This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Back to Squawk list

Drone flies within feet of arriving aircraft at McCarran

A video taken at an unknown time from a drone hovering over Las Vegas as a jet approaches and then passes underneath. The FAA said Friday it's "aware of the incident and is investigating" but declined further comment. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

The problem is that he won't get a damn thing done to him. The FAA will say they can't prove it was him that did it and send him a letter. It's morons like this guy that make it harder on 95% of the Part 107 operators who follow the rules and regulations. There needs to be an example made of one of these to discourage(not that it will do much) others from doing the same.
rapidwolve 4
I agree anthony...maybe if they got slapped with a $3000 fine, might discourage them a bit more..that and take away their drone (some are not cheap) and not allow them to own/operate another
Dan Grelinger 1
Actually, the feds ARE looking for this culprit, and if they find him, something will be done. Federal penalties can be much, much higher than just a $3000 fine, up to $250,000 and time in jail. Want a deterrent? It's already there.
jbqwik 5
reckless, irresponsible. Some people just take chances without regard to common sense.
Sidney Smith 3
tick, tick-tick, tick-tick, At the very least one of these clowns are going to destroy a very expensive turbo fan someday. Let's all hope that is all the damage it will incur.
Jeff Lawson 3
More details about the location of where the drone reported was launched from...
rapidwolve 6
Ohh I hope they catch the little SOB and slap the max out of him/her..."Mom, dad, can I borrow $250k?..ohh and I wont be home for 3 years because I thot it was cool to fly my drone above an inbound airliner"...idiot
jbqwik 3
A couple standout statements in the linked report: The geo-fencing software had (apparently) been hacked; the drone community is (apparently) as upset about this as anyone.
MrRockoutLoud 1
Racing quads don't have geofencing software or limits on how they can position themselves.
davidlapworth 2
Just wondering if this incident actually happened? There have been faked drone collides with airliner videos posted on the internet before now. It looks pretty well lit for 1:10 AM. It also looks pretty acrobatic for your average Geofenced type UAV ie. DJI, Yuneec, Parrot etc. Of course if it turns out to be real then the FAA should throw the book at them, $250,000.00 fine should make them think twice about trying it again. But remember, the only drones that have actually caused any deaths or done substantial damage to property are the weaponised ones flown by the military. So a little calm and perspective needs to be bought into this conversation. We need some evidence before going off half cocked, a YouTube video in itself is NOT evidence. Manned aircraft are proven to be a far greater threat to other manned aircraft than toy or hobbyist UAV's are.
Jeff Lawson 2
The video was clearly taken during the daytime and not not at 1:10AM (that timestamp only appears in that particular news station's broadcast version of the video and not the other versions online).
davidlapworth 2
OK, so it could be real, and after reading the article linked to by Jeff Lawson, it seems it probably was an Acrobatic or Racing Drone not one of the camera drones that would normally carry GPS and geofencing software, therefore no need to "Hack the Geofencing software". If the FAA do catch the pilot then he/she deserves to feel the full weight of the law.
btweston 2
Want to get some predictable comments on FlightAware? Do the drone.
Roger Curtiss 2
Not to condone the drone operation but..."flies within feet of arriving aircraft" is right up there with "a number of reasons" as far as conveying little useful information. How many feet? I am guessing that the camera image gives the impression the drone and jet were much closer than they actually were.
Dan Grelinger 1
What is the purpose of this post? Are you excusing the drone pilot?
rapidwolve 3
This drone operator is a real dumbass! I wonder how tough Transport Canada will be enforcing their rules. No drone within 9.6km of any aerodrome (airport) and the list goes on and the fines are not chicken feed
James Derry 2
He is a dumbass and makes life difficult for all other operators. Leading to rules like the mentioned TC ban. It is similar to Danish rules which in practise, have closed most of the really interesting areas. The 5-10km ban from airports is one of the "interesting ones." Aircraft not on actual final or departure are not going to be at the general upper limit of 400 feet for drones. So being 2 km to the east of a north/south runway, at 150 feet, poses what danger? The 5-10 km rules are frankly a bureaucratic convenience and don't address safety. Therein lies the problem. Respect for the law. Yes it is now in place, but hard to accept as it is mindless and simple, but not based on a thing.
I have my base between Biggin Hill, Gatwick, City airport and 1000 arrivals at Heathrow overhead. But a drone flying at 200 feet is no where near any of them and would never constitute a hazard. Thus far, we have a rather lenient set of rules in UK and I can only hope they continue, but I doubt it.
Just curious what this has to do with Transport Canada???

McCarran International Airport where the incident occurred is the primary commercial airport serving the Las Vegas Valley and is it not exactly within their jurisdiction. ;-|
rapidwolve 1
Yes Patrick I realize that and know where McCarran is..I was making a questionable statement.
shrudini 1
Bill Babis 1
Shouldn't have any trouble catching this idiot.
crk112 1
Was that the drone pilot's name posted right on the video when it flashed up and said "Mark Stoney now active" at the top ?
Dale Hubbard 1
These people are potential murderers and should suffer appropriate punishment.
isardriver 0
this p.o.s. needs to get some jail time - with freedom and rights comes responsibility - some folks seem to forget that. in this instance - this a$$ clown seems to have done this on purpose to get that video - perhaps he should sit in a uav thats used for target practice
btweston 2
Maybe people should mock you for misquoting Spider Man in a comment in which you promote a bizarre form of execution for an even that did not occur.

Dan Grelinger 1
"For an even that did not occur"? Sir, I think you should be mocked to kingdom come.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Neat? It violates all rules of drone operation, either Part 107 or hobbyist. And it casts a pall on all those who take great pains in following the letter of the law, and operate safely.

Maybe there are those who are so reckless as to risk other peoples safety for their enjoyment, but I for one will not do it.
Sam Johnson 2
Making a statement like that is stupid. Are you really that dumb that you cannot realize how dangerous this was. That moron could have easily killed everyone on board that airplane as well as people on the ground.
James Derry 4
I am an ATPL pilot, but also a drone operator. I have watched the rules get tighter in various places in the world and the worst are outright bans. Irresponsible flight like this is a big reason, but a lot is also emotional "i don't like drones."
I condemn this ass, but seriously, the chances of "killing everyone on board" are practically non-existent. A statement like that leads to the ban on emotional grounds. So track him down and educate and punish, but do it on a real basis.
RainbowRiver 0
You have an ATP and you think that a drone can't cause an airliner to crash? REALLY? What do you fly, Cessna's?
James Derry 5
There is a lot of research regarding bird strike damage, as the study points out, some impacts can cause damage. The point was not at all that drones should be given free reign. The point was not that a collision is without risk, but the point was to not go crazy and assume a CRASH! There is a massive difference between damage and a crash. The drone should not have been there. By all means, track the idiot down. But also
keep perspective. I find it typical that rather than react to the statements, you choose to attack the person. Has the ability to debate ideas gone completely out the window, replaced by
Personal attacks and innuendo whenever someone has a statement
You don't like?
RainbowRiver 0
You're trying to defend an indefensible position. Bird strikes brought down USAir flt 1549, which ditched in the Hudson River. An engine eating a drone could very possibly cause an uncontained failure, and uncontained failures have caused fatalities before. Look up Delta flt 1288. They never even left the ground and two people died.
A drone hitting an airplane, or vice-versa, WILL have serious consequences. And it's not an exaggeration, or crazy, to think it could result in a crash if a turbine blade cuts electrical or hydraulic lines. AA flt 191 crashed as a direct result of a severed hydraulic line and kiiled all 271 onboard - still the deadliest crash on US soil.
I'm familiar with the failures you mentioned, but I can't think of an uncontained turbine failure caused by ingestion. The fan, compressor, and combustor take care of debris. Now fan failures yes, but those have to be contained and aren't about to kill anyone.
Ingenstion would no doubt result in a huge maintenance bill, but to be shouting about killing everyone is alarmist.
RainbowRiver 1
Well, you can be the test pilot on the drone ingestion program.... not me :)
davidlapworth 2
2.7, 4 and 8 pound UAV's are pretty heavy for racing/acrobatic type drones, I'm guessing this particular study probably chose those weights more because that's the weight of some DJI Phantoms and Inspires as well as some of the larger fixed wing camera platforms. If they'd tested the smaller racing and toy class UAV's there probably wouldn't have been much damage at all. There has been almost no actual UAV strike damage to give us any way to reliably asses or guess how much damage can be done. The only actual drone strike report I've ever seen was for a Blackhawk Helicopter where a DJI Phantom hit the rotor while the Blackhawk was doing some low level flying, the leading edge of one of the Blackhawks blades was damaged and the door skin was damaged where one of the DJI's motors imbedded itself, so although the damage would be expensive to repair, the helicopter continued flying to a safe landing. Until there's some actual test results and some verified strike reports, everybody needs to calm down and remember that there are far more deaths due to manned aircraft hitting other manned aircraft, manned aircraft flying into the ground, birds flying into aircraft, and many orders of magnitude more deaths caused by manned ground vehicles (cars, bikes and trucks) driving into other manned ground vehicles or stationary roadside objects.
Dan Grelinger 1
Did you miss the drone strike of an airliner on final in Quebec?
Michael Groszek -1
So which part of your extensive training and sitting in cockpit makes you an authority on the effects of drone impacts? Maybe I should come to you for advice while I'm designing the wings you fly.
RainbowRiver -1
Design 'em with 1" thick stainless steel leading edges - should take a drone strike for sure.
Michael Groszek -4
Could have killed everyone! Think of the children!
What a load of bullshit.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!