What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

UFO this morning - JUNE 20, 2016

rzbill

Well Known Member
I was happily flying along this morning at 5500 feet eastbound (into the sun) at a point between 8A7 and KEXX and I passed a small shiny object within a few hundred feet off my right wingtip at my altitude. :eek: It appeared to be going in a similar direction as me because the pass was slower than if it was a closure.

I should have turned around and circled it, but I am pretty doggone sure it was a drone. The observation was very brief.

The more I think about it the madder I get. That could have been as bad or worse than a bird strike. PLUS, that position put it right in the approach departure paths for KGSO (who I was talking to) but outside the Class C. I reported it to them, of course.

Grrrrrrrr. :mad:
 
Could've been a mylar balloon -- I see them at altitude a couple times a year.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. If it was, then it was further away from me that I thought, because of the rate I passed it.



[ed. I've seen three mylar balloons from my RV over the years. There is a Kroger grocery store underneath our local flying area, and my guess is they get accidentally released between the door and the car. That silver on the back makes it pretty bright as it goes by.

And looking at your avatar Bill, I'm guessing you might be inclined to think it was a UFO :)

LOL. v/r,dr]


:D:D:D Good one, Doug !
 
Last edited:
I've seen a bunch of regular balloons at 17,000 ft over the mountains behind the LA basin... they can rise high. :)
 
I passed a quadcopter (aka drone) north of fresno on my way to the WCFC. it was 1000-1500 feet to the side and 50-100 feet below. I am 99% sure it was a quadcopter, hanging there, motionless. I have one so I know what they look like.
 
Please be sure before reporting drone sitings

Guys,
I don't want to go too far afield with this potentially non RV thread, but as a fellow pilot, an RV guy and also a drone industry guy I respectfully ask that you be 100% sure that something is a drone before you report it as such. There are many erroneous reports in the record already, and they are adversely impacting the very important discussion of how to integrate these tools into the low level national airspace.

Keep in mind, it can be challenging to identify an object that is less than a foot and a half in diameter and hundreds or thousands of feet away, particularly when you are traveling fast. Think about how close a bird or balloon has to be before you really can tell what it is.

I don't deny that there are people out there who are flying their "toys" inappropriately; and that needs to be addressed; but the professionals I know wouldn't dream of putting a manned aircraft at risk. Not only that, but the missions carried out by the smaller drones are so close to the ground that they don't pose a threat to manned traffic that should be operating above 500 feet in most areas.

If anyone wants to discuss this offline, I'm happy to host a call to answer questions.
 
I was at 21.5 feet in a Pilatus last week and saw a shiny Mylar balloon float by roughly 500' below. And Saturday returning home from the Gathering of RV's, darn near hit a black one at 4'500. When I first saw I thought bird, and when he diverts in one direction I'll turn to the other. As the gap closed I realized it was a balloon and had no maneuvering capabilities.
 
Report it. If you are certain it was a ballon, call it that. If you are certain it was a "drone", call it that. If you are not certain what it was, then say you are not sure of what it was but report it anyways.
:cool:
 
Lost Martian?

Did it have little green people on board with abnormally large heads and eyes? If so, that would confirm my suspicions. ;)
Tom.
 
Did it have little green people on board with abnormally large heads and eyes? If so, that would confirm my suspicions. ;)
Tom.

I think this thead has pretty well determined that my UFO was actually "Swamp gas from a weather balloon trapped in a thermal pocket that reflected the light from Venus"......


But seriously, on retrospection, mylar balloon is most likely.
 
Last edited:
yeek...

Just recently (last week) I was at a gathering of drones/FPV racing and saw quite a few "mile high" stickers on their boxes..... It seems to be quite popular with the FPV crowd. It was a bit scary to think of all those "hard birds" being up there with me without a xpdr.... I'd hate to think about what kind of damage they would do through a canopy....
Best,
Brian
 
Our hobby here is homebuilt aircraft. We know the general population would not lose any sleep if our hobby was taken away to preserve their perceived safety. Same thing for radio control aircraft.

My other hobby is RC aircraft. That hobby (to me) feels like it is under attack by the media and (maybe unwittingly) by licensed pilots. It is on the news all the time "another drone sighting". No doubt there are some numbskull yahoos out there with drones. But, as already mentioned, they are generally small and would be difficult to identify unless VERY close. That makes me suspect that not all of these sightings are actually drones. Often 2 full scale aircraft have near misses because neither saw each other. This thread has already put the OP of the mindset it was probably not a drone. It sounds like it was reported as another drone sighting though.

So, as said before if you can identify it definitively as a drone, report it as such. If not, please do not. Your radio controlled brothers in aviation will appreciate it.
 
I had an encounter a month or two ago at 1000 AGL. I saw what I thought was a large black bird on direct closure with my course. As I got closer, it's course did not stray, so I knew it wasn't a bird. we crossed at about 25' vertical and 50' horizontal. Hard to say how fast it was going. When I passed it, I could make out the classic sqaurish outline of a four rotor drone.

I later learned that the area I was flying over has an RC flying field with active drone use. The problem is that I need to fly over this area to get to our pattern when wind is out of the east and the Bravo shelf is 1100' AGL.

As I thought more about it, I got mad. I have seen pictures of what a bird can do at 160 MPH and I can only imagine the damage a drone would cause. I have no significant concerns with commercial UAV's as I am sure there will be regs to put competant people at the controls. Its the teenager that buys one at Walmart and just smirks and chuckles when he read the 400' altitude regulation, if it even says that on the box. It's these folks that will leave avoidance 100% in the hands of the pilot.

If it was closer, I probably would have pulled back to climb for avoidance and likely got a call from the friendly folks at ORD for busting the airspace.

I think we need to put more pressure on that community. I am more than happy to share the sky if they follow the rules (400' AGL limit). But the only way to force compliance is via threats to their freedoms for lack of compliance. There is just no way to police this. I almost hit one and they are no closer to losing their privileges for it. It doesn't work that way for us and we need to fix that imbalance.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Where to apply pressure

I suspect most of the inappropriate behavior is due to ignorance of the rules by newbies to flying. Therefore I have long thought that the most appropriate place to apply pressure is on the manufacturers. It would be very easy for them to geofence the altitude and distance from operator that the equipment can fly and not allow that to be overwritten or changed unless you have a commercial operator certificate. Sure, some people will still hack the machines, but that will be a limited group.

I have no significant concerns with commercial UAV's as I am sure there will be regs to put competant people at the controls. Its the teenager that buys one at Walmart and just smirks and chuckles when he read the 400' altitude regulation, if it even says that on the box. It's these folks that will leave avoidance 100% in the hands of the pilot.
...

I think we need to put more pressure on that community. I am more than happy to share the sky if they follow the rules (400' AGL limit). But the only way to force compliance is via threats to their freedoms for lack of compliance. There is just no way to police this. I almost hit one and they are no closer to losing their privileges for it. It doesn't work that way for us and we need to fix that imbalance.

Larry
 
I suspect most of the inappropriate behavior is due to ignorance of the rules by newbies to flying. Therefore I have long thought that the most appropriate place to apply pressure is on the manufacturers. It would be very easy for them to geofence the altitude and distance from operator that the equipment can fly and not allow that to be overwritten or changed unless you have a commercial operator certificate. Sure, some people will still hack the machines, but that will be a limited group.

I like that approach, but someone will need to put fear in the manufacturers preferably from regulators. I fear the broad quantity of manufacturers and their small size will keep this from reality unless the FAA forces it.

It does work in the right context. I remember when the Germany government was threatening to put speed limits on the Autobahn. The german car manufacturers responded by putting speed limiters on their cars as a compromise (done voluntarily). However, it only happened with a real regulatory threat and a small number manufacturers.
 
As of today, drone regulations have changed, as the FAA is allowing commercial operators to just pass an aeronautical knowledge written test, as a well as a drone safety course. https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=20515

Drones are the future, like it or not, and as another poster said, their operators have as much right to their hobby or business as we do, so long as they cooperate in our shared airspace.

It is worth keeping in perspective that a "near miss", mathematically, is IMMENSELY more likely/common than an actual drone strike, especially if you define that as coming within a few hundred feet. You could have a whole lot of "near misses" without ever hitting one. There are almost infinitely more birds in our airspace than drones, and most of us will fly our whole lives without hitting one, despite having a few scares. And birds have no qualms about flying above airports and in our approach paths.

Chris
 
I suspect most of the inappropriate behavior is due to ignorance of the rules by newbies to flying. Therefore I have long thought that the most appropriate place to apply pressure is on the manufacturers. It would be very easy for them to geofence the altitude and distance from operator that the equipment can fly and not allow that to be overwritten or changed unless you have a commercial operator certificate. Sure, some people will still hack the machines, but that will be a limited group.

You think it'd be easy? Go check out the forums for DJI drones and their geofencing silliness. Lots of issues:
- The database includes every heliport, seaport, private field, etc., and slaps a 5 mile restriction around each one; ever looked at how many heliports there are in a city of any size? Most of which are essentially never used.
- They created a silly sloping "airspace" which is supposedly a "no fly zone", but doesn't match any actual airspace
- if you get your drone into one of these NFZs, it doesn't exit...it lands, no matter what's under it
- for real NFZs, like national parks, they just plop circle down around some point within the park, essentially leaving most of the park as a non-NFZ

There are other issues, but basically...it's silly. And unnecessary. The *PILOT* is responsible for obeying airspace rules and regulations, not the manufacturer.

We don't have magic devices on full-scale aircraft that prevent pilot's from busting airspaces or doing dumb things; no need for them on drones, either.
 
You think it'd be easy? Go check out the forums for DJI drones and their geofencing silliness. Lots of issues:
- The database includes every heliport, seaport, private field, etc., and slaps a 5 mile restriction around each one; ever looked at how many heliports there are in a city of any size? Most of which are essentially never used.
- They created a silly sloping "airspace" which is supposedly a "no fly zone", but doesn't match any actual airspace
- if you get your drone into one of these NFZs, it doesn't exit...it lands, no matter what's under it
- for real NFZs, like national parks, they just plop circle down around some point within the park, essentially leaving most of the park as a non-NFZ

There are other issues, but basically...it's silly. And unnecessary. The *PILOT* is responsible for obeying airspace rules and regulations, not the manufacturer.

We don't have magic devices on full-scale aircraft that prevent pilot's from busting airspaces or doing dumb things; no need for them on drones, either.

Oh, and did I mention...to "override" the geofencing, you have to provide a credit card number...to some company in China. No thanks.
 
If only there were some system in place that allowed these dronish vehicles to broadcast their GPS position to other vehicles and ground stations within a certain proximity.
 
Actually it is easy

I know it's easy to do what I propose. I think you are confusing two concepts. The geofencing to which I referred was in relation to point of origin/takeoff, not the Airmap database.

As I noted earlier the vast number of potential problems are due to inexperienced operators. Since many of these drones are being sold as toys there is no requirement that the operator have a license or any training. Short of training and licensing every person who is going to fly their toy the best alternative is to keep inexperienced people from doing non-compliant behavior and give them access to higher functionality after they demonstrate proficiency - like with a commercial certificate.

As far as magic devices on full scale aircraft that give people the ability to stay out of airspace, it's called GPS.


You think it'd be easy? Go check out the forums for DJI drones and their geofencing silliness. Lots of issues:
- The database includes every heliport, seaport, private field, etc., and slaps a 5 mile restriction around each one; ever looked at how many heliports there are in a city of any size? Most of which are essentially never used.
- They created a silly sloping "airspace" which is supposedly a "no fly zone", but doesn't match any actual airspace
- if you get your drone into one of these NFZs, it doesn't exit...it lands, no matter what's under it
- for real NFZs, like national parks, they just plop circle down around some point within the park, essentially leaving most of the park as a non-NFZ

There are other issues, but basically...it's silly. And unnecessary. The *PILOT* is responsible for obeying airspace rules and regulations, not the manufacturer.

We don't have magic devices on full-scale aircraft that prevent pilot's from busting airspaces or doing dumb things; no need for them on drones, either.
 
Where is the drone

There are proposals to use ADS out for this. You have also hit on a key factor in my opinion. The location should only be broadcast to other aircraft in a threat radius. Also, the system shouldn't broadcast below a certain altitude (unless it is operating near an airport). If you are flying at 50 feet in your backyard why clutter the advisory system with notifications.

If only there were some system in place that allowed these dronish vehicles to broadcast their GPS position to other vehicles and ground stations within a certain proximity.
 
I believe you could leave RC airplanes and helicopters out of the regulations. We have been cohabitating the skies safely for 50+ years. RC pilots yield to full scale aircraft.

The ease of drone use invites "hobby of the day" kind of folks who do not grasp the seriousness of what they are doing. I like the limits built in to the quad copter drones. I think it is the only way. The problem with leaving it to the pilots responsibility is that there is no power over the 16 yo who just bought a drone at Walmart.
 
There are other issues, but basically...it's silly. And unnecessary. The *PILOT* is responsible for obeying airspace rules and regulations, not the manufacturer.

We don't have magic devices on full-scale aircraft that prevent pilot's from busting airspaces or doing dumb things; no need for them on drones, either.

The key difference is that if I, as an airplane pilot, break the rules and bust an airspace, they can usually find me and have easy methods to take away my privileges. What is the plan for enforcement of rules upon the drone pilots? Rules without enforcement or consequences are meaningless, especially if they don't understand the safety consequences. "Rules of the road" only work when all of the drivers understand those rules and the consequences of not following them whether that be a ticket or the emotional affects of causing the death of another human being. Clearly this works on our roads, but not without state enforced education for all. Same is true in the sky. Until drones, everyone in the sky was taught the same detection and avoidance techniques as well as other rules necessary for a shared use space.

A guy and his son buy a drone at Walmart and take it to the park. What is the plan to teach them the "airspace rules and regulations?" I doubt they would even consider the risk of interfering with a low flying aircraft.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Agreed

I agree. Hobbyists aren't the issue for the most part (though the BVLOS FPV guys concern me). They received training, are AMA members, are part of a community that helps them understand the shared airspace, etc. They problem is the untrained folks buying or building mostly the small rotorcraft.

I believe you could leave RC airplanes and helicopters out of the regulations. We have been cohabitating the skies safely for 50+ years. RC pilots yield to full scale aircraft.

The ease of drone use invites "hobby of the day" kind of folks who do not grasp the seriousness of what they are doing. I like the limits built in to the quad copter drones. I think it is the only way. The problem with leaving it to the pilots responsibility is that there is no power over the 16 yo who just bought a drone at Walmart.
 
Y The *PILOT* is responsible for obeying airspace rules and regulations, not the manufacturer.

We don't have magic devices on full-scale aircraft that prevent pilot's from busting airspaces or doing dumb things; no need for them on drones, either.

Let's require ID transmitters on drones. Be a lot fewer mile high stickers on control boxes if each one generated a $500 fine in the mailbox. Tie registration to the owner's SSN and zap his tax refund.

Three weeks ago I was working in the hangar and heard something buzzing outside. It was a yahoo (50ish, not a kid) who had driven onto the airport, parked his truck, and launched his electric RC airplane. He was flying it (badly) between the taxiway and the runway.
 
Last edited:
While I agree with leaving RC airplanes and helicopters out of the regulations, RC pilots don't always yield to full scale aircraft. See this video of a biplane and an RC model midair collision:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvcN-0PikEU

A couple weeks ago I was flying a J-3 Cub at 500-600'. Over flying a subdivision I observed a RC plane approx 100' below me and I passed overhead, the operator of the RC pointed it towards me and started to climb in my direction. I tried to locate the operator but was hard to do since I feared the RC plane was still in the area.
 
I know it's easy to do what I propose. I think you are confusing two concepts. The geofencing to which I referred was in relation to point of origin/takeoff, not the Airmap database.

As I noted earlier the vast number of potential problems are due to inexperienced operators. Since many of these drones are being sold as toys there is no requirement that the operator have a license or any training. Short of training and licensing every person who is going to fly their toy the best alternative is to keep inexperienced people from doing non-compliant behavior and give them access to higher functionality after they demonstrate proficiency - like with a commercial certificate.

As far as magic devices on full scale aircraft that give people the ability to stay out of airspace, it's called GPS.

And it does that, too...limits height to a certain value above the take-off point. But that's not the same as a limit AGL for the route of flight (launch from an overlook out over a valley, and you can be > 400' AGL in a few seconds; etc.).

We have GPS which *allows* us to stay out of airspace, but doesn't *force* us to...as we may have permission to enter it.

As it currently stands, geofencing is a crappy, cobbled-up solution to the problem which doesn't work.

I don't want to get into an anti-drone thread here...I just don't think geofencing is all it's cracked up to be. We've coexisted for decades with RC airplanes and such...a bit of education and some enforcement against the miscreants should suffice.
 
A couple weeks ago I was flying a J-3 Cub at 500-600'. Over flying a subdivision...

Not to excuse the drone pilot, but isn't the requirement 1000' over congested areas? When I was getting ready for Phase I, I got a call from FSDO to go over the rules, and they in no uncertain terms considered subdivisions (in this case, a trailer park) a "congested area".

Careful what you post here... :)
 
Drones have changed the game. It's no longer the case of coexisting with What we have preciously called the RC community. Untrained and uncaring kids are now flying completely out of sight on programmed flight paths that are dangerous to aviation. One such photo mission collided with a resort building in Marco Island not long ago. That isn't RC....it's a whole new thing.

Personally, I want them regulated as much as we are. If they are capable of getting out of sight, they need licensing as stringent as ours and full ADSB capability.
 
GSO Weather Ballons

I am based at 8A7 and fly all that airspace frequently, I will tell you, GSO launches a Mylar weather ballon every day..I work at KGSO..and see them go up often. Im amazed at the often horizontal path they take. I would bet money thats what you saw. Ironically, there is a "sanctioned" R/C model field 2.8 miles off the approach end of RWY 9 at 8A7. I have seen some large scale models WAY above their 400 ft. designated cieling, and sent messages to the club. I live on 8A7, and can actually hear the big 4 stroke engines on quiet evenings.
 
FAA small UAS (sUAS) rules

All,

Here is a link to some of the FAA sUAS rules.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf

It applies to UAS under 55#. Altitude is limited to 400ft AGL, speed to 100mph, day only, 3 miles visibility, ATC permission required to fly in B, C, D, & E.

Any sightings or close calls above 400 AGL should be reported via ASRS.
 
All,

Here is a link to some of the FAA sUAS rules.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf

It applies to UAS under 55#. Altitude is limited to 400ft AGL, speed to 100mph, day only, 3 miles visibility, ATC permission required to fly in B, C, D, & E.

Any sightings or close calls above 400 AGL should be reported via ASRS.

These rules explicitly exclude unmanned aircraft used exclusively for "hobby or recreational use." It appears work is being done, as it should be, for the coming onslaught of commercial drones. However, the drone "toys" are currently being lumped with the current RC regs. As stated by others, that community has acted responsibly for several decades, but I see a very different type of individual buying the toys at Walmart/Amazon than those in the traditional RC community.

Larry

Larry
 
I am based at 8A7 and fly all that airspace frequently, I will tell you, GSO launches a Mylar weather ballon every day..I work at KGSO..and see them go up often. Im amazed at the often horizontal path they take. I would bet money thats what you saw. Ironically, there is a "sanctioned" R/C model field 2.8 miles off the approach end of RWY 9 at 8A7. I have seen some large scale models WAY above their 400 ft. designated cieling, and sent messages to the club. I live on 8A7, and can actually hear the big 4 stroke engines on quiet evenings.

Hey, Thanks Bill!

Since I fly that path early every Monday morning, I am going to start looking harder for the balloons. :)
 
Locations and times

Hey, Thanks Bill!

Since I fly that path early every Monday morning, I am going to start looking harder for the balloons. :)

All of the regular balloon launching locations are shown here -

http://www.ua.nws.noaa.gov/upper-air-map.GIF

And I believe they are launched twice a day at 00 Z and 12 Z at all locations.

It looks like the NWS references the airports but this explanation shows that the actual launching site is not always within the airport boundaries.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/rev/tour/UA/launch.php


I just checked Tucson, and they launch from the roof of the NWS office on the campus of Univ. of Arizona - about 7 miles North of TUS.

If you regularly fly at or near one of the airports shown on the map, it probably would be a good idea to find the local launch point.
 
Last edited:
Not to excuse the drone pilot, but isn't the requirement 1000' over congested areas? When I was getting ready for Phase I, I got a call from FSDO to go over the rules, and they in no uncertain terms considered subdivisions (in this case, a trailer park) a "congested area".

Careful what you post here... :)

No worries as I wasn't specific on AGL or MSL and completely legal. 👍🏻
 
Bill next the FAA will require us to have radar jamming radios on our aircraft to get those pesky drones away from us, what's next?

Ron
 
Not taking anyone's sides

So I'm one of those guys that have love and passion for aviation regardless of size, actual or RC. Just like everyone here I'm scared that some idiot is going to cause a crash with one of these drones and kill someone. I myself believe I've seen a quadcopter very near me, higher than it should be but maybe I was flying lower than I should have been :eek::rolleyes:. One of the things that I want to mention here is that there are very few drones or quads that have the capability of going up to 5500 feet (I am assuming in North Carolina you are around 1800 to 2000 ft MSL) which puts the drone at 3500 AGL). I'm not saying it's not possible but those that have the money and the capabilities to take a drone that far from it's operator are usually the die hard hobbiest that follow the rules. . . of course not always but in a lot of cases.

so my point is if you are flying low then yes there is a much better chance that you may come close or God forbid hit a drone, but at altitude it's not likely. Majority of the drones incidents are going to be around that 500 to 1000 ft AGL where the operator can barely see the drone and it's direction of flight.
 
Back
Top