Another Drone Pilot does it Again
03-21-2016, 10:05 AM
#2901
Pray tell, what direct experience do you have with NextGen? At what FAA aeronautical center do you work? You've mentioned the above several times.
03-21-2016, 10:06 AM
#2902
But you're forgetting one thing Mike, An overdose is self inflicted and only the one taking the excessive amount dies. With a DUI involved accident, only the people in the vehicles involved are normally hurt. If a plane goes down due to a drone strike, the passengers are helpless victims that will probably die without any way of saving themselves.
03-21-2016, 10:17 AM
#2903
Are you an airline pilot? I am. ALPA does have safety concerns and every time stuff like this happens it validates those concerns. However, there is not a plot out there by airline pilots to ground R/C aircraft or make false reports about drones. Especially ones from other countries.
My point about the balloons and birds is that it's not difficult to identify things that you encounter in flight. And yes birds and balloons do get reported if the pilot feels there is a potential impact to other aircraft...I.e. the objects are right on the approach. As for drones, I'm pretty sure a Phantom would do significant damage if it during an airliner doing 200-250 kts. That's why it's getting press.
My point about the balloons and birds is that it's not difficult to identify things that you encounter in flight. And yes birds and balloons do get reported if the pilot feels there is a potential impact to other aircraft...I.e. the objects are right on the approach. As for drones, I'm pretty sure a Phantom would do significant damage if it during an airliner doing 200-250 kts. That's why it's getting press.
let me spell out the ramifications of a twin turbine jetliner eating a quad:
1) You immediately lose all thrust from the affected engine making the plane harder to control as the remaining engine must be run at full throttle to keep the plane airborne
2) You immediately lose all electrical power generated by that engine as well as any systems dedicated to that generators bus(power system)
3) You immediately lose all hydraulic pressure generated by that engine. This means that part of the flight controls will no longer work so the plane will be sluggish, at best, answering the control inputs
4) You will no longer be able to use the engine's thrust reversers. With one engine out, using the thrust reverser on the good engine will spin the plane, possibly with catastrophic results
5) You will have to stop the plane using just the brakes, IF THEY STILL WORK THAT IS. Since a "go around" won't be an option due to lack of thrust, the plane will have to land faster than normal. Using just brakes to stop can result in a plane that over-runs the end of the runway, again with potential catastrophic results.
Just to be clear, these are not things that "might happen", THEY WILL HAPPEN AS SOON AS THE QUAD HITS THE FRONT FAN OF THE ENGINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If I can prevent someone from getting a quad into the path of an airliner, that's 200+ people that won't be going to the hospital or, worse yet, the morgue
03-21-2016, 10:34 AM
#2905
03-21-2016, 12:47 PM
#2908
The planes are either on final approach or climbing out in very narrow corridors. With the gear, flaps and slats down and flying at slow speed, maneuvering around a quad is the last thing the pilots want to do. One mistake and the plane goes in nose first under those conditions
03-21-2016, 12:57 PM
#2909
03-21-2016, 01:00 PM
#2910
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (209)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: right here
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The planes are either on final approach or climbing out in very narrow corridors. With the gear, flaps and slats down and flying at slow speed, maneuvering around a quad is the last thing the pilots want to do. One mistake and the plane goes in nose first under those conditions
03-21-2016, 05:26 PM
#2912
I understand what you are saying and I do not disagree with it. My problem though, is that it HAS NOT happened. No lives have been lost due to a drone strike. FPV has been flown for 10 years now!!! No lives lost. With that said, how many poeple will die today in alcohol related accidents? How about drug overdoses thanks to the Pharmaceutical Industry? These are real lives and real families who have ACTUALLY died, yet we are more concerened with regulating a HOBBY to death over a perceived "threat" that has yet to materialize into anything other than hysteria?
That is exactly it "A perceived Threat" especially with what is referred to as Traditional Model Aviation Which has an exemplary record for the last 80+ years. Yes Traditional Model Aviation may/are by FAA's Definition are "DRONES". What They are NOT is the type of drone that is a possible/perceived danger to the flying public. Ask anyone What they think a drone is, and u will get, almost to 100% an answer referring to a Quad type device.
It is all a result of the AMA trying to (After being in discussions/Negotiations with the FAA for 7 or 8 years) Going to Congress and trying to preempt the FAA with the Amendment #336.
03-21-2016, 06:27 PM
#2913
Multiple reasons. Mainly even though you can identify objects when they go by at 200+ mph they are there and behind you pretty quick. There isn't enough time to really make much of an evasive maneuver. Airliners that are dirtied up aren't the most nimble machines. And even if they were you can run into issues with aircraft on parallel approaches..
03-22-2016, 03:11 AM
#2914
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of curiosity, would you agree with this post I made in another thread?
let me spell out the ramifications of a twin turbine jetliner eating a quad:
1) You immediately lose all thrust from the affected engine making the plane harder to control as the remaining engine must be run at full throttle to keep the plane airborne
2) You immediately lose all electrical power generated by that engine as well as any systems dedicated to that generators bus(power system)
3) You immediately lose all hydraulic pressure generated by that engine. This means that part of the flight controls will no longer work so the plane will be sluggish, at best, answering the control inputs
4) You will no longer be able to use the engine's thrust reversers. With one engine out, using the thrust reverser on the good engine will spin the plane, possibly with catastrophic results
5) You will have to stop the plane using just the brakes, IF THEY STILL WORK THAT IS. Since a "go around" won't be an option due to lack of thrust, the plane will have to land faster than normal. Using just brakes to stop can result in a plane that over-runs the end of the runway, again with potential catastrophic results.
Just to be clear, these are not things that "might happen", THEY WILL HAPPEN AS SOON AS THE QUAD HITS THE FRONT FAN OF THE ENGINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If I can prevent someone from getting a quad into the path of an airliner, that's 200+ people that won't be going to the hospital or, worse yet, the morgue
let me spell out the ramifications of a twin turbine jetliner eating a quad:
1) You immediately lose all thrust from the affected engine making the plane harder to control as the remaining engine must be run at full throttle to keep the plane airborne
2) You immediately lose all electrical power generated by that engine as well as any systems dedicated to that generators bus(power system)
3) You immediately lose all hydraulic pressure generated by that engine. This means that part of the flight controls will no longer work so the plane will be sluggish, at best, answering the control inputs
4) You will no longer be able to use the engine's thrust reversers. With one engine out, using the thrust reverser on the good engine will spin the plane, possibly with catastrophic results
5) You will have to stop the plane using just the brakes, IF THEY STILL WORK THAT IS. Since a "go around" won't be an option due to lack of thrust, the plane will have to land faster than normal. Using just brakes to stop can result in a plane that over-runs the end of the runway, again with potential catastrophic results.
Just to be clear, these are not things that "might happen", THEY WILL HAPPEN AS SOON AS THE QUAD HITS THE FRONT FAN OF THE ENGINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If I can prevent someone from getting a quad into the path of an airliner, that's 200+ people that won't be going to the hospital or, worse yet, the morgue
No offense but what specific aircraft type are you talking about?
None of what you said is accurate in the jet aircraft I fly.
Last edited by Rob2160; 03-22-2016 at 03:24 AM.
03-22-2016, 03:52 AM
#2916
The planes are either on final approach or climbing out in very narrow corridors. With the gear, flaps and slats down and flying at slow speed, maneuvering around a quad is the last thing the pilots want to do. One mistake and the plane goes in nose first under those conditions
03-22-2016, 03:53 AM
#2917
He would see it before he is on approach. And even if so he is supposed to abandon landing and respond to his CAS.
03-22-2016, 03:57 AM
#2918
Multiple reasons. Mainly even though you can identify objects when they go by at 200+ mph they are there and behind you pretty quick. There isn't enough time to really make much of an evasive maneuver. Airliners that are dirtied up aren't the most nimble machines. And even if they were you can run into issues with aircraft on parallel approaches..
03-22-2016, 03:59 AM
#2919
That is because Hydro only understand model airplane jet engines. He doesn't understand that real jet engines are more durable. He just doesn't understand them.
03-22-2016, 05:53 AM
#2920
Multiple reasons. Mainly even though you can identify objects when they go by at 200+ mph they are there and behind you pretty quick. There isn't enough time to really make much of an evasive maneuver. Airliners that are dirtied up aren't the most nimble machines. And even if they were you can run into issues with aircraft on parallel approaches..
03-22-2016, 05:59 AM
#2921
03-22-2016, 06:02 AM
#2922
Do you understand that Congress must provide the funding for the FAA for NextGen products? And Congress hasn't passed anything for the FAA other than continuing resolutions for years.
03-22-2016, 06:46 AM
#2923
CAS! IflyEm said they should put transponders on drones. NextGen will have improved CAS systems.
03-22-2016, 06:50 AM
#2924
Congress has provided funding. Back in 2013 the FAA said they had enough funding. They keep dragging their feet claiming this technical issue then that, then they go back to funding. We have a building ready to accept NextGen since 2010.
03-22-2016, 07:42 AM
#2925
Shoulda, coulda, woulda. There is no NextGen CAS system for model aircraft. Nor is there any requirement for one - YET There is a company that has built a micro ADS-B Out type of transmitter but doesn't show compatibility with the ADS-B Out spec yet. And it's pretty expensive.