Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Commercial Drone Pilots Cheer Judge Finding Against FAA

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Lets just say, Tyndall Air Force Base is not really that far from Tallahassee.... also you have the 82d Aerial Targets Squadron, the 53d Weapons Evaluation Group located on that base who so happens to use the F-4 as aerial target practice....

It is very possible a real F4 almost collided with an civilian airliner, the pilot thought it nicked his aircraft over Tallahassee... the avionics like radar are disabled in these QF-4s ... some programed to avoid radars and missiles..

Plus the pilot had less than a split second to see the F4 head on... maybe not enough time to judge it's size...

edit on 11-5-2014 by imitator because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 11 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: imitator

So now F-4s are stealthy? It would have shown up on ATC radar, both skin return and transponder.

Tyndall AFB also flies QF-4s and QF-16s over the Gulf of Mexico, which is where the shootex ranges are, and the training ranges are.

What part of "So close we thought we hit it" do you not understand? Even if it was a quick glimpse, if it was close enough that he was convinced he thought they hit it, then it would have been huge in the windscreen. Either it was so far away that he thought it was small, and wasn't a threat to them, or it was so close that even a quick glimpse would never be confused for a small RC aircraft. You can't have it both ways, yet again.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 01:10 AM
link   
originally posted by: Zaphod58


So now F-4s are stealthy? It would have shown up on ATC radar, both skin return and transponder.


Yes very possible with something like radar absorbing paint, they do test weapons "missiles" against those types of features. It would appear as if nothing were on radar. There are several ways to confuse radar and transponders, lots of little things they can program and test against etc... I bet you know those things...


Tyndall AFB also flies QF-4s and QF-16s over the Gulf of Mexico, which is where the shootex ranges are, and the training ranges are.


You never know what else they use them for.... maybe false flag scenarios.


What part of "So close we thought we hit it" do you not understand? Even if it was a quick glimpse, if it was close enough that he was convinced he thought they hit it, then it would have been huge in the windscreen. Either it was so far away that he thought it was small, and wasn't a threat to them, or it was so close that even a quick glimpse would never be confused for a small RC aircraft. You can't have it both ways, yet again.


A head on split second view can give a false perception of distance and size. The pilot perception maybe lower after such a traumatic event, at best it's a general gist of what he saw... Maybe it was far, or it was so close that his perception failed. So yes I can have it both ways....
edit on 5/12/2014 by Zaphod58 because: Sorry, messed that up, let me fix it.
edit on 5/12/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
Yes very possible with something like radar absorbing paint, they do test weapons "missiles" against those types of features. It would appear as if nothing were on radar. There are several ways to confuse radar and transponders, lots of little things they can program and test against etc... I bet you know those things...


Not against ATC radar, or over a populated area, and not on F-4s. That would be what RCS ranges, and special test aircraft are used for, not 40+ year old F-4s. Radar absorbent paint doesn't do nearly as much as you seem to think it does, and the other ways all involve electronic warfare systems, which would have shown up somehow on radar. Either by blotting out the system, or false targets. None of which appeared.



You never know what else they use them for.... maybe false flag scenarios.


So they're going to use a tiny number of planes (they only have two or three ready at a time usually), that are used by so few air forces that I can count them on one hand, and will probably have fingers left over, none of who have the operational capability to get them to the US, to what?


A head on split second view can give a false perception of distance and size. The pilot perception maybe lower after such a traumatic event, at best it's a general gist of what he saw... Maybe it was far, or it was so close that his perception failed. So yes I can have it both ways....


A split second view is not going to let you get enough detail to tell that it's a camouflage F-4. It's going to let you see that there's a plane there, not fine details like how it's painted. Most people with a split second view wouldn't even be able to tell you the type of aircraft. Either it's close enough that he could tell size, and it was a threat of some sort, or it was so far away he was mistaken on size, and it wasn't a threat.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: luxordelphi

Looks to me like pretty much anyone can invade our privacy.


Do you do a lot of sunbathing on your roof?





posted on May, 12 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58

Not against ATC radar, or over a populated area, and not on F-4s. That would be what RCS ranges, and special test aircraft are used for, not 40+ year old F-4s.


I think your underestimating modern RAM technology, it's much more advanced than it was several years ago. ATC looks for skin paint, plus transponders... They do test 40+ year old aircraft with stealth technology, several countries still use old aircraft that can be modified with modern RAM. The do test F4's and other aircraft with such material against missiles and radar etc...



So they're going to use a tiny number of planes


I'm not saying only F4's are reserved for false flag scenarios, it can be any type of aircraft that can be droned out for such events. It's common sense for most conspiracy theories... right? The fact is, it can be done.



Either it's close enough that he could tell size, and it was a threat of some sort, or it was so far away he was mistaken on size, and it wasn't a threat.


A split second view can give a false sense of size and color, visual memory is incredibly small... that is why eyewitness evidence can be useless in a court of law. The fact that he saw an F4 near an area that test F4's is what stands out...

Plus the FAA digging out files to fit their agenda.... it seems nowadays they have a bunch of idiots running government agencies... it's very possible they dug up something that could bite them.

edit on 12-5-2014 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
I think your underestimating modern RAM technology, it's much more advanced than it was several years ago. ATC looks for skin paint, plus transponders... They do test 40+ year old aircraft with stealth technology, several countries still use old aircraft that can be modified with modern RAM. The do test F4's and other aircraft with such material against missiles and radar etc...


I'm probably the LAST person on here that underestimates RAM technology. But putting RAM on an F-4 is like putting lipstick on a pig. It's only going to get you so far. The underlying design is not stealthy, and has no stealthy characteristics. A RAM coating will get you SOME reduction in RCS, but it won't get you anywhere even remotely close to a modern stealth aircraft, and it won't get you invisible to ATC radar, especially at the range they were from the antenna. The closer you are to an antenna the better your stealth has to be, and they were only at 2300 feet descending towards the airport.


I'm not saying only F4's are reserved for false flag scenarios, it can be any type of aircraft that can be droned out for such events. It's common sense for most conspiracy theories... right? The fact is, it can be done.


Except for the fact that all the aircraft that are available to them are aircraft our allies use, so if there was a false flag using a QF conversion, it would implicate our allies, or stand out immediately that it was a false flag.



A split second view can give a false sense of size and color, visual memory is incredibly small... that is why eyewitness evidence can be useless in a court of law. The fact that he saw an F4 near an area that test F4's is what stands out...


So I guess that means that RC planes should be outlawed. Because there are types for every type of fighter out there. Again, if this was a full size F-4, there would be NO mistaking it for an RC plane if it was so close that the pilot was convinced he hit it, quick glimpse or not. It would have filled the windscreen of that plane. The USAIr plane was a CRJ-200. The CRJ-200 is 87 feet long, with a 69 foot wingspan. It's not much bigger than the F-4 that you say was involved. Even a quick glimpse is going to absolutely fill the windscreen of a CRJ, and could never be mistaken for something small.


Plus the FAA digging out files to fit their agenda.... it seems nowadays they have a bunch of idiots running government agencies...


This is probably the only part that we agree on.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58

I'm probably the LAST person on here that underestimates RAM technology. But putting RAM on an F-4 is like putting lipstick on a pig. It's only going to get you so far.


Yeah, but if you fly low enough and put the right wings on a pig it could reflects radar waves in all crazy directions, and with the right lipstick it could absorb the electromagnetic energy... haha when pigs fly... right lol


So I guess that means that RC planes should be outlawed. Because there are types for every type of fighter out there. Again, if this was a full size F-4, there would be NO mistaking it for an RC plane if it was so close that the pilot was convinced he hit it, quick glimpse or not.


I wouldn't mind having an RC F4 Phantom.... one day I plan on getting a little thunder bird F-16 after I retire one of my other time consuming hobbies.... god forbid if RC planes become outlawed by then lol...

Now here is what I'm saying... Tyndall Air Force Base is not far from Tallahassee, you have the 82d Aerial Targets Squadron in the area who so happens to use real F-4 Phantom drones.... Just maybe it was a real QF-4... There is that percentage possibility, "because of the area and aircraft" that a military F4 Phantom almost collided with a civilian airliner!!! That's all I'm saying....

edit on 13-5-2014 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Mamatus

Not to mention that jet RC that nearly hit a commercial airliner just the other day.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: imitator

If that was the case all they'd have to do is put RAM on the current fleet and have a ready made stealth fleet.

And I completely disagree. It would be hard to mistake a full size aircraft for a model when the real one is almost the same size.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Nothing will change until a reckless drone operator causes an accident with a passenger carrying aircraft.

And when that happens, I hope this Judge gets charged as an accessory to the event, as they had a perfect chance to eliminate what will become a very dangerous situation.

If drone operators want to be able to operate in the same airspace as pilot controlled aircraft they should be required to hold a relevant license, with relevant training.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join