Who's Been Flying a Quad @ 12500 ft?

[BigT]

http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/Airprox%20Report%202016015.pdf


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[FPVSteve]

Is that even possible?

[beesleyboy]

UFO's are back but nowadays it must be a Drone,  or a black bin bag. 😀

[Jameskibler]

What a load of crap  :laugh:

Would like to see the lipo needed to get that high!!

[keukpa]

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

[wgt40w]

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:

[Cockney Boy]

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

[FPVSteve]

Bet it was another bag :)

[electrotor]

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.

[keukpa]

Aliens!!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YskhRbGPt2k

[BigT]

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

[dogzilla]

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.

[BlueFlyer]

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.

[elmattbo]

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.

[electrotor]

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.