5 ms·

I understand approaching this with an abundance of caution, but the drones were reportedly 17 miles away near a different airport, so this looks like quite an o

I understand approaching this with an abundance of caution, but the drones were reportedly 17 miles away near a different airport, so this looks like quite an overreaction.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
vkou 8y ago
Unless you have an incredibly deep understanding of air traffic control protocols, I don't think you can make this judgement. Consider that drones may not show up on radar, restricted air space around airports can change at a moment's notice, they cannot be avoided through visual identification, airplanes need a long distance to drop/gain altitude when landing/taking off, airplanes need vertical buffer when sharing airspace with other airplanes, and that much aerial maneuvering and control happens at the speed of humans talking in technical jargon to other humans. Even if no planned flight needs the airspace, the drone may be in buffer airspace that would be used for emergency complications. The drone pilot was grossly irresponsible to fly where they did, and should be in jail.
- trhway 8y ago
  Did he violate any specific rules?
  - vkou 8y ago
    Yes, he violated the specific rule that limits drone activity to below 400 feet. It was flying at 3,500 feet. The operator is either dangerously ignorant, or reckless.
    - trhway 8y ago
      well, while it is a violation, i think they paid so much attention to it because the Teterboro is in the direction of the main runway at EWR. Anyway, looks like an airspace full of fun: http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=40.692&lon=-74.169&zoom=10 http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=40.692&lon=-74.169&zoom=10
  - rixrax 8y ago
    In case this would have been drone flight falling under 14CFR part 107, at least these come to mind. - 107.41: over Tererboro airport and did not appear to have contacted ATC (air traffic control) and/or obtained waiver to operate in class B-E airspace - 107.51: They flew above 400 feet - 107.31: did not maintain VLOS with their drone (Visual Line of Sight) - 107.43: interfered with operation of airport - 107.39: possibly flew UAS over people - 107.51: possibly within 500 feet vertically or 2000 feet horizontally from clouds - 107.37: possibly (b) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard Under CFR 14 part 107 you could request an waiver from FAA for a specific mission to fly above 400ft or outside VLOS or within different class airspace’s etc. 107.21 states also: In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the remote pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent necessary to meet that emergency. I suspect they had not. Summary of FAApart 107: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf Note: in the us you can also fly under section 336 (model aircrafts) or under section 333 (pilot licensed remote pilots). But without checking the rules, I think differences would be minimal (e.g. ability obtain waivers, technicalities for ops near airports - e.g. 5 mile rule instead of airspace considerations).
nomel 8y ago
For a different perspective, 17 miles is only 5 minutes for a 747 at comfortable landing speed. At normal approach speed, this is much less.
- bdash 8y ago
  What's more, the two airports are 17 miles apart only if you look at driving distance. It's more like 12 miles as the crow (or an airplane) flies.
badwolf 8y ago
I think the key phrase from the article was "The drone was spotted about 3,500 feet over Teterboro Airport" Drone flying at 3500 feet definitely seems like it could pose a risk to flights out of Liberty 17 miles away
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  n/a
  - cmurf 8y ago
    Ok so you have a pilot certification? Or you have any sort of aviation experience, including air traffic control? Have you ever looked at any aeronautical charts for the area under discussion? Because you're asserting that people who do have aviation experience, did the wrong thing and overreacted. What is your basis? Is this some kind of Dunning Kruger effect? Disclaimer: I am a certified pilot, and a former instrument flight instructor, with a decently tuned bullshit meter that's currently pegged.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - dvtrn 8y ago
    Isn't that still WELL above what you're legally allowed to fly a drone even with a 107?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
bmurphy1976 8y ago
3500 feet is 3100 feet higher than drone regulations allow. That's the real problem here. If that was in the direct flight path of an airport even 17 miles away this is wildly reckless behavior.
- blacksmith_tb 8y ago
  Hanlon's razor suggests to me it could be a flyaway (which of course doesn't make it less dangerous to aircraft, just not intentionally reckless).
  - bmurphy1976 8y ago
    I don't think so. Most fly aways in my experience are horizontal not vertical. A quick check of YouTube will show plenty of reckless behavior and my small drone is more than capable of flying at a distance of 3500 feet away from me. Hanlons razor says this was somebody trying to get that sweet picture or see how far they can push their toy.
    - dvtrn 8y ago
      Or wind caught it at a higher altitude. As wind is prone to do.
    - cmurf 8y ago
      Yeah. Sometimes people like to use laser pointers at helicopters and planes. It carries up to five years in prison, and they do get caught, prosecuted and the feds do aggressively pursue maximum prison sentences, whether a pilot is blinded by it or not. And I put letting your toy fly into terminal area airspace in the same category. I don't care if it's intentional or accident. Control your shit, or go to prison.
cmurf 8y ago
This is the VFR Terminal Area chart for the airports in question, Teterboro is due north of EWR, http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=40.692&lon=-74.169&zoom=10 http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=40.692&lon=-74.169&zoom=10 and an object near TEB at 3500' is inside the Class B airspace which requires positive control (not merely radar contact, not merely radio contact, but you must have a clearance or you cannot enter class B). TEB is also within 12 miles of EWR, and that's inside the departure/arrival path for EWR's main north south runways. Aircraft inside class B have a guarantee of positive separation by ATC. Everyone has to follow very specific rules in that airspace. And any aircraft that is not under positive control is a threat to all other aircraft. Anyway, it is definitely not an overreaction. Also with the government shutdown, I expect there's next to no one available from FAA or NTSB to do a thorough investigation, most inspectors are not categorized as essential.
AWildC182 8y ago
Anecdote: I was flying during instrument training at night and took a laser strike from a small town about 30nm north of a class bravo airport (very large airline hub). When I reported it to approach, they basically closed all the northbound arrival/departure routes and started diverting traffic to the east and west so nobody would overfly the offender. Also, I got to watch a LOT of cop cars light up a minute or two later...
- c3534l 8y ago
  Pardon my ignorance, but what's a laser strike?
  - BoorishBears 8y ago
    An attempt to blind aviators with a laser pointer
    - spydum 8y ago
      I’ve never understood this - aiming a laser at a vessel moving at over a hundred miles an hour many thousands of feet away seems incredibly harmless, unless you have one gigantic, powerful laser...
      - thaumaturgy 8y ago
        When the laser hits the cockpit glass, the whole panel lights up. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VshPGuKoa2Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VshPGuKoa2Q
        AWildC182 8y ago
        That's probably the mildest case I've seen. When it happened to me the guy was about half the distance and it lit up the whole cockpit.
      - sokoloff 8y ago
        I've been hit twice by a ground-based laser. Both times the flashes were bright enough to be disruptive to my adaption to night vision and IMO reduced safety of flight temporarily. I called both into ATC. On one instance, I had the time to hang around and report the location quite accurately and saw the beginning of ground response of police (probably 15+ minutes, though). I wasn't able to stick around and learn the outcome. An EMS helicopter was lased a few months ago resulting in (I think temporary) injury to the crew and a delayed response to an EMS transport mission.
bdash 8y ago
The drone was reported over Teterboro at around 3,500ft. One of the ILS approaches into Newark[1] has Teterboro as an initial fix, with a minimum crossing altitude of 3,000ft. That puts the drone exactly where aircraft inbound on that approach will be. [1]: https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1901/00285IL22L.PDF https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1901/00285IL22L.PDF

I understand approaching this with an abundance of caution, but the drones were reportedly 17 miles away near a different airport, so this looks like quite an overreaction.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

vkou 8y ago

Unless you have an incredibly deep understanding of air traffic control protocols, I don't think you can make this judgement. Consider that drones may not show up on radar, restricted air space around airports can change at a moment's notice, they cannot be avoided through visual identification, airplanes need a long distance to drop/gain altitude when landing/taking off, airplanes need vertical buffer when sharing airspace with other airplanes, and that much aerial maneuvering and control happens at the speed of humans talking in technical jargon to other humans. Even if no planned flight needs the airspace, the drone may be in buffer airspace that would be used for emergency complications. The drone pilot was grossly irresponsible to fly where they did, and should be in jail.

trhway 8y ago
Did he violate any specific rules?
- vkou 8y ago
  Yes, he violated the specific rule that limits drone activity to below 400 feet. It was flying at 3,500 feet. The operator is either dangerously ignorant, or reckless.
  - trhway 8y ago
    well, while it is a violation, i think they paid so much attention to it because the Teterboro is in the direction of the main runway at EWR. Anyway, looks like an airspace full of fun: http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=40.692&lon=-74.169&zoom=10 http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=40.692&lon=-74.169&zoom=10
- rixrax 8y ago
  In case this would have been drone flight falling under 14CFR part 107, at least these come to mind. - 107.41: over Tererboro airport and did not appear to have contacted ATC (air traffic control) and/or obtained waiver to operate in class B-E airspace - 107.51: They flew above 400 feet - 107.31: did not maintain VLOS with their drone (Visual Line of Sight) - 107.43: interfered with operation of airport - 107.39: possibly flew UAS over people - 107.51: possibly within 500 feet vertically or 2000 feet horizontally from clouds - 107.37: possibly (b) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard Under CFR 14 part 107 you could request an waiver from FAA for a specific mission to fly above 400ft or outside VLOS or within different class airspace’s etc. 107.21 states also: In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the remote pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent necessary to meet that emergency. I suspect they had not. Summary of FAApart 107: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf Note: in the us you can also fly under section 336 (model aircrafts) or under section 333 (pilot licensed remote pilots). But without checking the rules, I think differences would be minimal (e.g. ability obtain waivers, technicalities for ops near airports - e.g. 5 mile rule instead of airspace considerations).

nomel 8y ago

For a different perspective, 17 miles is only 5 minutes for a 747 at comfortable landing speed. At normal approach speed, this is much less.

bdash 8y ago
What's more, the two airports are 17 miles apart only if you look at driving distance. It's more like 12 miles as the crow (or an airplane) flies.

badwolf 8y ago

I think the key phrase from the article was "The drone was spotted about 3,500 feet over Teterboro Airport" Drone flying at 3500 feet definitely seems like it could pose a risk to flights out of Liberty 17 miles away

rootusrootus 8y ago
n/a
- cmurf 8y ago
  Ok so you have a pilot certification? Or you have any sort of aviation experience, including air traffic control? Have you ever looked at any aeronautical charts for the area under discussion? Because you're asserting that people who do have aviation experience, did the wrong thing and overreacted. What is your basis? Is this some kind of Dunning Kruger effect? Disclaimer: I am a certified pilot, and a former instrument flight instructor, with a decently tuned bullshit meter that's currently pegged.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- dvtrn 8y ago
  Isn't that still WELL above what you're legally allowed to fly a drone even with a 107?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

bmurphy1976 8y ago

3500 feet is 3100 feet higher than drone regulations allow. That's the real problem here. If that was in the direct flight path of an airport even 17 miles away this is wildly reckless behavior.

blacksmith_tb 8y ago
Hanlon's razor suggests to me it could be a flyaway (which of course doesn't make it less dangerous to aircraft, just not intentionally reckless).
- bmurphy1976 8y ago
  I don't think so. Most fly aways in my experience are horizontal not vertical. A quick check of YouTube will show plenty of reckless behavior and my small drone is more than capable of flying at a distance of 3500 feet away from me. Hanlons razor says this was somebody trying to get that sweet picture or see how far they can push their toy.
  - dvtrn 8y ago
    Or wind caught it at a higher altitude. As wind is prone to do.
  - cmurf 8y ago
    Yeah. Sometimes people like to use laser pointers at helicopters and planes. It carries up to five years in prison, and they do get caught, prosecuted and the feds do aggressively pursue maximum prison sentences, whether a pilot is blinded by it or not. And I put letting your toy fly into terminal area airspace in the same category. I don't care if it's intentional or accident. Control your shit, or go to prison.

cmurf 8y ago

This is the VFR Terminal Area chart for the airports in question, Teterboro is due north of EWR, http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=40.692&lon=-74.169&zoom=10 http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=40.692&lon=-74.169&zoom=10 and an object near TEB at 3500' is inside the Class B airspace which requires positive control (not merely radar contact, not merely radio contact, but you must have a clearance or you cannot enter class B). TEB is also within 12 miles of EWR, and that's inside the departure/arrival path for EWR's main north south runways. Aircraft inside class B have a guarantee of positive separation by ATC. Everyone has to follow very specific rules in that airspace. And any aircraft that is not under positive control is a threat to all other aircraft. Anyway, it is definitely not an overreaction. Also with the government shutdown, I expect there's next to no one available from FAA or NTSB to do a thorough investigation, most inspectors are not categorized as essential.

AWildC182 8y ago

Anecdote: I was flying during instrument training at night and took a laser strike from a small town about 30nm north of a class bravo airport (very large airline hub). When I reported it to approach, they basically closed all the northbound arrival/departure routes and started diverting traffic to the east and west so nobody would overfly the offender. Also, I got to watch a LOT of cop cars light up a minute or two later...

c3534l 8y ago
Pardon my ignorance, but what's a laser strike?
- BoorishBears 8y ago
  An attempt to blind aviators with a laser pointer
  - spydum 8y ago
    I’ve never understood this - aiming a laser at a vessel moving at over a hundred miles an hour many thousands of feet away seems incredibly harmless, unless you have one gigantic, powerful laser...
    - thaumaturgy 8y ago
      When the laser hits the cockpit glass, the whole panel lights up. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VshPGuKoa2Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VshPGuKoa2Q
      - AWildC182 8y ago
        That's probably the mildest case I've seen. When it happened to me the guy was about half the distance and it lit up the whole cockpit.
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      I've been hit twice by a ground-based laser. Both times the flashes were bright enough to be disruptive to my adaption to night vision and IMO reduced safety of flight temporarily. I called both into ATC. On one instance, I had the time to hang around and report the location quite accurately and saw the beginning of ground response of police (probably 15+ minutes, though). I wasn't able to stick around and learn the outcome. An EMS helicopter was lased a few months ago resulting in (I think temporary) injury to the crew and a delayed response to an EMS transport mission.

bdash 8y ago

The drone was reported over Teterboro at around 3,500ft. One of the ILS approaches into Newark[1] has Teterboro as an initial fix, with a minimum crossing altitude of 3,000ft. That puts the drone exactly where aircraft inbound on that approach will be. [1]: https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1901/00285IL22L.PDF https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1901/00285IL22L.PDF