Stupid

[Ptr]

If true another pilot giving us bad news coverage

Drone Involved In 'Near-Miss' With Passenger Plane
Drone In 'Near-Miss' With Passenger Plane

 

[Mark The Droner]

How is a UAS going to fly alongside a manned aircraft when the manned aircraft is doing 100 knots minimum and the UAS is doing 45 knots maximum?

Maybe it was a fixed wing?

Something doesn't add up

 

[hychewright]

How is a UAS going to fly alongside a manned aircraft when the manned aircraft is doing 100 knots minimum and the UAS is doing 45 knots maximum?

Maybe it was a fixed wing?

Something doesn't add up

I agree, there is a miss here somewhere.

 

[Doink]

Wouldn't of been alongside side of it for long would it, OK not a big plane but clearly travelling faster than 35mph, probably another carrier bag like the British airways Heathrow incident

 

[sar104]

It's probably unwise just to dismiss all such reports as plastic bags. In this case, at 900 ft AGL and 120 kts on final, it would not be difficult to spot a drone. Obviously the drone would not be able to keep up with the plane, so "flew alongside" clearly doesn't mean "in formation with", but it would have appeared to pass the length of the ATR (~ 100 ft) in about half a second. I'd label this one as quite credible.

 

[Pharm]

"Flew alongside for a period" would indicate to me it WAS flying in formation with said airplane (even though that's improbable.) Perhaps the news media's verbage was just incorrect.

 

[sar104]

"Flew alongside for a period" would indicate to me it WAS flying in formation with said airplane (even though that's improbable.) Perhaps the news media's verbage was just incorrect.

That was my guess - just badly worded. They may have thought it sounded more dramatic stated like that, without realizing that it also makes it sound completely impossible.

Although I didn't see the statement that said "for a period".

 

[Mikepoo]

This story is full of crap winds that day was around 35 mph plus heavy rain.