View Full Version : Lufthansa Reports Near-Miss W/ Drone at LAX

19th Mar 2016, 16:29
Lufthansa Reports Near-Miss With Drone Over Los Angeles (http://www.ibtimes.com/lufthansa-reports-near-miss-drone-over-los-angeles-2339539)
The pilot of a Lufthansa passenger jumbo jet reported a drone aircraft nearly collided with the airliner on Friday on its landing approach to Los Angeles International Airport, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The close encounter between the wide-body, four-engine Airbus A380 and the drone occurred at about 1:30 p.m. at an altitude of 5,000 feet (152 meters) as the unmanned aircraft passed about 200 feet (61 meters) over the Lufthansa flight 14 miles (22.5 km) east of the airport, the FAA said.

No evasive action was taken by the airline crew, and the plane, Lufthansa Flight 456, safely made its landing minutes later without further incident, according to FAA spokesman Ian Gregor.

19th Mar 2016, 19:14
5000 ft = 1524m;

Why does aviation continue to use outdated avoirdupois measurements?

Espada III
19th Mar 2016, 19:48
Because imperial measurements are logical sizes based upon the human body and metric is french invented devils spawn.

19th Mar 2016, 22:13
Get it right, avoirdupois is for measuring weights not length!

From Wikipedia:

The avoirdupois system is a system of weights (more properly, mass) based on a pound of 16 ounces.

20th Mar 2016, 00:50
Actually first proposed / invented by Bishop John Wilkins, an Englishman, in the 1600s.

The whole World will be metric at some point in the nearish future, most of it already is, so why not just do it now, it makes sense and simplifies measurement? All the really smart people (Scientists and Engineers) have already adopted it, it is just a few stick in the muds that are holding out because of ancient tradition.

Time to move on and embrace the 21st century.

20th Mar 2016, 01:05
Why does aviation continue to use outdated avoirdupois measurements?

You should worry, here in NZ we measure runway length in metres, visibility in nautical miles, vertical distance from cloud in feet, horizontal distance from cloud in kilometres but horizontal distance from a ground based point as a navigational aid in nautical miles, windspeed in knots, forcast wind in degrees True but actual wind at an airport in degrees Magnetic, minimum permitted vertical height from ground in feet and minimum permitted horizontal distance from a feature in metres.

So called "logical reasons" can be stated for all the units used, but it does tax the brain somewhat, and causes confusion.

Mr & Mrs Rocketboots
20th Mar 2016, 02:07
Visibility is reported in metres/kilometres in New Zealand.
The one that gets me every time is the reporting of a distance unit in nm - as if the human eye can spot it!

20th Mar 2016, 05:53
All of which has nothing to do with the LH near hit of a drone at LAX....

20th Mar 2016, 06:56
Los Angeles County had better start deploying these:



20th Mar 2016, 07:03
Au contraire, it does.

Please note the original post, specifically the height at which the drone was flying. Easy to confuse imperial and metric isn't it? Maybe the drone pilot thought he was at 152 metres.

Either that or he was French and couldn't understand what ATC were saying.