The picture above is representative of the R/C remotely piloted model aircraft that was described in other articles concerning the near miss incident.
A Federal Aviation Administration official warned this week about the dangers of even small unmanned aircraft, pointing specifically to a recent close call involving a drone and commercial airliner that could have caused "catastrophic" results.
Then, Williams segued to a pilot's recent report of "a near midair collision" with a drone near the airport in Tallahassee, Florida. He did not specify who the pilot worked for and what she was flying. As to the drone, the pilot said that it appeared to be small, camouflaged, "remotely piloted" and about 2,300 feet up in the air at the time of the incident.
"The pilot said that the UAS was so close to his jet that he was sure he had collided with it," Williams said. "Thankfully, inspection to the airliner after landing found no damage. But this may not always be the case."
Full article and video here: Near Miss
Comments
Those people need to learn the difference between a drone or UAS and a model airplane. That camouflaged aircraft was just that -- a model. It is not typical of the private UAS craft that have been in the news recently. The plane in this case was probably gas-powered, which are flown for pleasure, not for commercial purposes. I am surprised the FAA doesn't know the difference. Now, they will be going after model airplane hobbyists as well as commercial UAV enthusiasts because they are all categorized as drones.
Could somebody of you US residents please call the Mythbusters and ask them to fly 2kg foamies into airplanes and airplane engines and see what "catastrophic results" that have? The whole thing really really really sounds like a case for the Mythbuster to me!!!
Ah, the U2 incident...
This couldn't have been the first time ever a U2 flew over ??
And then a RC plane at 2300 feet AGL ? serious?
Methinks there is an air line pilot that is due for an eye test.....
If the whole story is true :-)
I suppose it isn't impossible to fit some form of autopilot into that..........
But very unlikely!
Right on, Toby: The FAA is desperate to justify their hysterical posturing in the face of exactly zero genuine, verifiable, serious incidents involving any sort of unmanned aircraft.
Today they may also be trying to deflect attention away from the pathetic, ludicrous spectacle a few days ago in which air traffic at LAX and consequently throughout the country was disturbed because the FAA's equipment and procedures were totally flummoxed by the overflight of LAX by a U2 at some 70,000 feet. The systems, it seems, insisted that there were collision issues with aircraft flying 6 or 7 miles below the U2. Now, the FAA has had a bit of time to work this out. Fifty-nine years, to be exact. Yep, and these same people think they're capable of understanding (never mind "regulating") really new and rapidly evolving highly sophisticated airborne technologies? Right.
Here there isn't a shred of actual evidence presented of anything at all having happened, while meanwhile eyeball cockpit reports of everything short of a kitchen sink from Mars magically whizzing around in the "airspace" are common and notoriously unreliable. Human eyes are not designed to judge size, speed or distance of unfamiliar objects more than a few feet away. Personally I was once fooled badly while flying a little Cessna when I changed course to avoid a plane that popped into view and seemed right on top of me - but that turned out to be a C5 Galaxy a long, long way off. Show us radar data or STFU.
Anyway, for the FAA to drag out weak anecdotal crap like this simply points to the reality, which is that unlike what they, and to be candid many of us, expected the earth isn't littered with amputated fingers and noses and smoldering airplane wreckage as a result of Phantoms, Irises, Flamewheels, Flips and the rest paddling around over the treetops. To the contrary, casualty reports of any sort are really rare, and when idiots have been caught doing something stupid, obnoxious or even dangerous they have been dealt with by local cops and civil courts using existing laws, no Feds needed.
Which is not to say that the potential for a serious incident isn't there or should be ignored, but as with so many other things overstating the danger and overreacting to its hypothetical potential does nothing but create disrespect for genuine hazards, and can thus end up being exactly counterproductive, aside in this instance from leaving the US eating dust at the back of the pack of countries with at least semi-functional aviation bureaucracies. .
I think that they are making up these stories. Somehow hobbyists have been able to fly for decades without incident. The news has not reported any stories like this till after the FAA lost the case and started sending out these BS press releases.
Seems like a beat up to justify the FAA's continued bizarre behaviour on the subject of drones.
Why is it a drone now and not a model aircraft?
A jet like this is far more likely to be a runaway model aircraft not a drone.
Nice one James.
A 3D rendering of a jet nearing hitting a model aircraft. I call a little Bull Shit on this video. Now the real question is who is flying above 400 feet? These people who don't follow simple rules will be the end of all of this.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next