The FAA has released a new list of pilot, air traffic and citizen reports of possible encounters with remotely piloted aircraft, also known as drones and unmanned aircraft (UAS). The reports cover Nov. 13, 2014, through Aug. 20, 2015.
Because pilot reports of unmanned aircraft have increased dramatically over the past year, FAA officials said they want to send a clear message that operating drones around airplanes and helicopters is dangerous and illegal. Unauthorized operators may be subject to stiff fines and criminal charges, including possible jail time.
View the report here.
Drone SIGHTINGS are not incidents.
The vast majority of the reports included: “NO EVASIVE ACTION” plus quite a few “UNKN EVASIVE ACTION”
Keep things in perspective. Of course there will be more sightings, there are more drones. Duh!
But, as in their previous report (November 2014) the threshold of making the list is really low.
And some of the drones reported are clearly high performance aircraft unseen by anyone in the civil drone world, or at altitudes which are impossible for most personal drones because their batteries would be exhausted by the time they got there.
There is also the pilot report of a collision with a drone. Complete with blood, guts and feathers.
“PRELIM INFO FROM FAA OPS: ORF/UAS INCIDENT/1609E/ORF ATCT ADVISED PA32, AT 3,000 FEET REPORTED A UAS OFF RIGHT SIDE OF ACFT AT 2,100 FEET FLYING AT 85 KNOTS 20 S ORF. UAS HAD A TRANSPONDER AND SQUAWKING. TARGET WILL BE TRACKED ATC. ”
85 knots, a transponder and squawking???
Here’s some interesting “reports”:
———–
“PRELIM INFO FROM FAA OPS: HAYWARD, CA/UAS INCIDENT/0359P/NORCAL TRACON ADVISED REDDING AERO ENTERPRISES 494, CESSNA C402, VNY – HWD, OBSERVED A UAS, 3-4 FEET OFF WING, 8,000 FEET 30 SE HWD. UAS PROCEEDED TO FOLLOW ACFT TO HWD. NO EVASIVE ACTION REPORTED. LEOS NOT NOTIFIED.”
Please, what UAS will be able to “follow acft to HWD” from 30 miles at 233kts? Military?
———–
“OBSERVED UAS WITH BLUE LIGHTS AT 12,000 FEET, 30 SE OF JFK.”
Uh, that’s over the Atlantic Ocean – 30 miles?
———–
“PRELIM INFO FROM FAA OPS: ILM/UAS INCIDENT/1203E/CMH ATCT ADVISED MILITARY SAM460, UNKN TYPE GULFSTREAM, REPORTED GREEN AND RED HOURGLASS SHAPED UAS PASSED 100 – 200 FEET OFF RIGHT SIDE OF ACFT AT 10,500 FEET 8 E ILM. NO EVASIVE ACTION REPORTED. LEO NOT NOTIFIED.”
Think about this – at 10,000 ft a Gulfstream flying at Mach 0.85, and they saw a drone 200 ft away??
———–
“PRELIM INFO FROM FAA OPS: BIG BEAR, CA/UAS INCIDENT/1845P/LOS ANGELES ARTCC RECEIVED REPORT FROM THE USFS THAT ATTACK12, GULFSTREAM AC90, HAD A NMAC WHEN A UAS PASSED 500 FEET BENEATH AT 11,500 FEET 1 E GORGONIO PEAK. UAS WAS IN CONFINES OF TFR 5/3271. NO EVASIVE ACTION REPORTED. FIRE FIGHTING OPERATIONS HALTED. SAN BERNADINO SHERIFF ”
I thought that 500 ft was standard vertical separation in VFR. But, again, what drone can go to 11,500 ft?
———–
“PRELIM INFO FROM FAA OPS: SFO/UAS INCIDENT/1340P/NO CAL TRACON ADVISED SOUTHWEST 638, B737, REPORTED A UAS OR BALLOON AT 10,000 FEET 6 NW SFO. NO DESCRIPTION GIVEN. NO EVASIVE ACTION TAKEN. SAN FRANCISCO PD”
I saw something at 10,000 ft – it must be a drone. Call the cops.
———–
Summary: ASA446 B737 DEPARTED OFF OF KSEA AND ADVISED ZSE AFTER BEING SWITCHED BY THE (Y) SECTOR THAT THERE WAS A RED AND WHITE DRONE OPERATING BETWEEN 080 AND 100 FEET ORBITING OFF OF THE KSEA 155 RADIAL FOR 24 DME. MILTON POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE DEN WERE NOTIFIED.
Between 80-100 ft, 24 miles from the Seattle Airport. That’s a threat, how?
As I said, keep it in perspective and do not contribute to the fear mongering not based on facts. Even with a million estimated flight hours of personal drones, there is not one, not a single verified report of a contact between a small UAS and a civil aircraft. Not one. This is a safety record that all other segments of aviation would be jealous to have. According to the AOPA Air Safety Foundation, the General Aviation fleet can expect one fatality every 100,000 hours. Where is the blood and mayhem to justify the level of hysteria and fear of small UAS?
Yes, you’ve been reading the actual reports, as have I. Seems like you could substitute UFO for UAS and be more accurate.
Note to others, the last 10 months of reports, complete through Aug 20 2015 is available from the FAA website as an Excel file.
I wonder why the FAA doesn’t screen out the “obviously not a hobby drone” reports. Why panic the general public? I would guess, so they can press Congress for more funding.
I should add, these hobby quad copters, such as the DJI Phantom, I have one, use the same radio control gear as model airplanes. The effective range is about 1,000′ and line-of-sight only (you can’t see it that far anyway).
Also note that DJI Phantoms, sold since Feb 2015, have GPS no fly zone limitations. They won’t even start the motors within a 5 mile radius of an airport, won’t fly above 400′ agl, etc. In other words, they already have the limitations being demanded by Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York a few days ago.
The reports are unfiltered reports of sightings. Originally intended to be an internal document, they were forced to go public with it in a FOIA challenge last year. I am still reading through the reports to find the silliest one. Last year that crown went to the report of a drone in a tree.
So far, this one is the silliest:
“OBSERVED UAS WITH BLUE LIGHTS AT 12,000 FEET, 30 SE OF JFK.”
Uh, that’s over the Atlantic Ocean – 30 miles?
Or this one:
“PRELIM INFO FROM FAA OPS: ILM/UAS INCIDENT/1203E/CMH ATCT ADVISED MILITARY SAM460, UNKN TYPE GULFSTREAM, REPORTED GREEN AND RED HOURGLASS SHAPED UAS PASSED 100 – 200 FEET OFF RIGHT SIDE OF ACFT AT 10,500 FEET 8 E ILM. NO EVASIVE ACTION REPORTED. LEO NOT NOTIFIED.”
Uh, at 10,000 ft how fast is a Gulfstream which normally cruises at Mach 0.8 going?
And the third candidate:
“PRELIM INFO FROM FAA OPS: HAYWARD, CA/UAS INCIDENT/0359P/NORCAL TRACON ADVISED REDDING AERO ENTERPRISES 494, CESSNA C402, VNY – HWD, OBSERVED A UAS, 3-4 FEET OFF WING, 8,000 FEET 30 SE HWD. UAS PROCEEDED TO FOLLOW ACFT TO HWD. NO EVASIVE ACTION REPORTED. LEOS NOT NOTIFIED.”
Please, what UAS will be able to “follow acft to HWD” from 30 miles at more than 200 kts? Military?
But the top contender for a silly report is:
“PRELIM INFO FROM FAA OPS: SFO/UAS INCIDENT/1340P/NO CAL TRACON ADVISED SOUTHWEST 638, B737, REPORTED A UAS OR BALLOON AT 10,000 FEET 6 NW SFO. NO DESCRIPTION GIVEN. NO EVASIVE ACTION TAKEN. SAN FRANCISCO PD”
I think saw something at 10,000 ft – it must be a drone.
The drone reports have nothing to do with funding but is being used by Luddites to promote fear mongering. What is disturbing is how every report is called a “close call” even when the reported “drone” is hundreds or even thousands of feet from any aircraft.
Most disturbing for many reasons is the fact that many (maybe most, but I haven’t quantified it yet) of the “sighted” drone activities apparently violated no FAA rules. There is no FAA rule that drones must fly below 400 ft – it is a guideline. There is no FAA rule that a drone operator must obtain ATC permission to fly near an airport – the policy is that the hobby aircraft operator only must notify ATC. There is no FAA rule that flying a drone to take photos for commercial use is illegal or requires permission. There is a PROPOSED rule (Part 107) which would require registration of the aircraft and certification of the operators, but it is not the rule today. Yet the local FAA and Police personnel act as if Part 107 was already law.
My company, Curious About Flying, with input from the local office of the FAA, created “Sharing The Skies-Lessons For UAS Pilots To Safely Share The Skies With Other Aircrafts. For more information, please contact me at [email protected] or [email protected].