IF s/he is doing it regularly, report the N number. A picture from the ground would be nice. Let the FAA deal with it.
Private plane too low
- Thread starter Mmmope
- Start date
Only flight it could have been is this one but the flight log lists the same altitude from start to finish so that cannot be accurate.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N6097G/history/20150812/2332Z/KLOU/KBMG
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N6097G/history/20150812/2332Z/KLOU/KBMG
You said SW, so I thought you meant SouthWest Airlines. But, the control tower can't give permission for flight below the MSA unless landing or taking off. The tower operator could lose their license. there are a lot of towers and other obstructions within 20 SM of the airport that are between 300 ft and 400 ft AGL. Only a suicidal pilot would fly at 250 ft.
It is very accurate. The altitude chart shows that the data is from Indianapolis Center, so the A/C was at cruise altitude before it was handed off to Center, then the track data ends when it is handed to the tower at the destination.
A photo without ground reference would be useless. If it's at 250 ft as you claim, you can easily read the "N" number. If you can't read the registration number then the A/C is probably above 500 ft.
ok, that's where we part company. A photo can support the complainant's story, i.e., he's not making it up, and show the N number. Sorry, Steve, but that's bad advice.
Glide ratio of 17:1? Sorry you are totally out to lunch on that one. Not even close. 2/1 to 3/1 is more like it. With gear and flaps down much less.
A photo without a ground reference shows nothing but a photo of an aircraft. With a ground reference the approximate altitude can be calculated. So take a photo with the ground shown then zoom in to get the tail number.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph240/eller1/
"Assuming that a Boeing 737-300 has a similar glide ratio to a Boeing 747 of 17:1"
http://www.airliners.net/
"... but the Concorde airframe had an awful glide ratio of something like 7:1, compared to ~18:1 for contemporary 747s."
What's your source?
Minimum safe altitude is not 1000ft everywhere, only certain areas. In other places its 500ft and in still other places there is no limit.
Here's a sectional for your area.
http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=39.146&lon=-86.617&zoom=10
Find about where you live on it. If its yellow on the chart then you're in a congested area where 1000' would be the mins. If you're not in yellow then you're probably in an area where 500' is legal. And if you're saying he was at 400' well the human eye is notoriously bad and judging altitude so its entirely possible 500' might look like 400' to you.
Steve, I agree that there is no way the plane was really at 250', but whatever height it was would have been controlled by approach control,,,and yes, they would never send anyone that low unless they are on final
LOL Have you not seen the news they see "Drones" all the time they can pick them out going 500-600mph 2-3000' like deer in a fieldAlso it is very hard for a pilot to see your Phantom and very much easier for you to see the plane to avoid a collision.
If the collision is with your drone? Is that what you are asking?
You would be liable. Manned aircraft always had the right of way over model aircraft.
Any photo would be helpful to the FAA investigation, Steve. You or I are not FAA inspectors, we have no idea how a photo would help the investigation. I was a cop for 32 years and it was never up to the witness to decide how much information the police will need, that's why we are called "investigators." Your advice to the OP that a photo w/o a ground reference is flawed. Turn everything over to the agency and let them decide what is useful.
That's not to say that the pilot flying too low wouldn't be cited for doing that. But, yeah, it's always your responsibility to avoid other aircraft.
When we are launching rockets, we occasionally have small planes start circling the area to see what's going on. (I wonder if seeing a NOTAM for an "Unmanned Rocket Launch" actually attracts them rather than keeps them away.)
We can't launch when an aircraft is in the area. Even if there's no chance of the rocket reaching the aircraft's position or altitude, we don't want to even give the impression of launching when one is near. So, we wait. If the wait gets too long (or the aircraft appears to be under 500 feet), we might call ATC. But, they really can't help because they aren't in continuous contact with the aircraft. The most that could happen is that someone would later talk to the pilot. But, I doubt that even happens because we don't provide any real proof that the pilot was doing anything wrong.
-- Roger
Steve's correct. Modern airliners have glide ratios of around 15:1 to 20:1. It's pretty amazing when you consider that the glide ratio of a typical small airplane (like a Cessna 172) is about 10:1 and the best glide ratio I seen listed for any birds is around 22:1.
-- Roger
Oh it happens. When I was 17 with a brand new private pilot license in my back pocket, I decided to buzz my girlfriend's house and neighbors called the FAA and gave them my N number. By the time I landed the FAA inspector was waiting for me. Fortunately he was a nice guy and, rather than file for a formal hearing he gave me an *** chewing I never forgot. And I got to keep my license.
Don't ever believe the "they are too busy to deal with me" crowd. They usually don't know what they are talking about.
Similar threads
