Drone hovers right above jet landing at Las Vegas airport

[Kevin E. James]

Here is the video

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 can not really believe anyone thinks that is real?

 

[yt lee]

The video is real, the plane may be CG into the video. Unfortunately, the video is too low quality fit further analysis. From the video, we could do an analysis for camera position and focus length for the plane and the ground. If the whole video is real, the camera positions computed from the ground and the plane should match

 

[vision]

The exact location is known. It's not a shopping center, it's a community rec center/ park. It's in a suburb quite a ways from Vegas proper and the lighting is all correct for that time of day.

Watching a few aircraft on the same approach at the same point puts the aircraft at 3300feet (the parking lot is about 1700 feet above sea level) and the speed most likely somewhere around 135kts (typical for similar aircraft on the exact same approach).

As I said in an earlier post, the vid is real, and the aircraft *could* be rendered, but I'm actually leaning towards it being real based the consistency of the jello in the vid, even with the high compression that hides it somewhat.

Couple things stand out to me.

1. There are two fairly large shopping centers in the video. There appear to be ZERO vehicles in the parking lot. It looks like a smooth expanse of black.

2. The purported aircraft is approaching from the east with the sun going down. Yet there are *no* car headlights glinting, no street lights, no glare at all in fact until the camera faces directly into the sun. According to the flight schedule I saw, this is either a 343pm flight (from Austin), 512 pm (Madison) or 521 (Cincinnati). This is purportedly Las Vegas, a major city with rush hour. Yet the brief view of the interstate looks essentially empty.

3. The plane covers a distance of approximately 4 miles in 15 seconds of video. Obviously there is some video twiddling going on here with the slowdown, but I don't see any of the normal artifacts you get when speeding up a video 4x.

Of course, almost all of these could be the poor quality of the video. But my gut is leaning toward fancy editing.

As to the thread with facts... uh, my read is more that this is more speculation. There is a lot of "this was done but taken down quickly" and a lot of links that are dead, videos that don't exist or are unavailable. Kinda shaky as evidence and facts. But just my .02

I too am fervently hoping it is a fake. Which is almost certainly coloring my viewing of the video

 

[vision]

The guy that uploaded the video has shot with high quality onboard cams as well as some low quality cams that are very similar to the resolution / quality of the airliner vid.

The video is slowed in post as it transitions to the closeup.

I feel like I could barely see the heat signature even with the heavy compression / distortion.

The guy that posted the video (and no doubt shot it) is actually a fairly decent FPV racer with a very nice long range setup.

Unfortunately for him, he left a pretty damning clue in his take-off video for the FBI to use to pin it on him.

As someone who's worked in computer graphics for the past 2 decades, I have to say I very much doubt that the source video is fake or from a flight simulator. The lens distortions, the jittery movement, the jello in the footage, the slight lens flare... that would all be really, really difficult to simulate. So I think the footage is real.

Now, what I can't say for sure is if the airliner is real. It would be pretty easy to render a CG plane into real footage, and the low resolution and compression is a classic way to mask a too-clean render. It's obviously on-board video from a camera, not transmitted FPV video, and what on-board camera would take such low res video or compress it so badly? And who would pull a stunt like this and not get the best footage they could. A few things bother me:

-The plane is covering a lot of ground each frame as soon as it becomes visible, but conveniently appears much slower for the close up. The opposite should be true - it should appear slower as it approaches and then scream by. Let's say the plane is traveling at 150 mph, which is in the general range of an approach. Divide by 60 twice and you get 220 feet per second. At 30 frames per second, that's over 7 feet per frame. Yet there's no motion blur on the plane. Stand on a highway overpass and see if you can capture a car passing at 65 mph with no motion blur, panning with it perfectly, and that's only half the speed of the plane.

-There would be a very large wake/vortex behind that plane, but the drone seems entirely unaffected as it drops down behind it. The ending roll looks like the typical FPV freestyle snap roll vs. being caught in major turbulence.

-There is no heat distortion behind the engines. Hard to see because of the low res and the compression, but if you look frame by frame of the houses on the left and the road on the right, as the plane passes, there is no distortion at all.

If it is real, the pilot is either extraordinarily good or extraordinarily lucky to nail that timing and pan perfectly. And if he was that good, why would they only capture or post such shitty quality footage?

I'm not putting it passed some idiot to try to do something like this, and I reserve the right to change my mind if better quality footage shows up, but if I had to place a bet, I'd say it's a CG plane.

 

[vision]

I can not really believe anyone thinks that is real?

I've been working with digital video for decades. I'm leaning towards it being real, despite how *fake* it looks at first glance. There are several factors that make it look fake, just as there are several factors that make Starman look fake to someone who has no photography background(i.e. the "where are the stars, its fake" folks)

 

[vision]

definitely not an average hobbyist, rather an FPV racer with a long distance Crossfire setup.

Yeah is not the average hobbyist that commits this acts and if it is, they need to be put in jail, but the one that goes buys a drone to take pictures, videos and doesn't care to know that there are safety regulations and operational regulations to avoid harm with these types of equipment that could get out of control without warning.

 

[just_bruce]

I've been working with digital video for decades. I'm leaning towards it being real, despite how *fake* it looks at first glance. There are several factors that make it look fake, just as there are several factors that make Starman look fake to someone who has no photography background(i.e. the "where are the stars, its fake" folks)

Care to share what those factors are?

I also fail to understand why everyone thinks the "jello" and camera shake couldn't be rendered? It's not a complex phenomenon. It is vibration overlaid onto a rolling shutter. Completely calculable and thus able to be rendered. But I don't have decades in the field so maybe someone can educate my low-rent @$$?

 

[Ledesma45]

Yeap an fpv retarded hobbiest, endangering the hobby for everybody else for being an irresponsible bigget with an ego bigger than his ding dong.

 

[vision]

Irishman quite eloquently provided an extensive analysis in his post.

The compression level really makes it impossible to make a precise determination, but one of the biggest factors is the fact that the background video is 100% real and the location is right in the approach path of the airport.

So now the only question is whether or not the background video was shot when there were no aircraft in the vicinity or when there was an aircraft on approach (as this video depicts).

Care to share what those factors are?

I also fail to understand why everyone thinks the "jello" and camera shake couldn't be rendered? It's not a complex phenomenon. It is vibration overlaid onto a rolling shutter. Completely calculable and thus able to be rendered. But I don't have decades in the field so maybe someone can educate my low-rent @$$?

 

[Ledesma45]

It doesn't matter weather there was or not an aircraft in the air, it is still a restricted RC aircraft flying area.

 

[vision]

I understand your point, but there is actually a huge difference.

In one scenario, you have two geeks from the FAA knocking on your door.

In the other scenario, you have two geeks from the FAA accompanied by two gun toting, handcuff fondling FBI agents at your door.

It doesn't matter weather there was or not an aircraft in the air, it is still a restricted RC aircraft flying area.

 

[Liquidpage]

Let's assume the video is 100% real. Why worry about the one video the pilot posted. Why not worry about the hundred or so attempts it took for him to get the drone in the exact location, turned the perfect direction to show the plane approaching, then the timing and perfect roll necessary to show the plane in every frame and be able to end up directly above and behind the tail of the plane as it flew past. He had to fly over every airplane that landed at that airport for a week just to get that one video. And after all that, he was able to capture the video without the first shadow of that massive aircraft.

 

[IrishmanPDX]

Care to share what those factors are?

I also fail to understand why everyone thinks the "jello" and camera shake couldn't be rendered? It's not a complex phenomenon. It is vibration overlaid onto a rolling shutter. Completely calculable and thus able to be rendered. But I don't have decades in the field so maybe someone can educate my low-rent @$$?

No one is saying that the camera shake and jello couldn't be rendered. It was merely pointed out that usually such video's don't feature that level of detail, it's something that's overlooked when fake video's are being made (see other video's of drones filming aircraft, hitting aircraft etc).

 

[just_bruce]

Ah. OK

 

[IrishmanPDX]

Ah. OK

Funnily enough, if the video featured a pair of boobs at the start, the debate about "real vs fake" would have been over in a few seconds... Yeah... keeping it classy!

 

[Maxheadspace]

Let's face it, the only reason drone videos shoot to the top of the news is because of the public's mistrust of drones and distrust of drone operators...

This is how the public see's drones:

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 think DJI is working those features into its Phantom 5...

 

[XevetS]

And now this uh ohhh

Charleston helicopter crash blamed on drone; FAA investigating


And Quote " Copyright 2018 WCSC. All rights reserved

DANIEL ISLAND, SC (WCSC) -

Federal authorities are investigating a helicopter crash that happened Wednesday near the southern tip of Daniel Island.

A Robinson R22 helicopter struck a tree and crash-landed Wednesday afternoon, according to Federal Aviation Administration spokesperson Kathleen Bergen.

Charleston Police met with the two passengers of the crash later that afternoon, according to an incident report.

The instructor told police he is a private helicopter instructor and was giving a lesson to a student pilot at approximately 3:30 p.m. While the student was practicing "low impact and hover taxi maneuvers" above undeveloped land on Daniel Island, they turned and saw a white "DJI Phantom quad-copter" drone headed into their airspace, the report states.

Police say the instructor took controls of the helicopter to avoid the drone and while attempting to land, the helicopter's tail rudder struck a small tree, causing him to lose control of the helicopter.

The instructor was able to land the helicopter on its rear landing skids but it turned over on its side, the report states.

The instructor notified the owner of the helicopter and FAA investigators.

The student told police they were about 50 feet above the tree line when the drone entered their fly space. She said when the helicopter struck the tree, several pieces of the helicopter hit surrounding brush causing the helicopter to turn on its side when it landed.

The FAA is investigating the incident.

No injuries were reported. "

 

[Liquidpage]

they turned and saw a white "DJI Phantom quad-copter" drone headed into their airspace, the report states.

Police say the instructor took controls of the helicopter to avoid the drone and while attempting to land, the helicopter's tail rudder struck a small tree, causing him to lose control of the helicopter.
"

So they were flying just about the tree tops, saw a white drone "headed into their airspace" and the instructor crashed the copter. Hum, everybody knows all white drones are DJI Phantoms and seeing one of them would require crashing the copter. I wonder what they would do if they saw a large bird?

 

[IrishmanPDX]

Yeah bit of a story there alright.

"instructor took controls of the helicopter to avoid the drone and while attempting to land, the helicopter's tail rudder struck a small tree, causing him to lose control of the helicopter."

So they had already avoided said drone, end sentence. Begin new sentence "while attempting to land, the helicopter's tail rudder struck a small tree," So essentially it was lack of spacial awareness by the instructor during landing which caused an accident. I think it's obvious about what should happen here. Someone should throw the book ....... at that tree...

Seriously, how many tree's have caused drones serious damages? The FAA better do something about all them tree's out there....

 

[User Name]

It truly is an indication of the absurd hysteria built up around drones when a pilot takes his chances with a tree over the possibility of an encounter with a drone.

It would be interesting to know exactly where it happened and the location's proximity to the nearest airfield. If it was outside the 5 mile radius, and it was an "undeveloped area", and the heli pilot was practicing treetop maneuvers... Well, at some point there needs to be acceptance on both sides that the airspace needs to be shared.

I would have suggested the drone pilot should have heard the presence of a nearby helicopter, but a few years ago, I was flying at a local fairgrounds and honestly without any warning, an airplane buzzed probably not 150 feet above treetop level. I literally didn't hear it before seeing it. When an airplane/helicopter is low, I think trees in the line of sight between it and an observer significantly scatter and absorb sound waves.