Who's Been Flying a Quad @ 12500 ft?

[dogzilla]

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.

[BigT]

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 

[iPeel]

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

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.

[BlueFlyer]

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.

[BlueFlyer]

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.

[keukpa]

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!

[BlueFlyer]

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.

[BigT]

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

[Cockney Boy]

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.

[dogzilla]

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

[Cockney Boy]

That's not a DJI osd


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BlueFlyer]

The phantom 1 didn't have osd, people retro fitted all sorts of osds on them.

[dogzilla]

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.

[FPVSteve]

Not bad lipo performance considering how cold it looked ;)

[Lola]

The Russian guy could have been telling porkies.