Can a drone fly at 10000ft?

[eflightray]

It would be interesting to know what pilots can actually describe when they say they saw a 'drone'.

Many people will probably instantly think and imagine a quadcopter (multi-copter) type vehicle.

Back in the 50's, 60's it would have probably been called a 'UFO', but I imagine that pilots do not report a 'UFO' any more, just in case they get sent for psychological evaluation, and it goes on their record.

Not saying it wasn't a 'drone' that these pilot see and report, but it does seem to be 'the thing to report' if something is seen that seems 'different' from a bird.

Same as a 'UFO' instantly seems to relate to a flying saucer, space ship, etc.

Same a my B-25 being called a Lancaster, because it has twin fins.

It's often a guess, and the imagination that enhances the partial image.

It will be interesting when some facts appear, (if you can actually trust 'facts' ).

.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[eflightray]

Fantastic eyesight pilots have. Even recognising types, colour, and manufacturer.

Wow.

.

[Erfolg]

I do think that to much is being made of the special qualities of Pilots, not necessarily by the pilots.

You do not need to be in the aircraft business and flying to have experience of how fallible humans are. Take driving a car, how many times have you or a passenger not seen the same thing, when recounting what you saw, or perhaps missed.

I am also surprised that airline pilots see anything to their side when approaching the runway. I would have thought that they are mostly concentrating on two aspects. What all the in cockpit data they are monitoring and responding to is proving, secondly the external visual aids on the approach, in addition to information from the ground staff. Things to the side I would have thought, if seen would be only assessed if relevant to what they are doing.

Also it appears that many are totally unaware of a bird strike until it happens. Even a flock of geese has apparently escaped notice, until you know the rest.

I am in no way criticising anybody, much is about work loads, human abilities and limitations.

I truly did think it was a "Ron Beasley expletive" cat (word not allowed on this site) sitting on the track. I was traveling at 10mph, initially about a quarter of a mile away.

Edited By Erfolg on 15/12/2018 21:28:31

[Geoff S]

I read some time ago about an experiment in observation carried on a group of candidates traing to be magistrates. As they left the building a minor traffic accident was staged (not on the public road) and they were each asked what they saw (they were taken by surprise). Each gave a different description and each was convinced they were accurate. The experiment was to make them aware that witnesses in all honesty can 'see' different things.

There's also the YouTube video in which you are asked to count the number of times a ball is passed between a group of people (at least I think that was it). Afterwards you aren't asked for the score but if you noticed the bear. I didn't see the bear which was someone dressed in a bear outfit who wandered amongst the participants very obvious but unnoticed by me and apparently many others.

Seeing is not necessarily always what we think, especially when concentrating on another task.

Geoff

[Keith Simmons]

Interesting, I have seen videos of near misses of military and light aircraft, so a camera exists, but not for modern airliners? There is a black box each for cockpit recordings and flight data. I would have thought an another black box for external views of the aircraft looking forward plus engines and flying surfaces (wings & tailplane etc)?

In the BBC report, the drone was at 20 times the legal limit so that's 20 x 400ft = 8000ft. (Unless the ground is at 2000ft above sea level? Which I doubt it.)

[Piers Bowlan]

Here. It was actually a Gorilla but the principal is the same. Now you are wise to it it will be obvious but try it on your unsuspecting friends and you will be amazed at how many people don't spot it. (I didn't!)

Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable and often taken with a pinch of salt in accident investigations where the general public are concerned. If the pilots said they identified a drone then they probably did but we will never know for sure as there is no photographic or SSRT evidence as drones don't carry transponders. What I would say is having had a few close encounters with birds during my flying career you only get a momentary fleeting glimps before they are gone, so very little time to focus and clock any detail. To explain, one second they are a tiny speck snaking towards you, the next, when close enough to potentially see detail, they are a blur streaking past you in your peripheral vision.

I once had an airmiss with a model aircraft. Some years ago I was instructing in a C152 approaching Denham having let down to circuit height (750ft QFE). A green model aircraft with eliptical wings apeared infront of me climbing in a vertival attitude (spitfire!?), it seemed to hang in space for a second before dissapearing close dowm my right hand side. I reported the matter to the police as I thought the operator should be told 'the error of his ways', flying within the Denham light aircraft corridor at circuit height and within the London CTZ. I never did get any feedback from the police and I regret to say did not file a report with the CAA, as I thought it was more a police matter (endangering an aircraft). Bearing in mind I was only flying at 90 knots I only saw it for a couple of seconds, much less If you are doing 300kts.

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 16/12/2018 09:34:11

[Brian Cooper]

Pilots are not stupid. . They are not in the business of not seeing what is there, but they certainly know when something hoves into their view. If they reported seeing a drone, I would be inclined to believe them.

The problem with drones is that no flying skills are required. . Take off? Flick a switch.. Loiter in a pre-planned position? Flick a switch. . Return to home and land? Flick a switch... This autonomy leaves an irresponsible drone operator lots of time to create lots of mischief...... and they do. . . Lipo packs in excess of 12,000Mah, plus radios which have been blatantly altered to allow greater range are all part of the "scene".

In the hands of a delinquent, if a drone CAN get to 10,000ft, then it ruddy well will.

I hasten to add that this does not apply to the decent, responsible drone operators who obey the rules and the laws, and are very probably all seasoned BMFA members.

[Kevin 216]

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 16/12/2018 09:23:43:

Here. It was actually a Gorilla but the principal is the same. Now you are wise to it it will be obvious but try it on your unsuspecting friends and you will be amazed at how many people don't spot it. (I didn't!)

Me too gorilla what gorilla!

The same organisation that produced the gorilla video also produced a CD for testing perception. We used the Cd as part of our Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance training sessions. Interestingly there was a marked difference between ground crew and aircrew perceptions, the aircrew noticing more subtle changes in images.

[Keith Lomax]

Posted by Dave Hess on 15/12/2018 17:02:56:

It's possible to fly a drone at any range now using the 4G network and a smartphone or laptop. No need for a transmitter.

It is very unlikely that this technology would allow flights at 10,000 feet up

Whilst the range of 4G can be tuned to 5 miles or more, this is to cover areas such as in the US where population is sparse and roads are straight. To reach this range, the cell sites would have to be focussed into a fairly narrow conical beam.

In the UK, cell sites are more closely spaced and the range is configured (usually) into a 120 degree arc (ie. 3 actual cells on each mast) with a range of 2-3 miles horizontally and a few hundred feet vertically.

The mobile companies would not waste money creating cell sites to give coverage 2 miles up!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

There does seem to be some of the opinion that pilots are in some way special.

I take the view that refereeing staff are also very special, and are pretty much unbiased in undertaking their task at football and rugby etc.

In the case of football there has been in recent times a lot of research into two aspects of their duties. The first is the percentage of mistakes made. The second what they believe they saw. In both cases the accuracy is so poor that you do wonder initially why bother with them. It then becomes apparent, that somebody who is trained and is concentrating on a narrow set of criteria, are better than the 50% level that most would hope for, in that the general decision is correct, although not accurate, although there remains a very high percentage of decisions which were incorrect. Just like pilots it seems they work on predicting some outcomes which are common and so on.

It is partly a consequence of these limitations that additional aids have and are being introduced into sport to aid them. Where they are able to view what happened, how, by whom and the circumstances etc.

My guess is pilots do see something in many cases, and not always what they assume it to be. Just like referees, many things are so transient that the incident is parked at the back of their minds, as they move onto more pressing matters (the continuing game). I would hope that pilots likewise, see something, decided it is not the most pressing issue, look back to the instruments, external view and other communications.

Yet some things will be correctly observed. Others like the many bird strikes, the pilots did not see the problem in the vast majority of cases, until the engines failed, or some other damage occurred. Just like motorists hitting large pot holes, who either did not see the problem, or misjudged what it was in their path.

As for birds, being a one time glider guider, I have observed and wondered why Buzzards, Gulls can go to extreme altitudes. I have even seen them as specks though binoculars, where keeping the speck in view was so difficult due to distance and field of view. Where I now live, I have seen Geese, spiraling down into view, from nowhere, I am guessing from using high altitude strong favorable wind?

In some cases there will have been a quad, in many other cases probably mistaken.

Edited By Erfolg on 16/12/2018 11:24:50

[Cuban8]

Many years ago, my company arranged a driving safety course for its engineers and reps. They showed us the gorilla film and IIRC, something like eighteen out of twenty viewing it didn't see the gorilla. Certainly made me realise how faulty one's senses can be. Looking at the film again, and of course knowing what to look for, I find it incredible that we were fooled first time around.

[kc]

Well I asked originally if drones could fly at 10000 and some people here have said it's possible, so I accept it's possible.

Then the question becomes why cannot a quadcopter be spotted by radar and the pilots warned. If radar cannot spot such a small item then surely all air defence is unable to protect us from terrorist or foreign enemy attack by drones with noxious stuff on board ( remember Salisbury! ) Improving radar would seem more important than ever.

If radar cannot spot our planes then it would seem likely that all quadcopters and maybe all model planes will have to be fitted with transponders in future. If so what sort of weight & bulk would be likely?

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

A thought that occurs to me....as we all know air gets "thinner" as altitude increases. I wonder at what point it gets too thin to allow the drone to fly? I would guess at significantly greater altitude than 10,000 feet but it must surely start to become a factor at that height.....

[Geoff S]

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 16/12/2018 09:23:43:

Here. It was actually a Gorilla but the principal is the same. Now you are wise to it it will be obvious but try it on your unsuspecting friends and you will be amazed at how many people don't spot it. (I didn't!)

That may well be the one I remember. I've probably inadvertently illustrated the problem of memory and observation

Geoff

[Erfolg]

Steve has raised an issue that is probably central to starting to understand the probability of how possible, a typical quad could reach 10,000 feet.

Like many people I have read about the limitations that flight in Denver Colorado poses. Although called the mile high city it is apparently 4,921 feet above sea level.

Apparently air density at sea level is 1.225 kg per m^3. Most of us live within a few hundred feet of this. At Denver it is typically 0.96 kg per m^3. That is circa 78 % of that at sea level. At 10,000 ft you would expect the air density to be 0.59 kg m^-3.  I have just used a calculator allowing for temperture reduction. Still a ball park due to assumptions

Having an air density of slightly greater than 1/2 at sea level, I can foresee some issues for a typical of the shelf Quad getting up there.

In a way it does not surprise me as a glider guider at the club where i was a member decided to find how high he could get his Multiplex Cularis, having acquired some telemetry. In addition it carried a simple camera that just recorded what it saw. The model went up to an altitude that we could barely see, which was a few thousand feet from memory, stalled, so it seems, before it recovered level flight, broke up, before it hit the ground in the next field. The camera caught the wing coming of, just a short time after stalling.

All of which makes me think, 10,000 feet possibly can be done, unlikely with your bog standard set up. Getting one down from that altitude could also be an issue.

Edited By Erfolg on 16/12/2018 16:24:14

Edited By Erfolg on 16/12/2018 16:41:09

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[John Lee]

Posted by Steve Hargreaves - Moderator on 16/12/2018 14:25:20:

A thought that occurs to me....as we all know air gets "thinner" as altitude increases. I wonder at what point it gets too thin to allow the drone to fly? I would guess at significantly greater altitude than 10,000 feet but it must surely start to become a factor at that height.....

DJI do 'high altitude' propellors for their Inspire drone for flights above 2500 meters, which they say can be used to 5000 meters - about 16,000 ft.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Steve Hargreaves - Moderator on 16/12/2018 14:25:20:

A thought that occurs to me....as we all know air gets "thinner" as altitude increases. I wonder at what point it gets too thin to allow the drone to fly? I would guess at significantly greater altitude than 10,000 feet but it must surely start to become a factor at that height.....

I did wonder that too but earlier in the thread, mention was made of an "official" drone height record very close to that figure so I decided that "they" must know better.

[Erfolg]

Like so much in life, what is possible and reasonably achievable can be very different.

Again, I am guessing, those propellors are not optimal, or could be very detrimental at sea level.

What ever, your typical drone will probably not be flying at 10, 000 feet. Particularly if it is starting at near sea level. M

[Don Fry]

Remember, the manufacturer assumes the props are for the altitude of the operator. Not intended for the whole trip. That trip loses about a third of air pressure. Possibly that is a reason for the altitude record?

[Peter Miller]

Mention was made about the event on Anglia News tonight. and that it was "20 times the legal limit" Actually a bit more than 20 times but they never get it right

[kc]

So do we think a normal quadcopter of the sort easily bought online would reach that height or does it need to be specially modified with high altitude props etc?

It's much more worrying if it's been specially modified to achieve the altitude and not just a rogue flyer young kid mucking about!

[Don Fry]

My point, KC, is you can prop it for sea level, and it's efficient. Or you can prop it for 5000 feet, and it's efficient. But you might struggle, and for sure, compromise performance to do both.

Still strikes me as a hell of a climb for a toy aeroplane, sorry, multi ropter, or whatever.