Full scale near miss!!
03-29-2014, 04:09 PM
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (8)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Thomasville,
GA
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full scale near miss!!
I received the following from the AMA a couple of days ago. Scary!!On Saturday, March 22[SUP]nd[/SUP], the AMA was notified by the FAA of a near miss between a US Airways Express regional jet and a radio control model aircraft.
As reported, Bluestreak Airlines (commuter connection for US Airways) was enroute from Charlotte, NC to Tallahassee, FL. At approximately 2pm the regional jet was on the downwind leg to Runway 36 at TLH when the pilot observed a radio controlled aircraft pass by his window. The pilot reported that at the time his aircraft was 2,300’ above the ground and 5 miles northeast of the Tallahassee airport. The pilot reported the incident to the Tallahassee control tower. Upon landing, the airline pilot inspected his aircraft and found there was no damage.
When later asked about the incident, the airline pilot described the model as small camouflaged colored F-4 fixed wing aircraft.
In reviewing this incident it was found that there are no AMA chartered club flying sites near this location and it is unlikely the model aircraft was owned or operated by a member of the AMA. Nevertheless, the incident is concerning and all modelers need to understand the safety concerns and the possible ramifications of such an event.
By law, model aircraft are required to be “operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any mannedAircraft”. The AMA Safety Code requires modelers to yield the right of way to all human-carrying aircraft and to See and Avoid all aircraft in accordance with AMA document #540-D.
If you have any information regarding this incident, please contact AMA’s Government and Regulatory Affairs Representative Rich Hanson at, (888) 899-3548, or email to [email protected].
-- Safety Notice --
As reported, Bluestreak Airlines (commuter connection for US Airways) was enroute from Charlotte, NC to Tallahassee, FL. At approximately 2pm the regional jet was on the downwind leg to Runway 36 at TLH when the pilot observed a radio controlled aircraft pass by his window. The pilot reported that at the time his aircraft was 2,300’ above the ground and 5 miles northeast of the Tallahassee airport. The pilot reported the incident to the Tallahassee control tower. Upon landing, the airline pilot inspected his aircraft and found there was no damage.
When later asked about the incident, the airline pilot described the model as small camouflaged colored F-4 fixed wing aircraft.
In reviewing this incident it was found that there are no AMA chartered club flying sites near this location and it is unlikely the model aircraft was owned or operated by a member of the AMA. Nevertheless, the incident is concerning and all modelers need to understand the safety concerns and the possible ramifications of such an event.
By law, model aircraft are required to be “operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any mannedAircraft”. The AMA Safety Code requires modelers to yield the right of way to all human-carrying aircraft and to See and Avoid all aircraft in accordance with AMA document #540-D.
If you have any information regarding this incident, please contact AMA’s Government and Regulatory Affairs Representative Rich Hanson at, (888) 899-3548, or email to [email protected].
................
03-30-2014, 07:51 PM
#4
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is what I was thinking. Flying any R/C aircraft at that altitude would be virtually impossible without FPV equipment. I am no expert, but as far as I know, the Phantom is not a common FPV platform.
03-30-2014, 11:48 PM
#5
Absolutely no way for an identification like that unless a skilled RC pilot tried to fly formation with the commuter jet. I've had several near misses with hawks flying GA and there is no way to get any kind of ID on something that small. Is the National Guard still flying F4's? That would be more likely.
03-31-2014, 10:34 AM
#6
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely no way for an identification like that unless a skilled RC pilot tried to fly formation with the commuter jet. I've had several near misses with hawks flying GA and there is no way to get any kind of ID on something that small. Is the National Guard still flying F4's? That would be more likely.
However, if it was a full-scale F4, then why was air traffic control unaware of its presence? I am pretty sure that the other aircraft would have to have been in contact with air traffic control, given its reported location. Based on my quick and dirty measurements, the TLH tower controls all airspace, from the surface up to 4,100 feet from the center of the airport to a 6 Nautical Mile radius. It also controls all airspace between 1,400 feet and 4,100 feel in on "outer ring" than extends approx 13NM from the airport (refer to the Sectional Chart). The report does not state whether the incident took place 5 nautical miles or 5 statute miles from the airport, but if the pilot spotted a full-scale aircraft, it's a pretty safe bet that the other aircraft was in controlled airspace (it's pretty much a certainty, if the incident took place above 1,400 ft.) Pilots do occasionally screw up and fly into controlled airspace without notifying ATC, but this is rare, especially for a military pilot.
I can't figure out what happened here. If the incident took place below 1,000' or so, I would be far more willing to believe the pilot of the airliner. I would also be more convinced if the supposed model aircraft was seen by other full-scale pilots. That said, if the pilot did not see a model airplane, then what was it that he did see?
03-31-2014, 02:46 PM
#7
If the full scale pilot reported a model F4 , I guess we'll just have to take his word on it .
What I DO find odd is the OP's use of the "cool"
emocation as a header for the thread , there is most certainly nothing cool about a model coming close enough to a full scale to alarm the full scale pilot !
What I DO find odd is the OP's use of the "cool"
emocation as a header for the thread , there is most certainly nothing cool about a model coming close enough to a full scale to alarm the full scale pilot !
03-31-2014, 04:17 PM
#9
Is supposed to be the scary one since it says "EEK" in it's listing , but it looks like a toothless grin from my view . Happy Flying ..
03-31-2014, 06:03 PM
#10
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come to think of it, the ful lsclae pilot would have to have gotten a really good look at the model to determine that it was an F4, as opposed to some other kind of jet.
05-12-2014, 11:36 AM
#11
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtesy of Avweb.com:
Airliner Reports Near Miss With A Drone (Or An RC?) [TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]
[TABLE="width: 170, align: right"]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
A regional airliner on approach to Tallahassee, Fla., in March nearly collided with a drone, an FAA official said on Thursday. Speaking before a drone conference in San Francisco, Jim Williams, head of the FAA's UAV office, said the near-collision occurred at about 2300 feet near Tallahassee Regional Airport in Florida. The flight was operated by USAirways, part of the American Airlines Group, and the pilot was quoted as saying the drone was so close that he thought the airliner hit it, according to The Wall Street Journal. An inspection of the aircraft revealed no damage, nor did Williams offer any information about what kind of UAV was involved or who owned it. Meanwhile, American Airlines is continuing to investigate the incident.
The FAA said USAirways 4650 was en route from Charlotte when it passed the drone, which he described as "a camouflaged F-4 fixed-wing aircraft that was quite small," suggesting that the aircraft could have been an RC aircraft rather than a UAV. The incident follows another one at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York in March 2013, when an Alitalia flight approaching JFK spotted a quadcopter-type UAV at a distance of about 200 feet. The FAA and FBI continue to investigate that incident. Meanwhile, the FAA has been criticized for dragging its feet on regulations that would safely integrate UAVs into the national airspace system. The topic is expected to be discussed at the AUVSI exposition in Orlando next week.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Airliner Reports Near Miss With A Drone (Or An RC?) [TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]
[TABLE="width: 170, align: right"]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD][/TR]
[/TABLE]
A regional airliner on approach to Tallahassee, Fla., in March nearly collided with a drone, an FAA official said on Thursday. Speaking before a drone conference in San Francisco, Jim Williams, head of the FAA's UAV office, said the near-collision occurred at about 2300 feet near Tallahassee Regional Airport in Florida. The flight was operated by USAirways, part of the American Airlines Group, and the pilot was quoted as saying the drone was so close that he thought the airliner hit it, according to The Wall Street Journal. An inspection of the aircraft revealed no damage, nor did Williams offer any information about what kind of UAV was involved or who owned it. Meanwhile, American Airlines is continuing to investigate the incident.
The FAA said USAirways 4650 was en route from Charlotte when it passed the drone, which he described as "a camouflaged F-4 fixed-wing aircraft that was quite small," suggesting that the aircraft could have been an RC aircraft rather than a UAV. The incident follows another one at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York in March 2013, when an Alitalia flight approaching JFK spotted a quadcopter-type UAV at a distance of about 200 feet. The FAA and FBI continue to investigate that incident. Meanwhile, the FAA has been criticized for dragging its feet on regulations that would safely integrate UAVs into the national airspace system. The topic is expected to be discussed at the AUVSI exposition in Orlando next week.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
05-14-2014, 05:20 AM
#12
Senior Member
I can not verify this but I have been told that this was not a model aircraft but possibly a real F4 under remote control by the military. This makes much more sense as I doubt that a real plane and a model of an F4 could be close enough to properly identify under such flight conditions.
05-14-2014, 06:01 AM
#13
There has already been one proven case of a terrorist planning to use an RC jet for an attack against the White House.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...oiled-FBI-says
Is it a total stretch to consider that someone might try to take down a plane the same way?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...oiled-FBI-says
Is it a total stretch to consider that someone might try to take down a plane the same way?
05-21-2014, 01:22 PM
#16
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By law, model aircraft are required to be “operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned Aircraft”.
05-21-2014, 05:40 PM
#17
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This quote was from the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Section 336, paragraph 4.) I am not an attorney, but this looks like a law to me.
Furthermore, AMA members should not expect the AMA to payment for a claim, if injury or damage occurs while the pilot is deliberately violating the AMA safety code (or federal law.)
Furthermore, AMA members should not expect the AMA to payment for a claim, if injury or damage occurs while the pilot is deliberately violating the AMA safety code (or federal law.)
05-21-2014, 10:06 PM
#18
This quote was from the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Section 336, paragraph 4.) I am not an attorney, but this looks like a law to me.
Furthermore, AMA members should not expect the AMA to payment for a claim, if injury or damage occurs while the pilot is deliberately violating the AMA safety code (or federal law.)
Furthermore, AMA members should not expect the AMA to payment for a claim, if injury or damage occurs while the pilot is deliberately violating the AMA safety code (or federal law.)
Under the upcoming FAA rules that have yet to appear if models are flown according to the AMA safety code the FAA will not regulate said models but as I understand it none
of this is in effect yet. But it is true currently not following the AMA safety code can put your AMA insurance coverage at risk.
The FAA has been talking about new rules for model aircraft and uas craft for about five years but keep delaying them. It would seem to me that untill the new laws take effect
and modelers are notified the FAA is not regulating models, As for not regulating models flown under AMA rules we don't really know how that will play out.
05-22-2014, 06:23 AM
#19
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under the upcoming FAA rules that have yet to appear if models are flown according to the AMA safety code the FAA will not regulate said models but as I understand it none
of this is in effect yet. But it is true currently not following the AMA safety code can put your AMA insurance coverage at risk.
The FAA has been talking about new rules for model aircraft and uas craft for about five years but keep delaying them. It would seem to me that until the new laws take effect
and modelers are notified the FAA is not regulating models, As for not regulating models flown under AMA rules we don't really know how that will play out.
of this is in effect yet. But it is true currently not following the AMA safety code can put your AMA insurance coverage at risk.
The FAA has been talking about new rules for model aircraft and uas craft for about five years but keep delaying them. It would seem to me that until the new laws take effect
and modelers are notified the FAA is not regulating models, As for not regulating models flown under AMA rules we don't really know how that will play out.
05-22-2014, 06:30 AM
#20
Good points. However, it should also be noted that inappropriate operation of aircraft can cause legal problems, even if the AMA and the FAA are not involved. The terrorist mentioned previously is one example. The guy who refused to land a model when ordered to do so by a law enforcement officer is another example. Even if he was technically compliant with the AMA guidelines and FAA regulations, refusal to obey an order from a sworn officer (and/or hindering emergency personnel) is a crime in most states.
