Here we go again
Another drone picks a fight with an airliner, allegedly.
This caught my attention because it happened in my backyard, allegedly. However, I’m calling “COMPLETE BOLLOCKS” on this because for the drone to be at the height the pilot claimed it to be, it would have had to be directly above the runway, and would have easily have been spotted by ground staff.
The pilot claims he was forced to “duck” for fear it would crash through the windshield. If continual bombardment from a flock of herons couldn’t bring down a Ryanair jet last week I can see no reason why the Jet2 pilot needed to “Duck”.
Most likely suspect, to make the pilot duck, was most likely a duck. Directly next to LBA’s runway is a body of water known as Yeadon Tarn, which is home to many aquatic fowl and other flying wild life.
My suspicion is that if there was any validity to the pilots report and the authorities took it seriously, I would be one of the first to be dragged out and vilified by the press, as they did with the couple at Gatwick.
PS. It turns out I also have problems with Saturdays.
Next time you’re up there see if my frozen balls are still there from outdoor pursuits course c.1983
Dashcam footage or it didn’t happen !
Looks like a good case for a dashcam in airliners!..
But the rules are repeatedly flouted by drone operators apparently wanting to use cameras on their gadgets to get dramatic video of jets flying past, even though they face being jailed for up to five years or fined up to £5,000 for endangering an aircraft.
Then why have routine patrols ever found any of the rogue operators? Why have none of the aircraft enthusiasts who watch the planes take off and land ever reported the bad apples in their midst?
And why did the pilot, sitting behind a windscreen designed to withstand bird strikes, “duck in fear”? Is that the type of excitable coward I want to entrust my life to if I take a flight anywhere?
Ha! I nearly picked this one out while I was browsing the airprox reports this morning, so I could wag a stern finger in your direction, @Nidge. Right above the pub as well. Tsk, tsk!
Good point - why have the aircraft spotters who haunt airports never spotted nor photographed a drone in the airport’s airspace ?
Shouldn’t he be displaying the new type OP number Karl?
Ah crap. Pretty sure he didn’t pay the 9 quid either!
A drone battery is not soft tissue so I would definitely duck if I saw a drone on my flight path.
Reminds me of the story about American manufacturer who asked UK manufacturer what they used for bird strike test when told “dead chicken” used a frozen chicken - test failed
Despite being new to this forum, I am shocked at how many think these things do not happen, and are 100% biased in favour of drone operators.
I feel that there must be hundreds, if not thousands of drone owners and flyers, who, like me - bought a drone and knew nothing about the relevant rules and restrictions, other than it was not legal (or sensible) to fly near airfields/airports.
I even had no knowledge of the licence conditions, or that a licence was required for pleasure use, until I read the various forums. In fact, I only found out about the 2022 regulations last night.
So, in addition to idiots out there, and there will be many, plus those who again like me broke the height rule without being aware of it, I think you will find there will be many who have either bought a drone, or given one as a present, and who have no idea what they can or cannot do with it.
As for comments about pilots not seeing drones until the last moment. Are they saying they have never lost sight of their drone - even for a short period of time, and despite standing still and not flying between 200 and 130 kph?
I think the clue maybe in the club name
Facebook is over that way
A duck, or any sizeable bird, at approach speed is not soft tissue either. This is why people who jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, and reach terminal velocity before hitting the water, more often than not end up with the top of their thigh bones in their abdomen, and why a 50Cal metal jacket fired into a swimming pool is shredded in the first three feet. At that speed water has a similar impact resistance as concrete. Regulations require the window panes “withstand, without penetration, the impact of a four-pound bird when the velocity of the airplane” is equal to around 340 knots indicated airspeed in the case of a 737. (That is quite fast.).
@anon73283520 . The argument is not suggesting that people whom fly drones intentionally near GA do not pose a danger, but rather the alleged sightings have zero credible evidence. Add to that the ignorance of the media manipulating the ignorance of the public into believing that 500g of hollow plastic will bring about he Rapture.
We have a scientific illiterate media selling a story to a largely scientific illiterate readership, and the result is we have laws that are conjured up with no basis in credible facts or risk assessment. Much like any law that has a religion as it’s basis.
Even so called experts can make a fools out of themselves. Take the USS Nimitz and the Tic-Tac UFO. This was plastered over every media outlet around the World as evidence of a technology beyond our comprehension. If they had taken the time to actually look at the numbers on their instruments they would have been able to calculate that the object was approximately 1500m asl, with a velocity of approximately 30knots, and a cross section of around 1.5m to 2m. What else can fall into this category? Most ocean based birds, such as gulls and pelicans, which are common in the area the alleged other worldly visitor was sighted. Even though the stories have been totally debunked those retired pilots and radar operators still need to make a living, hence why they are now doing the UFO comicons as guest speakers, and news outlets like Fox News and The Hill are still running these stories.
I’m not sure anyone thinks that. But given that major airports are now equipped with high-tech drone detection systems, we do wonder why there has never been any corroborating evidence to these eyewitness reports.
I think some of the above posts say otherwise.
Other than a media report of the military using such equipment during one trial, I am not sure if I have seen other evidence that such equipment exists. Maybe I missed them.
One day it might just happen…and then the axe will really fall on drones…
Sure members can be biased towards the hobby, and those who carry it out safely. But should not be biased towards idiots who do the hobby harm.