Airline Pilots and a little EMBELLISHMENT

[Meta4]

And while 85% of bird strikes do no damage, the other 15% are the second leading cause of airline fatalities.

To put things in perspective, here are some numbers from the FAA birdstrike database
There have been about 142,000 wildlife strikes with civil aircraft in USA between 1990 and 2013
From 1990 to 2013, there were 25 human fatalities attributed to wildlife strikes with US civil aircraft.

 

[Steeleagle]

The difference is you can't regulate the birds but you certainly can regulate drone operations. As I said earlier. All it takes is one

 

[steveeds]

And while 85% of bird strikes do no damage, the other 15% are the second leading cause of airline fatalities.

To put things in perspective, here are some numbers from the FAA birdstrike database
There have been about 142,000 wildlife strikes with civil aircraft in USA between 1990 and 2013
From 1990 to 2013, there were 25 human fatalities attributed to wildlife strikes with US civil aircraft.

Keeping with perspectives you would need to add how many flights with how many people did those safe flights with other conditions also of deaths
How many people die because they walked into a telephone post..for example.
People die all the time in the weirdest ways, it's called life or in this case death, perspectives are open slather without true conditions, I think that was more an observational statement Meta4 (for what ).

 

[gfredrone]

 

[Sketch6995]

i agree, 4000 feet high was just a bit much to swallow for me......yes it can be done, and yes alot of us have been up that high at one time or another.

but over LA? the smog alone prevents you from having eyes on the drone.....idk....might be true but i doubt it very much.

 

[Pmcdn]

I smell complete BS on this. It would be very easy to "spot" a drone from the cockpit anytime you want.

There's no burden on the pilots reporting these because the "sightings" are completely unverifiable.

 

[ianwood]

The difference is you can't regulate the birds but you certainly can regulate drone operations. As I said earlier. All it takes is one

Well, apparently regulating drones is about as effective as regulating birds. Mostly because 99% of drone owners don't know and/or don't understand current regulations.

 

[sdtrojan]

That is because the Federal government, of which I am an employee, make the regulations needlessly complicated to read. Written by lawyers, applicable to the masses who are not adept at reading "legalese."

If the FAA made their rules as they pertain to hobbyist and those who are not required to meet a certification requirements (involving classroom education) easier to read, about 90% of the infractions would go away. People, generally speaking, are rule followers if the impact of not following the rules takes away their opportunity to pursue something they enjoy doing.

 

[smaugnaut]

If you can fly a P2 a distance of 1.5 miles what's 4000' straight up. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. :roll:

First off, 1.5 miles isn't far anymore. Second, Flying straight up to 4,000 feet is much more difficult than it sounds. Third, id like to see you fly your drone that can fly 1.5 miles to 4,000 feet. Let me know how that goes. Like the OP said, it is possible but highly unlikely if it was a phantom 2. Not only that i cant fathom how a pilot could see it while flying at 200-300 mph while preparing for landing. Just saying "it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure that out"