- Joined
- Oct 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 747
- Age
- 71
Lufthansa jet and drone nearly collide near LAX
- Thread starter lookin4pain
- Start date
Now is the time for an alien invasion - they would all be mistaken for drones and the only people alerted will be the FAA....lol.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 747
- Age
- 71
I would think this is something that could be simulated with some fidelity. We have pro-grade flight simulators. Certainly they can put up an object of a defined size / shape and color and see if pilots could see it from various distances. It wouldn't be completely real but I'm guessing it would take the heat off of Phantom sized UAVs at 5000 feet.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 747
- Age
- 71
They would have to be small Aliens. We probably have already stepped on them. (Looks around).
LAX has a noise abatement and all US airports have a speed limit depending on altitude. So no way 400 mph likey 250 knots max. More likely 200-225.
Old days= bird if below 10000 ft, UFO if above 10000 ft.
Current times =drone, if below 10000 ft, UFO if above 10000 ft. lol
Well, if registration doesn't "fix" the problem....wonder what's next?
WASHINGTON — Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced legislation Thursday that would ban more than 150 types of assault drones along with certain high-capacity drone batteries.
Feinstein’s bill is far more detailed than the 1994 Assault Model ban that lapsed in 2004. Her bill would stop the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specific military capable consumer drones and batteries that hold more than 10 minutes of flight time. It would also ban an additional group of assault drones that have long range communications capabilities (over 100 feet) and have at least one military characteristic, such as a camera on board.
Other new provisions include requiring background checks on all future sales and transfers of assault drones covered under the bill.
"Only the military needs drones with the capacity to fly beyond 100 feet, carry imaging devices and have the capacity to inflict so much terror on the public", says Feinstein.
WASHINGTON — Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced legislation Thursday that would ban more than 150 types of assault drones along with certain high-capacity drone batteries.
Feinstein’s bill is far more detailed than the 1994 Assault Model ban that lapsed in 2004. Her bill would stop the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specific military capable consumer drones and batteries that hold more than 10 minutes of flight time. It would also ban an additional group of assault drones that have long range communications capabilities (over 100 feet) and have at least one military characteristic, such as a camera on board.
Other new provisions include requiring background checks on all future sales and transfers of assault drones covered under the bill.
"Only the military needs drones with the capacity to fly beyond 100 feet, carry imaging devices and have the capacity to inflict so much terror on the public", says Feinstein.
Think of the children............
Heck, as succesful as banning is, let's just ban dumbazzes and world hunger and solve any and all planetary problems. Lol
Heck, as succesful as banning is, let's just ban dumbazzes and world hunger and solve any and all planetary problems. Lol
Last edited:
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
I am surprised these eagle eyed pilots weren't able to read the FAA registration number off the drone as it went past.
Not that hard. I fly for the airlines and during approaches, between 160-230 knots, its pretty easy to see small birds (crow sized) wizzing by. Remember that because we fly very fast, relatively stationary objects in the sky stand out because they "appear" to move relative to the ground. Its always amazing to me the detail that you can see in small birds even at fast speeds.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2015
- Messages
- 97
- Reaction score
- 12
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
Well, if it was a drone, the problem is probably now solved as it is very likely used up most of its battery to get to that altitude.
5000'? BS!! Another GOV False Flag.. They don't like us having cameras in the sky to compete with and expose Big Brother who is watching us and controlling the minds of the populace with the out of control FCC media..
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 29, 2014
- Messages
- 843
- Reaction score
- 212
A commercial airliner going into LAX 14 miles out at only 5,000 feet? I call BS on this one. Also a "drone" at 5,000 feet? A jet going 400 mph would see a hobbyist "drone" yeah right. Not impossible but I want to start seeing some video proof of these "sightings" before I believe these reports.
I have no doubt that the airliner was at 5000 ft and 14 miles out on approach. It could just be the balloons that numerous other aircraft reported at that time and location which would be a far more likely scenario than a consumer drone. We know for certain from the FAA reporting that drones and balloons look similar when seen from the cockpit. Of course, an actual description is hardly ever part of the reporting. If I sent mine straight up to 5200 ft (assuming I could defeat the altitude limit), I'm not sure I would get it back because of descent rate limit means it would probably run out of battery before it gets down like that Swedish YouTube genius, if the wake turbulence from the world's largest airline didn't send it spiraling out of control.
I wasn't aware of balloons being in the area, or being reported by other aircraft? It doesn't mention that in either of the articles I've read about the incident? Where did you read this?
Again, it would be very hard to get a Phantom to that altitude, let alone see it. But of course there are many other drones that are larger and darker, thus easier to spot, especially military drones.
With almost everyone in the world carrying a camera phone in their pocket - I'm waiting to see either a pilot or a passenger actually capture one of these high flying drones on their camera. You'd think by now...
Several of the reports had the balloon reporting from other aircraft near the bottom of the articles, but now those sections have been deleted. I'm somewhat flabbergasted by this. Once we can see the reports to the FAA, we may get a better idea since the press wouldn't dare investigate. Military drones are far fewer in number than consumer drones. Frankly, too many people, when they see a "drone sighting" at a ludicrous altitude or unrealistic location, default to military drones, when in fact it is rarely a drone of any kind that was seen. Military drones are generally fixed wing and more likely be mistaken for a manned aircraft. Although we know for certain that manned aircraft have been mistaken for drones as well (even ones squawking 1200). With reports that are clearly not drones at all, where the reporter expresses lack of surety about what they actually saw or later backtracks from their original story (like the LA helicopter "drone strike"), my faith in pilot reporting of small flying objects is just a couple of ticks north of zero.
Regarding video or photographic proof, it is unlikely just because a drone even 200 ft away will be a tiny speck on a cell phone camera, which are typically very wide angle to accommodate short selfie distances.
Another area of concern for me is that there are indeed non-military drones capable of flying around at 5000 ft. However, these are far more expensive and specialized and the odds are extremely small that so many are in the hands of the ignorant unwashed masses, blindly hooning around the skies. Not only is the expense an issue, but the extremely small numbers of them and the fact that there is no commercial or scientific reason for them to be at 5000 ft 14 miles east of LAX that I can think of.
Back in World War II, they installed gun cameras on fighters because the kill reporting was, shall we say, "less than accurate." Maybe dash cams for airliners?
I've seen a mylar balloon floating around at 2000 ft going 110 knots going into downwind and it sure can look like a drone. I'm gonna guess that they saw a balloon. If this was an actual a drone I wish they found this idiot and fining his a$$. Idiots like this are the ones giving the drones a bad name.
Sounds like other planes reported a bunch of balloons too.
http://www.liveatc.net/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13092.0;attach=8763
Sounds like other planes reported a bunch of balloons too.
http://www.liveatc.net/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13092.0;attach=8763
Last edited:
Similar threads
