No I don't think so, I am not a full scale pilot so I do not know the correct answer.. Never the less, the drone should have not been seen in the flight path of the airliner ,regardless of altitude or distance.
If the pilot did see the drone (quad) it's too close in my opinion.

They just need to equip full scale AC with phasers which can shoot down drones.:p

How long are y'all going to put down quad copter pilots? WE ARE ALL NOT LIKE THAT! I fly mine (3) responsibly all the time. I take offence at all these accusations.

If you fly inside the rules, you're not the one everyone wants to stop flying. You need to look at the guy that doesn't know or care about the rules and feels that the rules apply to everyone else and not him. It's like the guy driving down the freeway at 90+MPH even though the posted limit is 60. He doesn't care about the law and he's playing games with the local law officers, daring them to stop him

DAMN HD, you need to slow down your fingers so I can get in a legit post;)

HJ: Learn to type faster LOL Hydro Junkie that something with warter craft not TOY planes right?

Hey HJ have U ever floen or attended a jet rally on Whidbey Island?

Yes.

See link for approach plate to Birmingham, AL.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1504/00050IL6.PDF

The final approach fix is at 2200 MSL, or 1550 ft above the ground at 4.1 nm (4.7 statute miles). The descent begins there, so at 3 to 4 statute miles 1200 AGL is quite a normal altitude.

This is a very normal ILS instrument approach profile so it would apply at many airports. Many smaller airports without instrument approaches have a light system (VASI) that allows/encourages aircraft to fly the same descent profile as an ILS so the same altitude/distances can apply at most any airport.

Many non-precision approaches include a descent earlier than this - arriving at minimum descent altitude (400 to 600 AGL typically) earlier than a continuous descent to the runway as in an ILS so below 1200 AGL at 3 miles is quite common.

We had an issue here (KBHM) recently with a "drone" reported at 3400 MSL five miles from the airport a while back right on the route to intercept the final approach course. While I am a long time modeler - 40 years - I also fly airplanes for a living, I would like to keep doing both.

Something to think about: Pilots don't spend a lot of time deciding how big a rock we can throw at someone without hurting them. Perhaps the discussion about how big a model aircraft can hit us without hurting is a bit out of bounds.

Bryan

i dont thinl our country has any say what the drones do in other countrys>>we need more action herethen just talk> try not to buy any models or supplies from any one see how fast they stop selling drones>

Come on now [email protected]; caulm down ... Just cause U don't fly Quads" doesn't mean they should not be allowed to fly. U don't go fly your 40 percenter in frone of an air liner and neither should any one....If U really care and would like to be effective speak with the propioter of your LHS (Local Hobby Shop) if U trully don't buy aevery thing mail order. Speak to them and try to get them to explain to tne no Educatated purchacing a QUAD that are (Rules safety codes and FAR's) that They are responsible to know and abide by. This benifits all of us R/C flyers the FAA the General Public and the LHS and the person that will ultiminitly be responsible for the proper operation of they new R/C Quad. If U can't approach our problem of the UN educated not even knowing there are (Rules Safety Codesand FAR's) that they have to follow then U are the problen not a soluition.
I' don't believe That U are the problem but if U continue badmouthing an part of our R/C Hobby/Sport whet choice do I have in what I believe. Go back into many of these Forums and look at the Ideas I've tried to get accross to my fellow R/Cers that it's a matter of education not banning Quads out right. Long time ago I thought that maybe thay should BAN Fomies and 3D flyers cause they made the runway enviroment unsafe for othrs taking off and landing. Problem solved most gave up Fomies for real TOY airplanes and the 3Ders must have gotton board with hanging around and doing nothing really difficult. Now we have the problem with the pattern and IMac guys .... Just Kidding put that noose away PLZ.

Thanks Bryan, For me that confirms that the drone pilot was an stupid idiot! As busy as Dulles Airport is (1000 to 1200 flights per day) the drone pilot had to know he was in the approach and had to be flying there deliberately.

Education will only help with the ignorant, not the stupid..............

hound dog sorry u took things the wrong way>>but let them fly the drones>> talk has been going on for a year now what has really been done?with all the rc flyers you would think we could stop all the talk about them and do more action?

The one thing that gets overlooked in these discussions are the IFR circling areas around airports.

I agree with your numbers for an ILS approach or a visual approach on the PAPI - 3 degrees (IE 300 feet per nautical mile distance from the runway)

But airports can have a variety of instrument approaches and some of these allow for visual circling - The size of the circling area is based on aircraft performance (landing speeds) in 5 categories.

Look at Category E in the following diagram and see how the 4.5 nautical miles (about 5.2 miles) is calculated.

An aircraft circling in this area after an instrument approach could be at 400 feet AGL at 5 miles from the airport.

In other countries these circling areas can be even larger - Eg - Australia - Category D is 5.28 Nautical miles (9.8 kilometres) which means an aircraft can legally be flying at 400 feet nearly 10 kilometres from the runway.

How many drone pilots know that?

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2092257http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2092258http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2092259http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2092260

Good point; I'd ask "How many RC pilots know that?" There's a fair number of these "drone" reports that are not NOT quads. Yet another reason why a cap on RC Ops at 400' AGL makes abundant sense.

In my mind, that will be the next shoe to drop if there continues to be conflicts. FAA will turn 91-57 from voluntary compliance to mandatory compliance.

A hydro is a shorter way of referring to a hydroplane which, to the uninformed, is a boat that actually flies over the water using ground effects to support it while at racing speeds. The boats are, for lack of a better way to put it, an airfoil with stabilizer floats along both sides. I race 1/8 scale and smaller classes of hydros in the Pacific Northwest, hence the name. As far as the jet rallies, never been to one though, years ago I did see some flying from the Coupeville runway complex the Navy maintains for carrier landing training.
This will probably have some asking why I would be in this thread. I'm building several boats AND AIRCRAFT at the moment and want to be able to fly the planes when done. The people that are recklessly operating(I can't call it flying since electronics are actually doing that) these quads are endangering my right to fly my planes when completed, thus making the possibility that my models will be relegated to shelf queens a real issue

Hydro: you hit the nail on the head! That is what this is about. Please take a look at the very first post of this thread, it says the same thing.

Franklin: I was guessing about the altitude, I was correct and did not reply. I did edit my post because I did not know for sure, what the correct answer was. I figured 300FT per mile, in a decent was normal, but really not sure. So for 4 miles the decent would be around 1200ft,AGL at the 300 ft. decent rate. Is that correct?. I think so.

let our toys bring down a airplane with people being hurt or killed-it will not matter how high we were or how low we were or where we were flying it. We will be at fault.

What would you propose that should be done? Anyway it's really up to the FAA if anything is going to be done.

Well said, And I do think education or the like thereof is part of the problem but I also think the the FAA needs to turn up the heat on the the rogue flyers and pretty much leave alone
those of us that fly at dedicated flying sites.

Very soon San Francisco will band all quad copters to fly around the area of the San Francisco bridge, they are requesting permission from the FAA to make it legally binding to any violators.