Missed the plane at Auckland airport but got a smaller one instead
- Thread starter John Decker
- Start date
Wow, I really feel for the pilot. They are putting a lot of weight on it being a drone. I know the pilot would like to know, but he didn't see anything. I wonder why he ruled out gun shot? Least likely I guess. I hope they find out for sure.
I'm calling BS.... Until they can prove is WAS a sUAS it wasn't. I'm usually the first person to call out a Drone Strike but this one stinks with BS!
He ruled out Bird Strike because... "we didn't see any bird activity in the area," he said"
Well did he SEE "Drone activity "in the area? Same rationale as the bird strike.
He ruled out Bird Strike because... "we didn't see any bird activity in the area," he said"
Well did he SEE "Drone activity "in the area? Same rationale as the bird strike.
It shouldn't be too difficult for the investigators to distinguish a bird strike from a UAV strike, or from some other cause of catastrophic windshield failure. Let's hope it wasn't a UAV.
[Language Removed] , not another,yes be good to see window,says he thinks he clipped hedge aswell so he thinks he is unsure,looking to blame something,glad he is ok,must have bionic eyes if detected no bird activity,there are birds everwhere,,,,,oh don't say that word,why that word removed,it's figure of speech,it's not religious or a swear word,I should have just swore.sorry all
Last edited by a moderator:
As a 28 year pilot and a drone operator, I question the whole story. I’m disturbed by his leap to causation so quickly with absolutely zero evidence to support a drone strike. The reality is, his injuries are the result of a poorly executed off field landing. I feel for a legitimate case of a drone strike, but aircraft windows a very durable, sloped and at the speeds that plane cruises (90 kts), it would have to be 1 in a million strike. Further the plane has a 28 Kt stall speed, no reason whatsoever he couldn’t set that down in the prevailing wind at ground speeds of 15 to 20 kts. Hardly a scenario to turn it upside down. I fear he’s a journalist spinning the story for maximum effect regardless of the truthin order to cover a poorly executed emergency procedure. Call me harsh but there’s nothing supporting a drone strike.
I guess it is possible that he simply crashed the aircraft - I was assuming that the account of the windshield failure at least was accurate. But if the windshield didn't fail, why would he be executing an emergency landing in a corn paddock in the first place? And if the windshield did implode and hit him in the face then his vision would likely be compromised as he stated, and so it would be a bit harsh to criticize him for a bad emergency landing. I do agree that there is so far no actual evidence of a UAV strike though.
As for the effect of a UAV strike on a light aircraft like that, even at 90 kts I have little doubt that a Phantom or similar would destroy the windshield. Bird strikes not infrequently have that effect on GA aircraft, and they exert much lower forces during impact. So while a collision would be an unlikely event, a windshield failure as described would not be an unlikely outcome.
In aviation terms, bird activity refers to significant numbers, so I doubt he was trying to say that there were no birds at all. Unless he invented the entire story, I'd still guess that a bird strike was the most likely explanation.
captainmilehigh
Premium Pilot
Until proven otherwise, I tend to agree.
I concur 100%! Many a pilot (and passengers) have been killed from loose doors, dangling seat belts, windows open etc because they didn't FLY THE PLANE when something went wrong. They allowed something small (albeit probably noisy and alarming) to keep them from flying the plane when there was no REAL emergency.
Now if the windshield was destroyed and the aircraft was in peril (and that's possible) he still had FULL control in that particular aircraft although I'm sure it was a bit hectic, noisy, and distracting. Any pilot worth anything knows you never stop flying the plane until it stops moving or control is no longer an option.
My gut feeling is that's precisely the case here. "Something" shattered his windshield, he made some bad decisions, crashed his plane, and needs to "embellish" the story. What better "Buzz Word" to get him more attention than saying "It was a DRONE!".
There will be parts of whatever hit aircraft in aircraft or embedded and will be determined. There will be a thorough investigation if not just to blame pilot for pilot error.
Yeah, surely whatever caused the windscreen failure would leave evidence. I'll keep an eye on the news but it'll probably fade away.
@ianzone@ do you have an alibi?
@ianzone@ do you have an alibi?
I just read another article regarding the same incident and the pilot claims he was at 2000 feet which would technically rule out any DJI platform. The rest of the story sounds like the basis for an insurance claim written by someone who is possibly covering up for his lack of flying ability and probably quite skilled at embellishing the truth. As for 'anyone can buy a $90 drone and create similar havoc', good luck with that, my Mavic Pro clone drone is good for maybe 100 feet vertical and 200 feet horizontal.
Ha yes and all me drones in one piece (so far)Yeah, surely whatever caused the windscreen failure would leave evidence. I'll keep an eye on the news but it'll probably fade away.
@ianzone@ do you have an alibi?
Where was Sir Bob Jones when the incident occurred, Hmmmmm.
LOL whats the guy all smiling about in the back ground of the picture in the article. Its almost like the pilot is telling the story and the dude behind him is reacting to it.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2018
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
- Age
- 64
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2013
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 62
Ha Ha Ha ... You had me at 'former investigative journalist'! Another Jeraldo Rivera wanna be. Chalk this up to sensationalism reporting. ALL Bull! Trying to make sure insurance pays for his plane! " See, not my fault".
Similar threads
