Just Received This UAS Risk Reduction FAA Bulletin

[Meta4]

If we're talking about the same one here in Aus it was on the TV news and the pilot said it was a drone as he was landing

I've read every report about the incident at Parafield and so far the only mention of a drone was that the pilot assumed it to be a drone because there was no blood found.
That's not very conclusive. No comment about seeing a drone.
No report since to say that the impact showed definite evidence of a drone.
But if there was anything at all to confirm it was a drone, the news would have been full of it.
Here's the latest official info: Investigation: AO-2017-073 - In-flight collision with object, SOCATA TB-10 Tobago, VH-YTG, Parafield Airport, South Australia on 11 July 2017

 

[Phill2]

I've read every report about the incident at Parafield and so far the only mention of a drone was that the pilot assumed it to be a drone because there was no blood found.
That's not very conclusive. No comment about seeing a drone.
No report since to say that the impact showed definite evidence of a drone.
But if there was anything at all to confirm it was a drone, the news would have been full of it.
Here's the latest official info: Investigation: AO-2017-073 - In-flight collision with object, SOCATA TB-10 Tobago, VH-YTG, Parafield Airport, South Australia on 11 July 2017

I just read the newspaper report here No Cookies | The Advertiser and it varies greatly from the TV report.
Obviously sensationalism on TV as usual

 

[ArmyVet]

Well, it's interesting that you would refer to a snipe, considering the reasonable proposal given in the original post, that you responded to with no small amount of scorn with the monkey theorem.

My point was clear: not just that I found it a boring and tired cliche (overused theme), but it was disrespectful to a sensibly proposed notion that has plenty of merit. It really is the responsible thing to do, but even if you don't agree, it's hardly worthy of your derision.

Eh?

Forum: A place to LEARN, DISCUSS and Make your opinion know,

No Small amount of Scorn? If you look at my post, at the bottom I say "just saying". In today's parlance meaning "just my opinion". Nothing more nothing less. No Scorn indicated and I doubt that anyone else reading it would consider it Scorn.

The fact that you found it boring and cliche is no reason for you to denigrate my opinion. With your "No Small Amount of Scorn" YAWN!
Derision is what you displayed to me. "(or use common sense, your choice)"

Bill
Duty, Honor, Country

 

[Meta4]

I just read the newspaper report here No Cookies | The Advertiser and it varies greatly from the TV report.
Obviously sensationalism on TV as usual

Turns out it wasn't a drone at all: Bat, not drone, to blame for light plane collision

 

[andyimages]

Although we see plenty of cases of people letting their drone get blown away or fly beyond signal range, I can't think of very many drones that go sky high when you lose control.
I wouldn't think that loss of control is a reasonable assumption at all in those circumstances.
There main factor to consider for UAS sightings at extreme altitudes is the assumption that what was reported was actually a drone.
Here are some examples of the kind of reports that this is based upon from the same FAA database quoted:

The Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team would do well to get some members that understand something about drones, what they can and can't do and apply a little skepticism before getting too excited about anything based on the FAA's very dubious database records

Where is the UAS pulling a sled.......?