http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/Airprox%20Report%202016015.pdf
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Is that even possible?
UFO's are back but nowadays it must be a Drone, or a black bin bag. 😀
What a load of crap :laugh:
Would like to see the lipo needed to get that high!!
Bare in mind, a 'drone' could be a fixed wing.... I know people who've been to 10,000ft, what's 12,500ft about 4.2km?
What made me laugh is: "The crew reported it as black, 6ft wide and with a red flashing light"
LOL who puts a red flashing light on their drone? Unless it was ACTUALLY a drone... i.e. military??
It's all a load of crap, if you ask me, 20ft proximity would cause soooo much disturbance, and vortexes would surely pull the 'drone' into the fuse?
Keukpa
It was an easy mistake to make -
After all a Ryanair fork lift, complete with flashing light, on order to make an even quicker turn around, normally manages to avoid the view of other airlines - in case they try to copy them !!
:laugh:
Pilots have been known to make crap up like this to detract from one of their own cockups. The only answer is to put cameras in the cockpit and a 360 on the top and bottom of the craft to record any events......Hold on they wouldnt want that woukd they ;D
Bet it was another bag :)
2-3ft diameter or 6ft wide?
100-150ft or 20ft clearance?
These differences, especially the clearance, really dent the credibility of the report.
Was it actually black; did it have a flashing light; was it stationary; was it indeed a drone?
They saw something but after that the report starts to fall apart.
Aliens!!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YskhRbGPt2k (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YskhRbGPt2k)
What is alarming is that the board accepted the crews statements as facts with no physical evidence to back it up. No radar contact, no 3rd person corroboration, but still made the judgment that it was a drone and was operating illegally. Rather stinks of a stitch up
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quote from: electrotor on May 09, 2016, 01:18:53 AM
2-3ft diameter or 6ft wide?
100-150ft or 20ft clearance?
These differences, especially the clearance, really dent the credibility of the report.
Was it actually black; did it have a flashing light; was it stationary; was it indeed a drone?
They saw something but after that the report starts to fall apart.
These people aren't trained in identifying objects and have zero experience in that field so it's to be expected that they get things wrong but it's surprising that these reports make no mention of that, it appears that pilots are above criticism.
For example the suggestion that the item was black is difficult to know with any certainty as most things can look black in the sky in the right conditions, even shiny white gliders can look like dark black shapes.
The most disturbing thing about all of these airprox incidents is (as digzilla mentions) how the pilot's word is considered above reproach. Since when does qualifying as a pilot make you either 1) a perfectly honest individual or 2) omnicient?
The constant naming of these sightings as "drones" is really starting to piss me off. They are not qualified to say it was a drone (considering how the word drone now applies to more than what it did only a year ago) or to say it was NOT a drone... they are qualified to state that it was an unknown object.
It is my opinion that there's definitely a hidden agenda amongst the airline pilot community.
Quote from: BlueFlyer on May 09, 2016, 01:49:42 PM
The most disturbing thing about all of these airprox incidents is (as digzilla mentions) how the pilot's word is considered above reproach. Since when does qualifying as a pilot make you either 1) a perfectly honest individual or 2) omnicient?
The constant naming of these sightings as "drones" is really starting to piss me off. They are not qualified to say it was a drone (considering how the word drone now applies to more than what it did only a year ago) or to say it was NOT a drone... they are qualified to state that it was an unknown object.
It is my opinion that there's definitely a hidden agenda amongst the airline pilot community.
Sorry blue but that's absolute bollox. The BA incident from a few weeks back disproves your point - the airline reported the aircraft hit an object; and nothing more. It was the police and the media who ran with the drone thing.
From a pilots point of view, the only reason a drone and an aircraft should be sharing the same bit of airspace is through ignorance or negligence and in the commercial aviation world both of those will be on the part of the drone user.
Actually I'm sorry to pick on your post blue as there is quite a bit of ignorance in the entire thread (and I mean ignorance in the 'not knowing' sense). What I can never understand in these threads is that not one of you seem to acknowledge that there is an idiot who flew where they shouldn't have been, but seek to dismiss the report as propaganda. Airline pilots are not immune to criticism or error, but they do work hard to minimise their mistakes and their primary concern is always flight safety.
For a pilot, there is a long list of potential things that can spoil your day and put you on the evening news and a drone is actually way low down on it. What is unacceptable though, is that risk is entirely created by ignorance/negligence and that is what the industry wants to address.
Quote from: elmattbo on May 09, 2016, 02:34:56 PM
Sorry blue but that's absolute bollox. The BA incident from a few weeks back disproves your point - the airline reported the aircraft hit an object; and nothing more. It was the police and the media who ran with the drone thing.
From a pilots point of view, the only reason a drone and an aircraft should be sharing the same bit of airspace is through ignorance or negligence and in the commercial aviation world both of those will be on the part of the drone user.
Actually I'm sorry to pick on your post blue as there is quite a bit of ignorance in the entire thread (and I mean ignorance in the 'not knowing' sense). What I can never understand in these threads is that not one of you seem to acknowledge that there is an idiot who flew where they shouldn't have been, but seek to dismiss the report as propaganda. Airline pilots are not immune to criticism or error, but they do work hard to minimise their mistakes and their primary concern is always flight safety.
For a pilot, there is a long list of potential things that can spoil your day and put you on the evening news and a drone is actually way low down on it. What is unacceptable though, is that risk is entirely created by ignorance/negligence and that is what the industry wants to address.
But in this case it's actually the Airprox report that states drone, so there is no media frenzy or misreporting. In addition the report rather shoots off its own propeller with inconsistency and failure to corroborate the evidence.
Quote from: elmattbo on May 09, 2016, 02:34:56 PM
What I can never understand in these threads is that not one of you seem to acknowledge that there is an idiot who flew where they shouldn't have been, but seek to dismiss the report as propaganda.
The same way I don't acknowledge the existence of god. I remain skeptical until I see proof, as everyone should be.
Quote from: electrotor on May 09, 2016, 02:57:00 PM
But in this case it's actually the Airprox report that states drone, so there is no media frenzy or misreporting. In addition the report rather shoots off its own propeller with inconsistency and failure to corroborate the evidence.
That's the point I was making, its automatically a "drone" although no object was recorded on radar, no confirmation report from a 3rd party, no other sighting, but the PF was not doubted for one moment.
Copied from the actual Airprox Report filed.
THE A320 PILOT reports being on climb-out from Heathrow on a DET1J departure and had been given radar vectors and a climb to FL150 by the controller.
As they passed 12,500ft, the co-pilot, who was PF, spotted a black drone which appeared to be stationary; it was about 1/4nm ahead andslightly above their level, but there was no time to react.
Of course I accept that there are idiots out there flying models illegally, either intentionally or accidentally. I also suspect that 30 years ago these "Drone" sightings would have been reported as a UFO or not reported at all as the pilot would not have wanted that on his record. My Uncle was a RAF pilot during and after WW2 and had many many tails of strange objects and lights etc seen over airfields and during flights but he and other aircrews never reported them to "authority" as they new that would put an early end to his chances of a long career. He left the RAF as a Wing Commander so probably made the correct decision!
Here is another one involving the RAF this time
https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/Airprox%20Report%202016005.pdf (https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/Airprox%20Report%202016005.pdf)
Quote from: BigT on May 09, 2016, 05:26:35 PM
Here is another one involving the RAF this time
https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/Airprox%20Report%202016005.pdf (https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/Airprox%20Report%202016005.pdf)
That one's hilarious, what exactly was the competent observer meant to do in a situation where two RAF Tornados are closing at 3/4 the speed of sound at 1000 feet? At least they accepted there that potentially the "drone" could be being piloted within the law.
Quote from: elmattbo on May 09, 2016, 02:34:56 PM
Sorry blue but that's absolute bollox. The BA incident from a few weeks back disproves your point - the airline reported the aircraft hit an object; and nothing more. It was the police and the media who ran with the drone thing.
From a pilots point of view, the only reason a drone and an aircraft should be sharing the same bit of airspace is through ignorance or negligence and in the commercial aviation world both of those will be on the part of the drone user.
Actually I'm sorry to pick on your post blue as there is quite a bit of ignorance in the entire thread (and I mean ignorance in the 'not knowing' sense). What I can never understand in these threads is that not one of you seem to acknowledge that there is an idiot who flew where they shouldn't have been, but seek to dismiss the report as propaganda. Airline pilots are not immune to criticism or error, but they do work hard to minimise their mistakes and their primary concern is always flight safety.
For a pilot, there is a long list of potential things that can spoil your day and put you on the evening news and a drone is actually way low down on it. What is unacceptable though, is that risk is entirely created by ignorance/negligence and that is what the industry wants to address.
You don't have to be sorry mate, but I think you actually missed what my point was... it had nothing to do with media frenzy or the police.
My point was that the pilots should NOT be reporting these as DRONES.
They are not qualified (and neither am I) to make such a statement. They are - in my opinion - being very irresponsible by saying it WAS A DRONE when all they know for sure is that
something flashed by that (in this particular airprox) was black with a red light.
p.s. Is there anyone here that knows of a "drone" that...
1. is black?
2. has a red strobe on top?
3. can ascend to 12000ft and stay in a hover?
4. has a diameter of 2-3 feet (or is that 6 feet)?
my guess is that it would have to be some home built machine... perhaps it was Colin Furze on his hover bike wearing a black suit with a red light on his head.
Quote from: BlueFlyer on May 09, 2016, 06:24:17 PM
p.s. Is there anyone here that knows of a "drone" that...
1. is black?
2. has a red strobe on top?
3. can ascend to 12000ft and stay in a hover?
4. has a diameter of 2-3 feet (or is that 6 feet)?
my guess is that it would have to be some home built machine... perhaps it was Colin Furze on his hover bike wearing a black suit with a red light on his head.
Only this one!
(http://s32.postimg.org/cyiwzijpd/jetsons_grab.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/cyiwzijpd/)
lol keukpa...
After reading it a 4th time, I'm still extremely wound up that the board simply accepts that it was a drone, as opposed to investigating any other possibility. This is why I feel it is irresponsible to call it a drone when you have no idea WHAT it was.
There may be a REAL risk to flight safety in this case which could be overlooked simply because the co-pilot is ignorant or arrogant enough to declare the damn thing was a drone.
Quote from: BlueFlyer on May 09, 2016, 06:24:17 PM
p.s. Is there anyone here that knows of a "drone" that...
1. is black?
2. has a red strobe on top?
3. can ascend to 12000ft and stay in a hover?
4. has a diameter of 2-3 feet (or is that 6 feet)?
my guess is that it would have to be some home built machine... perhaps it was Colin Furze on his hover bike wearing a black suit with a red light on his head.
or was it one of these, which is seen being tested at a local flying club. Its the one used in the Tony Robinson documentary
Quote from: BigT on May 09, 2016, 06:36:02 PM
or was it one of these, which is seen being tested at a local flying club. Its the one used in the Tony Robinson documentary
No way the Alta could get upto 12000ft and not come down on its own power.
It's very high and I think far out of reach of most off the shelf toys.
Some Russian feller claims 4565m with a DJI Phantom V1. Certainly seems legit with the OSD footage.
So it's doable with a big enough battery and some know how.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKy8SJgK5dQ#)
That's not a DJI osd
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The phantom 1 didn't have osd, people retro fitted all sorts of osds on them.
Clearly :)
The Phantom V1 didn't come with an OSD, VTX or camera. The chap has obviously added the VTX and an OSD and probably replaced the transmitter too.
Not bad lipo performance considering how cold it looked ;)
The Russian guy could have been telling porkies.
. What I can never understand in these threads is that not one of you seem to acknowledge that there is an idiot who flew where they shouldn't have been, but seek to dismiss the report as propaganda.
I think some of us are just taking the pi## out of these reports, because some of them seem so ridiculous and its not completely out of ignerents, but from are experience with what most drones are capital of, I have been making quads for years, the chance of someone making a ship that will achieve this height and be in the right place as the plane at the same time seems unlikely to me, the sky is a big place, I was a deep see fishermen back in the day and I rimember a bout going down that was thought to of been caused by a Submarine , that was or was knot in the area. Perhaps if it was a Drone, it wouldn't be beyond the imagination, that it was a hi tek peace of kit being tested, I would think by now work has been carried out on long duration stealth quads, for military purpose, do you think thay would hold there hand up and say, I'm bad,
And as fare as idiots flying where there not ment to, just come down to the lower end of Cornwall where I fly and see the military planes skimming the landscape much lower than I'm allowed to fly my planes and quads.
Quote from: Cockney Boy on May 09, 2016, 06:59:08 PM
No way the Alta could get upto 12000ft and not come down on its own power.
The operator told us it had a parachute and a homing beacon like a military drone. It was about 1.8 meters across and had a strobe on the top.
Quote from: BigT on May 10, 2016, 08:53:40 AM
The operator told us it had a parachute and a homing beacon like a military drone. It was about 1.8 meters across and had a strobe on the top.
lol :)
Everyone is thinking this must be a quad, it could be a fixed wing... an X-UAV Talon would EASILY get to 12,000ft.... and with the 'right' wind, and direction, could certainly look like it's hovering.
I remember reading that back in the 50s and 60s the military quite liked all the UFO hysteria as it led people to explain away witness reports of test flights of unusual craft without them needing to do anything.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories but I can't help wondering if just maybe they'll see an opportunity to start doing the same thing now, testing their small drone technology out basically wherever they like and then just letting hobbyists carry the can if one is seen flying over a city or really high up or anywhere else it shouldn't be. Of course they'd have a difficult time doing that if one went down.
Quote from: keukpa on May 10, 2016, 10:32:07 AM
Everyone is thinking this must be a quad, it could be a fixed wing... an X-UAV Talon would EASILY get to 12,000ft.... and with the 'right' wind, and direction, could certainly look like it's hovering.
That's true except the aircraft that saw it would also be moving in the same air mass, so the talon would be moving at its cruise airspeed. I suppose it would still look pretty stationary though given the difference in airspeed.