A Drone? A Really Big Bird? A UFO? What Did Alitalia Pilot See Near JFK?
FAA Looking Into Pilot's Claim Of Seeing Unmanned Or Remote-Piloted Aircraft
March 4, 2013 7:40 PM
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — A mystery in the sky over New York City on Monday got one commercial airline pilot’s attention.
The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating a report from the pilot, who claims he saw an unmanned or remote-controlled aircraft while on his final approach to John F. Kennedy International Airport.
The pilot, who was at the controls of Alitalia Flight AZA 60, spotted what may have been a drone about four to five miles southeast of the airport at an altitude of 1,500 feet while on final approach to Runway 31 Right at about 1:15 p.m.
The Alitalia flight landed safely minutes later.
Please stay with CBSNewYork.com for more on this developing story
Comments
Legally I think almost all over the globe we are in a grey area, where most can be disputed one way or another without coming to a conclusion.
I for one think its pure common sense to be familiar with airspace regulations, restrictions etc, and this also includes being able to fly the ing with minimal assistance by electronics within possibilities.
Patrick:
I don't understand how you can think that the FAA does not have regulations for model aircraft. They have regulations for "aircraft", and model aircraft are "aircraft". That there are special exclusions, restrictions, and advice for model aircraft does not excuse anyone from following the regulations that are already on the books.
There is an "advisory circular" for model pilots, and everyone is correct in saying that it is not a regulation. It is a handy, easy to understand "fence" around the regulations and airspace that actually need to be protected. It is the extra buffer that regulators need to feel OK letting untrained non-pilots launch potentially deadly objects into the same skies with innocent pilots and air travelers.
[Insert righteously-indignant rant about the dubious morality of advising others to ignore safety regulations and the folly of conflating "rarely enforced" with "safe and legal".]
The reason why R/C pilots are rarely prosecuted for airspace incursion is that nearly all R/C pilots are conscientious, law abiding citizens who paid attention in class.
The airspace rules are enforced, brutally. It's licensed pilots who bear the brunt of this enforcement, but don't make the mistake of thinking that means that the rules only apply to licensed pilots. They're just the ones in the best position to do most of the violating.
The FAA is not some mindless code enforcement algorithm. It is a handful of politically-expedient, prideful humans with the congressionally-approved power to unilaterally invent and enforce the rules however they see fit. Let's pretend your theory of the law is actually correct: how long do you think the rules will stay the way they are once a few more people endanger jetliners? Once it becomes obvious that warnings are not enough, do you think they are just going to keep giving warnings?
Brent, I have been told the same thing by a couple FAA safety officers I spoke with last summer. To my knowledge though, they have only actually tried doing this once, and it didn't work out well for them. They issued a citation and notice of a fine, then failed to pursue the matter any further, and the person in question never actually paid it. I can't give any more information than that because it's confidential. So yes, the FAA can indeed prosecute modelers under the "reckless operation of an aircraft" catch-all, but (1) that is an actual regulation, (2) they have to actually prove the modeler's actions were so egregious as to actually rise to the level of carelessness or recklessness, and (3) they have yet to really actually do this, and certainly not on a large scale. Even the guy who posted the YouTube video of himself flying a quadcopter right in front of airliners on approach to Boston Logan a few months ago only got a warning.
Anything that can be controlled in three axis, can sustain flight and is unmanned is a UA full stop. You don't need an autopilot to be a UA. Model aircraft in old money don't really exist any more. The FAA have been holding back on prosecutions but it seems this one might kick it off.
I have suggested on many occasion some basic aviation knowledge courses, speaking with my full size pilot hat on I would rather people flying UA did have some basic aviation knowledge.
Perhaps the real pilots here could put something together.
I have been told the FAA will prosecute under the Part 91 reg pertaining to careless and reckless until more specific regs have been published.
You might as well put on your big boy pants and start learning the regs and airspace if you want to be a part of it.
Welcome aboard!
Anyone know where Trappy is?
Sec. 91.13 — Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
Charles - That definition of model aircraft is still only in terms of qualifying for the exemption from FAA regulations, which don't exist yet. So no, an FPV model flown beyond VLOS would not be a model aircraft in terms of qualifying for that exemption. But that doesn't mean it's prohibited. Current FAA policy defines a model aircraft only as one flown for recreational purposes and does not tack on the VLOS requirement to the definition. So the FAA currently has a more liberal definition of model aircraft than Congress. You can see that in the most recent document the FAA issued about UAS. Model aircraft defined as unmanned aircraft flown for recreational purposes are currently not subject to any FAA regulation. That may change in the future, but that's the current status of the law.
Jonathan - I don't know why you think I'm wrong. Your own quote proves my point. "The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft." Regulation here is a legal term which refers to the FARs. The FAA has a defined rulemaking process for making them, and if the FAA had actually issued regulations on model aircraft there would be no mistaking it. However the FAA has not at this time chosen to issue any regulations regarding model aircraft. They have that authority, but they have not chosen to exercise it. All they have is advisory guidelines, nothing more. They are however writing regulations which we may get to see this summer. Those have not even been finished yet, let alone taken effect. Until that time, there are still no binding regulations on model aircraft. I don't know why this is so hard for you to get.
UPDATE:
CNN is reporting that the drone was black with 4 propellers (I think we would call that a carbon-frame quadrotor) and that it came within 200 feet of the airliner.
Also, it appears that yes, the FBI does investigate airspace incursions.
This has already been picked up by a few news outlets. Google news lists more than 120 articles as I write this.
-
9
-
10
-
11
-
12
-
13
of 16 Next