maybe it was sunlight glinting off the windscreen… another plane in the stack…
just seems a bit … much / odd
to take the flip side of this the weather does not look great… maybe the drone pilot wanted a shot of the winter sunset… but if it’s cloudy (not sure what altitude the clouds were at… )… is their really a market for close up photos of planes … is it like plane porn or something as you cannot hang them up anywhere as someone would get suspicious… so really you are risking your drone in poor weather… poor visibility and you are flying up to 10,000ft in an area where planes regularly are stacked… would you do it?
even taking the planes and 400ft and vlos out of the equation…
I know I wouldn’t fly my drone where I’m uncertain of being able to recover it… I am always twitchy flying over water… even gardens really… but that is me (plus aways vlos!) …
all seems a bit of an oddball one.
now I am not saying that drones and planes in proximity don’t happen… I know a guy who is a commercial pilot and trainer for one of the holiday airlines and he says he saw a yellow drone coming into Manchester a few years ago, low altitude, went over the wing fast, asked his copilot… did you see that?.. see what?.. think it was a drone… never mind… he said it was only when the passengers disembarked that one of them said to him… did you see the drone? he thought about it again and logged it. (we spoke about it at new year this year)…
I have always been skeptical but I believe him…
he said it was yellow with black arms and looked like one of those ones they use for TV or movies…
at the time I was flying my avata and m3p and DJI fpv about so he was interested and we had a long chat and he could see the appeal.
he said the biggest annoyance to him is all the Notams that are registered in Gran Canaries for drone usage around weddings etc that are all at low level and well out of their flying altitude that he has to read and discount and it just adds to the workload … information overload… like too many roadsigns which can be overwhelming as to what exactly is important to know
"The report added: ‘Analysis of the radar by Safety Investigations indicated that there were no primary or secondary contacts associated with the drone report visible on radar at the approximate time of the event.
It concluded: ‘In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it could have been a drone."
Official Conclusion: “could have been a drone.”
Interpretation: “We’re really not sure”.
I’ve been on flights where there was a forwards facing camera that broadcast to the entertainment system at every seat. Both Emirates and Etihad amongst other’
Isn’t it worthwhile posting an official response from GA questioning the authenticity of such a report and the reasons why it could be wrong. As it is the general public will automatically assume it’s correct and another bit of anti drone publicity which is not wanted…
Media will always report one of these almost every month to scare the general public over and over. Nowt can be done and general public always believes it even though we all know it was a fucking terrydactyl on the loose from Jurassic Park…
Having read this article & comments on here with interest, how can we as drone owners/operators ask bodies like the CAA that this sort of thing needs looking further into the claims made.
Many people on this site are a lot more knowledgeable than me, but claims like this should be looked into a bit more, than just take as read that the reporter of this incident is 100% correct.
Are members of the Airprox Board well versed about what drones can/can’t do, there should be some sort of representation from responsible drone operators, as things like this can or will eventually reall impact our sport.
The air prox said it COULD be a drone but not it was.
I think they should be more open in the phrasing, as to it could also have been a bird or a balloon or even superman.
Lots of people who haven’t bothered to read the actual report here (it’s freely available) - I think we all know trusting the press interpretation isn’t reliable.
There WAS a primary radar contact at the time and location of the report. Small balloons, single large birds (ostrich or otherwise!) do not show up as primary contacts at that distance from the radar head. This contact was only discovered in the investigation, the controller at the time missed it.
That establishes that *something * was there, admittedly not necessarily a drone. That alone counters 99% of the arguments above who call the entire event a hoax. Spotting an object travelling at 200+ MPH does not require 60/60 vision, never seen a flyby at an air show? It’s actually remarkably easy, especially at the distances quoted. The eye is incredibly good at spotting moving objects, especially when they’re not expected - as would be the case here.
Storm Hank hit that part of the UK the evening before. The weather was infinitely better that afternoon with good visibility at that altitude. Although late afternoon given the time of year, more than enough light for good forward visibility. Comments that it was another plane in the stack aren’t even worth entertaining - you’ve clearly never been on a flightdeck.
Was it a drone? Quite rightly the Airprox board haven’t ruled it was. But given that it’s proven that something large enough to provide a primary radar contact was present, and the pilots version of events holds water it’s prudent to rate it as a high risk of collision. It’s a large amount of paperwork and effort at the end of a long day to file these things - no one I know is going to do it just to annoy the drone community. The tiny proportion who break the rules ruin it for everyone else and deserve to be punished accordingly. Don’t throw mud at the aviation community just for doing their job, it doesn’t portray us at our best.
Yes, seen flybys’ more times than I’ve had hot dinners, and agree you don’t need 60/60 vision to watch, BUT you know where the aircraft is coming from in advance, you are looking at a rather large object compared to something drone sized and more to the point you are not being distracted by having to look at instruments etc. Still going to call on this report, proven primary radar contact or not, your average recreational drone is made primarily of plastic and is not big enough to have a radar signature any different from that of a bird.
My apologies if my response was seen as throwing mud, certainly was not the intention. I was pointing out facts from the report that had been overlooked in many of the responses.
I come at this from both sides of the fence, being a commercial pilot and a drone owner (hobby only I might add). Looking at instruments is obviously a primary task in flying, but so is a visual lookout. You do not both spend your time completely “heads in” - in fact it’s dangerous to do so. I’ve seen small kids balloons go past at the ranges being discussed here. Is it quick? Yes very. But does it make your head spin so fast it comes off? No. So I’m saying it’s possible if not even common to spot objects of this size at those speeds.
I’d be first in the queue to argue against any sort of ban on drones. I’m not throwing mud or making any disparaging remarks against anyone in the community, simply trying to provide some insight into the other side of the fence for anyone that’s interested. The conditions were sufficient to see an object of the size described, an object was there based on radar evidence so there was a high risk of collision with an object which is worthy of note. Simply calling the available evidence nonsense (or the stronger terms used here) is as daft as stating it’s 100% a drone or 100% aliens.
What makes me laugh is …… you go back some years before drones was even a thing, amongst hobbyists at least anyway, you’d always hear these conspiracy theory’s from manned aviation that they see a ufo a flying saucer or something from out of wars of the worlds, now anything supposedly seen over 400 ft agl is always a drone,
Don’t hear nothing no more about flying saucers or the marshan’s are coming is always a drone now, was probably Karen throwing her / his frisbee to the dog
on this report, proven primary radar contact or not, your average recreational drone is made primarily of plastic and is not big enough to have a radar signature any different from that of a bird.