a drone. He took no evasive action so he did not consider it a threat.

During the approach to the airport at what altitude are airliners flying 12 miles from the airport?
To my knowledge, the phantom at least, loses signal at around 2600 feet.
So at 12 miles the airliner would have to be at 3,000 feet or less.
And the pilot saw the drone? That means the drone was within 200 feet.
Hell, I lose sight of mine around 180 feet.

Then why are the city police investigating the incident?
Was there a violation of a city ordinance or state law?
City police have no authority to enforce FAA rules I'm aware of.

Just another example of the FAA and cops trying to enforce a law that does not exist.

In your opinion, at what point in time is it not safe to fly "near" an airport?
Define what "near" means to you.

Just think what would happen if police put this much concern with Rape, Murder, Robberies, Theft, Child Abuse, ... I could go on. After all, these are our tax dollars and there are other priorities than some some 1 lb. Drone. Although I'm fully aware AND on board with all RC aircraft rules, regulations and laws. Sooo many folks are going to abuse these ideals and just make it more difficult for the rest of us just having fun taking that Go Pro/Phantom through It's paces.
Be careful, have fun and stay UNDER the radar.

 

[N017RW]

Since when has the restricted fly space been increased to 12 miles?
Ok so the pilot spotted a drone. He took no evasive action so he did not consider it a threat.

During the approach to the airport at what altitude are airliners flying 12 miles from the airport?
To my knowledge, the phantom at least, loses signal at around 2600 feet.
So at 12 miles the airliner would have to be at 3,000 feet or less.
And the pilot saw the drone? That means the drone was within 200 feet.
Hell, I lose sight of mine around 180 feet.

Then why are the city police investigating the incident?
Was there a violation of a city ordinance or state law?
City police have no authority to enforce FAA rules I'm aware of.

Just another example of the FAA and cops trying to enforce a law that does not exist.

In your opinion, at what point in time is it not safe to fly "near" an airport?
Define what "near" means to you.

Just think what would happen if police put this much concern with Rape, Murder, Robberies, Theft, Child Abuse, ... I could go on. After all, these are our tax dollars and there are other priorities than some some 1 lb. Drone. Although I'm fully aware AND on board with all RC aircraft rules, regulations and laws. Sooo many folks are going to abuse these ideals and just make it more difficult for the rest of us just having fun taking that Go Pro/Phantom through It's paces.
Be careful, have fun and stay UNDER the radar.

Huh?

How do you judge the level of 'concern'?

Complete elimination?

This is an ignorantly biased point of view.

 

[SilentAV8R]

Since when has the restricted fly space been increased to 12 miles?

This took place within the Class B airspace for Sky Harbor. 12 miles out, which BTW does not coincide with the reported position of McDowell and the 101 Freeway, is under the Class B which goes from 2,700 feet MSL to 9,000 feet MSL. Once you account for ground elevations you are actually talking about the Class B starting at around 1,400 feet AGL.

At 6 nm (6.9 SM) the Class B goes to the surface. The Intersection of McDowell and the 101 is within that section. Both places are within the approach corridor for this very busy airport. Then *** in the general aviation traffic in and out of Falcon field and it starts to get even busier

The DJI airspace restrictions should NEVER be counted on to ensure you are not operating in busy or possibly restricted airspace.

Ok so the pilot spotted a drone. He took no evasive action so he did not consider it a threat.

I agree. Much ado about nothing. FWIW my friend who flies Med Evac over there says that there has been nothing about this in the local media.

In your opinion, at what point in time is it not safe to fly "near" an airport?
Define what "near" means to you.

FAA wants us to contact within 5 miles. I think that this is an area where we need to have a real awareness of what is going on. Around the busiest airports (any Class B or C airspace) I would steer clear of the airspace that extends to the ground. Farther out, I'd be very aware of how high above the ground the airspace starts. Then keep in mind that lots of GA traffic can be scooting around under the Class B or C airspace, which concentrates where they are since they are squeezed into less of the sky.

 

[SteveMann]

StevieMan, would you please stop saying "the plane would have been here"? Again I ask, when was the last time you drove an airliner? You say all this "stuff" like you've created it and it can't be any other way. Hello :?: Is anybody home :?: This is planet Earth, turd rock from the sun.

Do you really think everyone follows the rules? :lol: Airliners fly too low, drones fly too high.

I looked at the charts:

My 7,000 to 11,000 ft altitude comes from memory when I did fly commercial. We flew a lot between CRQ and SJC (Carlsbad Regional and San Jose International, California). Typically, ATC would put us at 7,000 ft 12-miles out, and the heavier, faster aircraft were higher. In the above PHX approach chart the airliner would be between 5,000 and 6,000 ft.

And yes, commercial pilots do follow the rules. If I deviated my approach by more than +- 500 ft, I could expect to hear "call the tower" after parking.

 

[IflyinWY]

Very impressive. I call them "Approach Plates". You can call them charts though.
It does not matter where you think the plane should be Stevie, they are not always going to follow your rules. Think back to the good ole days and try to remember if you may have been making one of those "visual approach" things at any point in time. Approaching Palomar, you may have been asked to report the smoke stack at the power plant in San Marcos. Is any of this ringing a bell?

To quote SilentAV8R (cool handle by the way):
"It is OUR responsibility to avoid conflicts."

That's it in a nutshell.

Don't run through the skies thinking any occupied aircraft is going to be exactly where you think it's going to be because of a freaking piece of paper or a rule. :roll:

 

[SilentAV8R]

Based on where this allegedly happened they were coming in to land on Runway 25 or 26, meaning they were approaching from the east.