Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12192147)

It would if the FAA would bother themselves with NextGen. Anything with a transponder would show up on the pilots info and collision avoidance system. But the FAA cares nothing about NextGen.

Originally Posted by IFlyEm35 (Post 12192305)

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.

Originally Posted by IFlyEm35 (Post 12192342)

Close. You'll lose the engine, respective hyd raulics, generator, and bleed. But you don't really lose anything system wise but redundancy. All critical systems can generally be supported with one engine inoperative.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12192147)

It would if the FAA would bother themselves with NextGen. Anything with a transponder would show up on the pilots info and collision avoidance system. But the FAA cares nothing about NextGen.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12192358)

So why are these pilots not avoiding the drones? They fly straight through. I know it is possible to see a drone and recognize it, but how far out can you see it?

Originally Posted by porcia83 (Post 12192394)

And you arrive at the conclusion based on what?

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie (Post 12192400)

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

Originally Posted by rgburrill (Post 12192403)

I didn't get and don't expect an answer for my similar question. I don't expect you will get one either.

Originally Posted by mike1974 (Post 12192318)

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?

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12192358)

So why are these pilots not avoiding the drones? They fly straight through. I know it is possible to see a drone and recognize it, but how far out can you see it?

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie (Post 12192336)

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

Originally Posted by porcia83 (Post 12192394)

And you arrive at the conclusion based on what?

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie (Post 12192400)

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

Originally Posted by FLAPHappy (Post 12192405)

+1 The pilot may see a dot on an approach, then the aircraft has already passed it. The pilot is looking at the runway, instruments and concentrating on landing.

Originally Posted by IFlyEm35 (Post 12192539)

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..

Originally Posted by Rob2160 (Post 12192610)

Damn, if all of that is true I will quit flying tomorrow...

No offense but what specific aircraft type are you talking about?

None of what you said is accurate in the jet aircraft I fly.

Originally Posted by IFlyEm35 (Post 12192539)

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..

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12192625)

With NextGen they would see it way before they are on approach.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12192623)

Based on empty buildings waiting on NextGen gear. Nothing coming and inaction on FAA's part.

Originally Posted by rgburrill (Post 12192682)

What NextGen product would tell a pilot of a full scale aircraft that a microUAS was in his landing pattern? I haven't seen any in any of the documentation I have read on NextGen.

Originally Posted by rgburrill (Post 12192684)

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.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12192714)

CAS! IflyEm said they should put transponders on drones. NextGen will have improved CAS systems.