- Joined
- Apr 28, 2014
- Messages
- 513
- Reaction score
- 5
FAA spreadsheet of "drone" incidents
- Thread starter darwin-t
- Start date
I think there's some validity here. While the majority of us are responsible in the use of our quads, you're always going to find in the bunch a few numb nuts who want to see how far, how high, how beyond the limit they can go. And they don't care if the hurt someone and they don't care if they ruin it for everyone else. Either that or they're just too stupid to understand the consequences of their actions.
There are numerous incidents on this list that don't merit concern and don't need to be on the list, but the FAA should be concerned with commercial pilots being able to see (LOS) drones at 5,000-20,000 feet. That's just insane.
There are numerous incidents on this list that don't merit concern and don't need to be on the list, but the FAA should be concerned with commercial pilots being able to see (LOS) drones at 5,000-20,000 feet. That's just insane.
i didn't read them all, but alot of the ones i did that mentioned altitude seemed to state the drone was flying over 1000ft (even one at 4000ft). Are people really using them that high up
Some are. One was a flyaway. Anyone notice what's completely missing from this entire file? The word "accident".p fandango said:
The word most frequented was "UNKN" for "Unknown" followed by "No Evasive Action". Many of the reports are in Class E airspace where the separation requirements for VFR flight are pretty general - "see and avoid". Quite a few of the reports say the sighted A/C was 500 ft or more away from them. (One even reported "a few hundred yards" - good eagle-eyes on that reporter). Another "3,000 feet below..." - that's a threat, how?? Sorry for the fearmongers, but this is quite legal if the unidentified A/C is in Class E or G airspace. On the other hand, those operating inside Class B, C or D airspace would meet my liberal definition of reckless because they simply shouldn't be there. If they made it to Class A airspace, I would probably be in awe since that airspace starts at 18,000 ft MSL.
Two of the reports said they received a TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance Service) alert. An Express Jet over New Jersey and a National Guard helicopter both reported a TCAS alert. Umm, yeah. TCAS only works with aircraft with Mode C or Mode S transponders. The lightest Mode S transponder I've ever heard of weighs 440g, plus an encoding altimeter and transponder antenna. (And it costs $2500). I very seriously doubt that we're talking about a drone sighting.
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,351
- Reaction score
- 9,293
From early times Americans have shown a propensity to see what isn't there if it's scary and talked about.
Think witches at Salem 1692 or reds under beds in the late 1940s and 1950s or a million UFO reports.
The brain can be convinced that it sees something quite different from what it is observing.
The quality of some of the unsubstantiated drone reports to have come out make it pretty clear that some of these things pilots are reporting aren't the things we are flying. I'm puzzled that the reports are for all colours and so few that fit the standard description of a Phantom.
Here are a few of the more obviously dodgy reports ..
...a drone or possible large balloon with anti-collision white lights
...a “disk-like” drone passing within 20 to 40 feet of the aircraft while at 3,000 feet
...“taking evasive action” to avoid a small drone at 4,800 feet. The pilot said the two-foot-wide black drone, with a camera attached
...a drone at an altitude of 800 feet, flying circles around the police aircraft
...Drone described as three feet tall and with a two-foot-wide rotor on top
...a yellow drone with a four-foot wingspan passing within 50 feet of the aircraft at an altitude of 4,000 feet
...a traffic-collision alert system warning after coming within 500 to 1,000 feet of a drone
Who knows what these pilots really saw? But it's a safe bet that not all of them are drones.
For an intelligent insight into the report rather than the usual panic, Forbes says this ...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/ ... you-think/
Think witches at Salem 1692 or reds under beds in the late 1940s and 1950s or a million UFO reports.
The brain can be convinced that it sees something quite different from what it is observing.
The quality of some of the unsubstantiated drone reports to have come out make it pretty clear that some of these things pilots are reporting aren't the things we are flying. I'm puzzled that the reports are for all colours and so few that fit the standard description of a Phantom.
Here are a few of the more obviously dodgy reports ..
...a drone or possible large balloon with anti-collision white lights
...a “disk-like” drone passing within 20 to 40 feet of the aircraft while at 3,000 feet
...“taking evasive action” to avoid a small drone at 4,800 feet. The pilot said the two-foot-wide black drone, with a camera attached
...a drone at an altitude of 800 feet, flying circles around the police aircraft
...Drone described as three feet tall and with a two-foot-wide rotor on top
...a yellow drone with a four-foot wingspan passing within 50 feet of the aircraft at an altitude of 4,000 feet
...a traffic-collision alert system warning after coming within 500 to 1,000 feet of a drone
Who knows what these pilots really saw? But it's a safe bet that not all of them are drones.
For an intelligent insight into the report rather than the usual panic, Forbes says this ...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/ ... you-think/
p fandango said:
Yes they are. Just search YouTube. There was a member on this forum just a couple of weeks ago proudly posting his Phantom flight up to an altitude of 6,500 feet agl, IN THE CLOUDS!!! This idea that almost all of us stay low and away from other planes, etc. simply is not true. There are enough people who fly too high and too far away out of sight to cause problems.
The percentage of idiot UAV flyers is probably the same percentage of idiot drivers we see on the road every day. Chances are they're even the same people 
Koz said:The percentage of idiot UAV flyers is probably the same percentage of idiot drivers we see on the road every day. Chances are they're even the same people
Well, given that 34,000 or so people die every year in car accidents, that does not make me feel better
SilentAV8R said:Koz said:The percentage of idiot UAV flyers is probably the same percentage of idiot drivers we see on the road every day. Chances are they're even the same people
Well, given that 34,000 or so people die every year in car accidents, that does not make me feel better
Don't mention that figure to the authorities. They might ban all driving! :lol:
you guys do realize that if 100% of the population was responsible with their quads, and the govt wanted to regulate that, they'd just pay people to go crash on the whitehouse right?
Read the entire sheet. The only reports under 500ft were either in DC or near the FBI building. So yeah, just keep it under 400ft.
Similar threads
