Near mid air collision UK

[sdj blazer]

Hi all Phantom pilots. I am flying my Pro for nearly two months now.Was reading this morning of a near mid air collision between a Airbus and drone.(altitude 6000 ft) near Heathrow. Just scary stuff to read. This tipe of drone pilots will take our privilege of flying our drones away. We must stand together to discourage such reckless flying.

Sent from my SM-T815 using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Meta4]

Hi all Phantom pilots. I am flying my Pro for nearly two months now.Was reading this morning of a near mid air collision between a Airbus and drone.(altitude 6000 ft) near Heathrow. Just scary stuff to read. This tipe of drone pilots will take our privilege of flying our drones away. We must stand together to discourage such reckless flying.

And you don't have just a tiny bit of skepticism for reports like this?:Mid-air collision above Hertfordshire narrowly avoided
What kind of red and white quadcopter do you suppose it was at 6000 feet?

 

[Deleted member 62848]

And you don't have just a tiny bit of skepticism for reports like this?:Mid-air collision above Hertfordshire narrowly avoided
What kind of red and white quadcopter do you suppose it was at 6000 feet?

 

[Spike_151]

Yeah id be surprised if someone would take that kinda risk, 6000 feet = 2000 metres roughly, that means a lightbridge type drone. Thats a big risk with an expensive drone

 

[tevek]

At the risk of sounding dumb, I suspect it wasn't a drone at 2000 mtrs, that clearly isn't possible for a regulated dji product. I have no idea what would be red and white at that height but possibly something a bit larger for it to be spotted In the first place. Help me out meta4, I'm having a blonde moment.

 

[robinb]

Could any hobby drone even get that high ?

 

[Spike_151]

Yes it could get that high, transmission distance is 5000 metres for a P4P , be that horizontally or vertically. There is an automatic limit of 500 feet on the P4P but there is a keystroke to override that. A guy in Turkey flew one up to 12,000 plus feet ,

 

[robinb]

How as the software limits to 500 M height above takeoff ?

 

[Spike_151]

How as the software limits to 500 M height above takeoff ?

As I said there is a keystroke combination on the controller to over ride this limit.

 

[robinb]

Ok, what is that ?

 

[tevek]

As I said there is a keystroke combination on the controller to over ride this limit.

Well mate, I have never heard of that, but then I am a Luddite. Even if you know the 'keystroke combination', I wouldn't be sharing that around. There would be chaos.......

 

[Richard R]

Someone aught to start a collection of these "there is something out there, it must be a drone" stories. First we get the headline news with an improbable scenario and a bit later, we get the follow up story tucked in with the sucinni recipes where it's revealed that the truth is that it was some trash bag or other non-drone item. At 6000 ft, that Airbus was likely doing 250-300 mph (1400-1700 meters per second)! In the fraction of a second that anything would actually be visible, how likely is it that the pilot could reliably identify anything zipping past his windshield?

 

[malcolmlightbody]

Prefaced with "I'm not a pilot" but......at 6,000 ft how fast is an Airbus going? how small is a drone? how long would it be visible? What's the chance someone in the cockpit was looking in the right direction? Long enough to be positively identified as a drone? What is the probability of a drone somewhere at random in that volume of air being in the right (wrong) place at the same time? If it wasn't random, then that's one hell of a drone pilot - maybe the millitary ought to recruit him/her - would be a better "guided" missile pilot than any computer...

Malcolm

 

[jwmcgrath]

In the fraction of a second that anything would actually be visible, how likely is it that the pilot could reliably identify anything zipping past his windshield?

That's the part I ponder.

Most of these reported "near misses" are still several hundred feet away. Granted, too close for comfort... but...

The next time you are driving at 60-70mph, and something that is roughly the same colour as its surroundings and no bigger than a flat basketball moves past you in the opposite direction at the same speed (which is about as close a layman can approximate the speed of a landing plane while on the ground), I'd like to know how many of us can tell with certainty what it was.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Meta4]

Yes it could get that high, transmission distance is 5000 metres for a P4P , be that horizontally or vertically. There is an automatic limit of 500 feet on the P4P but there is a keystroke to override that. A guy in Turkey flew one up to 12,000 plus feet

There are lots of gullible people on the internet.
He must have used another secret keystroke to change his Phantom as well.
That video purports to show a P4 going to 12000 feet.
There are several problems with the video.
At 0:46 where the horizon is at the top of the frame .... it's very bowed
This was taken with a fisheye lens, either a gopro or a P2V or P2V+ (the P2 series did not have the 500m limit)
At 1:45 you get a glimpse of the end of the arm under the motor.
Have a look at your P4 and it's very different.

There's no evidence that he ever got to 12000 feet - just his word for it.
Not even a faked up screenshot from his app.
Since he's trying to deceive you about what drone he used, do you trust him on the height?
And if he did take a P2 up to 12000 feet ...
That would take 12.6 mins to get there ... and 21 minutes more to get down.
Hmm ... slight technical difficulty there with the old P2 batteries.
Do you really believe he went to 12000 feet now?

 

[Meta4]

At 6000 ft, that Airbus was likely doing 250-300 mph (1400-1700 meters per second)! In the fraction of a second that anything would actually be visible, how likely is it that the pilot could reliably identify anything zipping past his windshield?

If the plane was on descent, at 6000 feet it would have been traveling at 450 km/hr which is only 125 metres/sec and contrary to popular belief, at that speed is is no problem to see objects and focus on them if they are spotted well out in front or to the side.
The pilot saw something - but what it was is the issue.
I believe it's highly unlikely that it was a drone up at 6000 feet.
Pilots read these stories all the time and many have no idea of the performance limitations of recreational drones.
But having the idea that the air is full of rogue drones helps their mind to put a label on indistinct things they might see.
In the 1970s and 80s, such things were labeled as UFOs and pilots frequently reported them.
(Almost) no-one believes there are flying saucers up there these days, so they get called drones now.

Someone aught to start a collection of these "there is something out there, it must be a drone" stories.

The US FAA did collect such incidents and made them public for two years.
Journalists had a great time making headlines about the dramatic increase in drone/airplane interactions and how it would lead to disaster.
Here are just a few questionable records from the FAA database which has several dubious records every week.
How many do you believe?

 

[jwmcgrath]

...having the idea that the air is full of rogue drones helps their mind to put a label on indistinct things they might see.

That's the short version of what I'm trying to say.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Richard R]

If the plane was on descent, at 6000 feet it would have been traveling at 450 km/hr which is only 125 metres/sec and contrary to popular belief, at that speed is is no problem to see objects and focus on them if they are spotted well out in front or to the side.
The pilot saw something - but what it was is the issue.
I believe it's highly unlikely that it was a drone up at 6000 feet.
Pilots read these stories all the time and many have no idea of the performance limitations of recreational drones.
But having the idea that the air is full of rogue drones helps their mind to put a label on indistinct things they might see.
In the 1970s and 80s, such things were labeled as UFOs and pilots frequently reported them.
(Almost) no-one believes there are flying saucers up there these days, so they get called drones now.

The US FAA did collect such incidents and made them public for two years.
Journalists had a great time making headlines about the dramatic increase in drone/airplane interactions and how it would lead to disaster.
Here are just a few questionable records from the FAA database which has several dubious records every week.
How many do you believe?

Sorry, you're right about the speed. Got a decimal in the wrong place

 

[bhartwell]

This turned out to be incorrect, after all the news reports, the actual investigation into the incident proved inconclusive. There have been a lot of "near" miss reports, but more often then not these end up being pilot error, birds, balloons or just inaccurate. The issue here is the media grabs onto something like this and make it into some kind of public emergency.

Once that happens, bans are imposed, no fly zones expanded, and our ability to fly at all is going to be highly restricted. Fair warning.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[jwmcgrath]

The issue here is the media...


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

'Nuff said.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots