Looks like the USA has it's problems with drones flying around Airports.

Newark International Airport


Another black eye for us law abiding Pilots.

This whole story WREAKS of BS! Drone at 3,500ft??? And the pilot was able to  POSITIVELY ID that this WAS in fact a DRONE, and even provide a distance of 30ft from the aircraft as their own craft was flying at like 200 knots?

Yeah, riiiiiiight....

Oh, and where is the proof, eg. photo or video? Yup, ZERO proof, just more FUD and fear mongering!

EdisonW1979 Posted at 1-22 18:19
This whole story WREAKS of BS! Drone at 3,500ft??? And the pilot was able to  POSITIVELY ID that this WAS in fact a DRONE, and even provide a distance of 30ft from the aircraft as their own craft was flying at like 200 knots?

Yeah, riiiiiiight....

Why Pilots need to clean their glasses and inside of plane's windscreen.

Haven't seen anything on the news. So not sure if I believe this.

Looks like the fiasco has spreaded across the pond!

These people are not complaining DroneShield.

It would not surprise me if they (or somebody like them) had a finger in this most lucrative pie

"Fake News "

Wow, just wow, when will this BS end.

Back in the day we used to call odd objects in the sky we could not identify as a UFO. Unidentified Flying Object, I guess the term UFO has been over used and has now been replaced with Drone.

Woe Posted at 1-22 19:14
Haven't seen anything on the news. So not sure if I believe this.

Woe.
Also watch it on our National news. They said the airport was put on a ground stop. Pilots noticed what they thought were 2 drones.
What is hard to believe is that  I have a hard time seeing my MP when it is out about 100 feet away  and I am standing still. How does a pilot see one when he is going over 400 mph?

TheVegeta1974 Posted at 1-23 03:25
"Fake News "

If it was Fake then a lot of people got delayed for nothing.
It also gives us good pilots a bad reputation for breaking the law.

check post #11

Could have been poultry.

Here's what I didn't realize about this before, but now leads me to believe this is 200% BS...

Newark is approximately 20km point-to-point distance from Teterboro Airport! You're telling me they shutdown Newark because an alleged drone was spotted 20km away?!?!?!

If anything Teterboro should've gotten shut down for this alleged "sighting", not Newark!!!

This makes my blood boil!!!

Go have a look at Adam Lisberg's Twitter feed:

https://twitter.com/adamlisberg


He's got some good comments on this coming from a drone pilot...

B1houdini Posted at 1-23 09:13
Woe.
Also watch it on our National news. They said the airport was put on a ground stop. Pilots noticed what they thought were 2 drones.
What is hard to believe is that  I have a hard time seeing my MP when it is out about 100 feet away  and I am standing still. How does a pilot see one when he is going over 400 mph?

Exactly. Fake News

EdisonW1979 Posted at 1-23 10:41
Here's what I didn't realize about this before, but now leads me to believe this is 200% BS...

Newark is approximately 20km point-to-point distance from Teterboro Airport! You're telling me they shutdown Newark because an alleged drone was spotted 20km away?!?!?!

Thanks for the link.

Is it another Gatwick?

This part of his link was most revealing Bat not drone

"quote"

Go have a look at Adam Lisberg's Twitter feed:

https://twitter.com/adamlisberg


He's got some good comments on this coming from a drone pilot...

EdisonW1979 Posted at 1-23 10:41
Here's what I didn't realize about this before, but now leads me to believe this is 200% BS...

Newark is approximately 20km point-to-point distance from Teterboro Airport! You're telling me they shutdown Newark because an alleged drone was spotted 20km away?!?!?!

Thank for the link!
Agree that this is the now-classical fake news plus fearmongering pattern in action.
Just like with the NATO arms makers...
1. Create an enemy (in this case drone community);
2. Scare and inconvenience the general shee... public (in this case airport shutdowns);
3. Profit (make the multi-million government procurements to combat the "enemy" from 1).

In the case of UK that has already translated into £5mill: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46754489

EdisonW1979 Posted at 1-23 10:41
Here's what I didn't realize about this before, but now leads me to believe this is 200% BS...

Newark is approximately 20km point-to-point distance from Teterboro Airport! You're telling me they shutdown Newark because an alleged drone was spotted 20km away?!?!?!

Come On Man!  You make it sound like it was a long, long, long way off by using KiloMeters.
Teterboro airport is less than 12.43 miles away from Newark!!!
That's barely double minimum 5-mile radius of notifying airport!

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 1-24 10:21
Come On Man!  You make it sound like it was a long, long, long way off by using KiloMeters.
Teterboro airport is less than 12.43 miles away from Newark!!!
That's barely double minimum 5-mile radius of notifying airport!

Here is the latest news report.
It did say the other airport was 20 miles away not 20km as Edison said in post #14

Newark drone sighting
One Pilot said they saw the one drone 30 feet away and another said a quarter mile away.( that one must of been a really big drone.)

B1houdini Posted at 1-24 10:54
Here is the latest news report.
It did say the other airport was 20 miles away not 20km as Edison said in post #14

One Pilot said they saw the one drone 30 feet away and another said a quarter mile away.

Difference between Junebug and Knat splats on plane's windscreens.   

Dirty Bird Posted at 1-22 23:26
On tonight's episode of "Drone Tales from the BBC" we have another sensational story of a mystery object (all such unidentified objects are deemed drones) spotted at 3,500' menacing an airport.  As has been the case in nearly all of these cases, no corroborating evidence of a drone actually exists.  Having already shutdown Gatwick & Heathrow, the Brit's are now taking their drone fearmongering to foreign shores...

"Having already shutdown Gatwick & Heathrow, the Brit's are now taking their drone fearmongering to foreign shores..."

Are you saying that the BBC's and many other networks reporting of a shutdown at Newark was incorrect and this shutdown didn't happen ?

It seems it wasn't fearmongering but fact.

Aardvark Posted at 1-24 17:08
"Having already shutdown Gatwick & Heathrow, the Brit's are now taking their drone fearmongering to foreign shores..."

Are you saying that the BBC's and many other networks reporting of a shutdown at Newark was incorrect and this shutdown didn't happen ?

while i doubt the BBC are behind this, every news agency is false reporting and sensationalizing it which kinda invalidates it.

as for is this fear mongering...?   yep!   do the math.  claim is 20 miles outside the newark, 3,500 feet (AGL im assuming?) and coming in for final approach to Newark, which means 250kts and claims to have seen the drone for 5+ seconds and saw it whip past his wing meer 30 feet.   do the math and you find how improbable this is..   250kts = 128meters/sec, for 5 second contact thats 643 meters away or 2109 feet away when spotted something the size of a dinner plate (that's being generous, likely smaller) from that distance while manning an aircraft  at dusk (limited light) and being able to confirm it was a drone while giving literally zero descriptions in the radio communications that was released.

here is a challenge for anyone..fly your mavic out 2109 feet away (643 meters) at dusk and tell me most certainly, this was a drone not anything else....

HereForTheBeer Posted at 1-24 17:31
while i doubt the BBC are behind this, every news agency is false reporting and sensationalizing it which kinda invalidates it.

as for is this fear mongering...?   yep!   do the math.  claim is 20 miles outside the newark, 3,500 feet (AGL im assuming?) and coming in for final approach to Newark, which means 250kts and claims to have seen the drone for 5+ seconds and saw it whip past his wing meer 30 feet.   do the math and you find how improbable this is..   250kts = 128meters/sec, for 5 second contact thats 643 meters away or 2109 feet away when spotted something the size of a dinner plate (that's being generous, likely smaller) from that distance while manning an aircraft  at dusk (limited light) and being able to confirm it was a drone while giving literally zero descriptions in the radio communications that was released.

"while i doubt the BBC are behind this, every news agency is false reporting and sensationalizing it which kinda invalidates it."

The media have reported the facts as given to them, they are not responsible for the accuracy or actions of those making the claims, or shutting down the airports. The airport did shut down, the pilots reported they saw drones, those are the facts. The media reporting the facts doesn't somehow invalidate what happened, even if some of them chose to sensationalise the news.

Perhaps the pilots need to be re-educated, although I doubt that is the case. Given their responsibilities to the public it's surely understandable that they might err on the side of caution.

Aardvark Posted at 1-24 18:05
"while i doubt the BBC are behind this, every news agency is false reporting and sensationalizing it which kinda invalidates it."

The media have reported the facts as given to them, they are not responsible for the accuracy or actions of those making the claims, or shutting down the airports. The airport did shut down, the pilots reported they saw drones, those are the facts. The media reporting the facts doesn't somehow invalidate what happened, even if some of them chose to sensationalise the news.

pathetic people believe media who refuse to challenge or valid anything.  look at their wording and read reports, listen to recorded radio communications, roll back the live data for location of aircraft and speed and tell me why you and other failing to use common sense?   


no proof of a drone, no video, no photo, no description of a drone, the raw math doesn't add up, a pilot called it a drone doesn't make a drone...if a doctor called you a chicken it doesnt make you a chicken... the media see $$$ and agenda to fill for the commercial partners and jump on it...they wont validate it because if they took 30 secnds to look into it and challange it they realize how unlikely it is and probably lost a sponsorship deal with one of their commcerial drone allience partners..

Aardvark Posted at 1-24 18:05
"while i doubt the BBC are behind this, every news agency is false reporting and sensationalizing it which kinda invalidates it."

The media have reported the facts as given to them, they are not responsible for the accuracy or actions of those making the claims, or shutting down the airports. The airport did shut down, the pilots reported they saw drones, those are the facts. The media reporting the facts doesn't somehow invalidate what happened, even if some of them chose to sensationalise the news.

The media have reported the facts as given to them, they are not responsible for the accuracy or actions of those making the claims, or shutting down the airports.

Media has a responsibility to report facts; not to promote hyperbole.   When something is so questionable as in this case, both claim of drone and need to shutdown airport well out of possible danger, the media should be calling both into question.

Media for far to long has gotten a pass on Crying Wolf, which media willing does because it sells.

Dirty Bird Posted at 1-24 19:35
Last weekend the press reported some "facts" about kids allegedly harassing an old Indian fella.

How factual was that reporting?

How factual was that reporting?
Complete 180!  


As it turned out, the ''old Indian fella" was looking for publicity, targeted the kids, and harassed them.
The fact news media didn't bother to investigate what really happened, and history of this ''fella'' - shows how un-trustworthy press is.

Dirty Bird Posted at 1-24 19:33
No evidence supporting a drone.  Just the latest crapwich...

While I don't disagree that the information may or may not be accurate, the news media reported the facts as presented to them, therefore the story itself was accurate and not fake or untrue.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 1-24 22:14
The media have reported the facts as given to them, they are not responsible for the accuracy or actions of those making the claims, or shutting down the airports.

Media has a responsibility to report facts; not to promote hyperbole.   When something is so questionable as in this case, both claim of drone and need to shutdown airport well out of possible danger, the media should be calling both into question.

"the media should be calling both into question."

Surely it's not the medias job to act as judge, jury and executioner. In an ideal world they should be impartial and report the facts as presented to them (although many do comment, and judge). Presumably they have looked at the story checked the primary facts and decided which bits should be left to their audience to comment on. In this particular case and similar recently, it seems to have worked for them in generating the publics response they profit from. It is our choice whether or not to read these reports and which bits to believe or not. But there seems little doubt that there were serious consequences based on these 'drone witness' reports. And perhaps as some have said a wake up call for airport security, where these incidents demonstrate how little effort it might take to cause mayhem and disruption.

There are vested interests in discrediting recreational drone flying. The law seems at present, to be fair in specifying and defining the limits of 'best practices'. However there are organisations that would prefer there were a complete ban on anything other than commercially operated drones. As no one 'owns' the air as such - limits are observed with the understanding is that it is a shared use space. The fact that there are different restrictions for model plane flyers compared to semi-autonomous drone flights is for a number of reasons but one is prior rights - namely that they have been flying quite happily for as long as conventional full sized planes - the better part of 100 years. As the technology is developed further safety measures will improve both on board and at the perimeters of critical ground sites. After all, why were 'cow catches'* added to the front of steam trains - and now still exist but funnily are called 'pilots'...?
*(Intersting side note 'cow catchers' were the invention of Charles Babbage - who also is credited with the invention of automated computation...)

Dirty Bird Posted at 1-27 16:55
Therein lies the real problem.  The mainstream media not only lacks impartiality, they are outright dishonest, have lost all sense of credibility, & have largely become shills of the Left & other groups.  Look at the story I mentioned previously about the alleged confrontation between Nathan Phillips & the Covington High School students.  The media not only inaccurately reported the story, they DELIBERATELY EDITED THE VIDEO to create the false narrative that the students were the aggressors.  Even after the media deception was exposed & retractions began to occur, many in the media continued to access blame upon the students.   Witness Liberal NBC shill Savannah Guthrie's interview of an underage student ("Don't you think you owe Mr. Phillips an apology?") compared to the absolute lack of questioning of the adult (and instigator) Phillips.

The very same weekend the media pushed the false Covington story, they had gone forward with another entirely false report.   This would be the one about Michael Cohen claiming Trump ordered him to lie to Congress.  It was, quite simply, a lie, that even the partisan hack Robert Mueller felt compelled to contest publicly.  The standard for journalists is SUPPOSED TO BE to VERIFY a story's authenticity BEFORE going public.  In this particular case reports were prefaced with "If this is true..."   Now that is one Hell of a "standard", yet THAT is the state of mainstream "journalism" today, & it is why people have such disdain & distrust of the press.  Not directing this at you, but only extremely lazy or foolish people get their news from mainstream sources these days.  Granted there are a lot of lazy & foolish people.  (We know them as "Democrats")

I thought the discussion was about journalism and not American politics.

"Granted there are a lot of lazy & foolish people.  (We know them as "Democrats") "

Did not the majority of the American public vote democrat in the house of representatives ?

"The standard for journalists is SUPPOSED TO BE to VERIFY a story's authenticity BEFORE going public."

I would agree but with one caveat, the problem is that at the time of reading none of us knew the truth of the story, we must make our own judgement based on our own life experiences. There is only so much verification that can be done before the press publicise information.

Given the article in question there seems no doubt that Newark was shut down, and that it was due to reports given by pilots, i.e. credible people. So my thought is that the media did no wrong in reporting this information.

In the U.K the very same BBC (and others) also reports on some very positive aspects in relation to multi-rotors, their uses, and benefits.

Regarding the mainstream media, my thought is that generally they are more trustworthy than many sources on the internet that tend to be pure nonsense.

There are attractions at both extremes of the political spectrums, but neither of them seems to bear much support in the real world. You are right to be cautious on these stories, but I believe the basic facts of the stories were correct, as to the fine detail we don't know, and likely never shall know.

The genuinely dishonest media should be ignored and set to one side, those that have some credence should be read, and perhaps acknowledged.

Lamplighter55 Posted at 1-23 09:54
Could have been poultry.

As long as not frozen