Lufthansa jet and drone nearly collide near LAX

[IceFyre13th]

Lufthansa jet and drone nearly collide near LAX

Friggin idiot pilots

 

[pyrate]

so the "drone" was at 5200 feet
OK

 

[Maddog]

I find it unlikely that many drones can fly that high and that an airline pilot can see such a small target while traveling 150-200 MPH.

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

I believe the pilot saw something. I believe he thinks it was a drone. But I believe he's wrong, and I believe he's foolish for thinking that. This idiotic article fails to mention the study showing most pilot sightings of drones are unfounded errors and total nonsense. But why let reality get in the way of a good click baiting.

 

[User Name]

so the "drone" was at 5200 feet
OK

I have no problem believing your average drone could technically reach 5000+ feet, most likely in a fly-away. The climb rates are pretty impressive, and even if it was an all-out climb that depleted the battery in just a few minutes, it could easily be upwards of 5000+ feet by that point.

Do I believe THIS was a drone? Not impossible, but most likely not. The chances of a flyaway just happening to put the drone within 200 feet of a passing airliner is pretty small. Not impossible that it was flown intentionally either, but again, how likely?

I did a little reading and was surprised to find that many species of birds can fly at some pretty extreme altitudes, some upwards of 20 to 30+ thousand feet. There was a case of a mallard duck colliding with an airplane at 21,000 feet, and given the size and coloring of a duck, I'd have to say I'd far sooner believe the pilot saw a duck in this case and mistook it for a drone.

Maybe pilots need to start using dash cams to try to capture some of these incidents. Of course, that assumes they care about the accuracy of their reports and don't just yell "drone" every time they see something out their window.

 

[erikgraham]

5,000 feet above sea level is possible. I fly that all the time. But 5,000 feet above ground level is hard to believe. Not impossible. But I doubt there was enough battery power left over to land.

 

[User Name]

But I doubt there was enough battery power left over to land.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[SurfnSkate81]

This article doesn't help our cause with Joe Blow - general public.

All they keep hearing is bad, bad, bad! And really who are they going to trust when they hear that it's the word of a pilot. Us or them? The general public would believe someone who is regarded so highly in society, a pilot. Not Jimmy from down the road who has a shiny new drone.

We are fighting an uphill battle here. One day we might actually get an unbiased view, and maybe for once a good news story about the people doing the right thing. But you know the media, bad things make better stories.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[erikgraham]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I guess I'm used to thinking in meters. So 5,000 feet is "only" 1,500 meters. So yeah, totally doable with enough battery left over to land.

 

[User Name]

I guess I'm used to thinking in meters. So 5,000 feet is "only" 1,500 meters. So yeah, totally doable with enough battery left over to land.

Ahhh, yer one of dem dar "metric" people, huh?

 

[erikgraham]

Ahhh, yer one of dem dar "metric" people, huh?

Kind of. I'm from the US, but when I started with drones years ago, metric was the standard in ardupilot and I got used to thinking in metric and have never switched over to imperial. At this point I just instinctively know what certain metric distance are. Also the math is easier for calculating speeds, etc.

 

[Maddog]

I'm surprised/ disappointed that none of the drone manufacturers are doing anything to combat this. This is their business that is slowly being regulated out of existence.

Do they really believe this isn't affecting their "bottom-line"?

If I was considering buying an expensive drone today, I probably wouldn't because there is a powerful "image" that you "can't fly anywhere" anymore.

Personally, I think the manufacturers should hire an attorney or an investigator to "investigate" these claimed sightings. Interview the pilots to see exactly what they saw.

What were they doing in the cockpit when the sighting occurred?
Were they distracted by their piloting duties?
What was their airspeed?
Where was the sun relative to the aircraft? (Were they blinded by it)?
How long did they see the "drone"? Can they describe it? Are they sure it was a drone?
Who else saw it?
How long had they been flying on the day of the sighting? (Were they tired)?

I imagine the pilots would refuse to be interviewed or answer questions. If they did, I would take that to the media and raise the question of believability of the pilot- why would the pilot refuse to talk about this if he was telling the truth?

Refusing to talk is evidence of nothing but it plants the seed of doubt.
And that can be the beginning of a campaign to save your business/ hobby.

I think reckless drone operators (I won't call them pilots) should be found and dealt with. But false or inaccurate sightings need to be dispelled.