Sandy Hook : Drone/Cessna/Remote Control ? Flying low over Sandy Hook School below Helicopter !

Just saw this video and if this is real (and not a clever bit of after effects to stir things up) then this looks very strange to me... strange as in it looks like a small RC Cessna airplane, and not a full size plane at all (as some YT comments suggest)...



Not saying it means anything... it just looks very odd to me and I know others around here like 'odd' stuff too!

I did a search for this and found nothing... apologies if in wrong forum in advance. Thanks.

It's a full sized Cessna, looks like a 152 maybe, but some of them are hard to tell the difference. I've seen that happen before in other places where helicopters are filming. The Cessna pilot wants to see what's going on, so they'll be stupid and fly right through the area. It's all legal too, because they're under Visual Flight Rules, so it's up to them to maintain separation just by looking for other aircraft.

It's a Cessna, and it's not as close as you might think. The news helicopter is probably at about 8,000-10,000 ft.

FAA Altitude Regulations

Also notice how helicopters can fly lower than airplanes in congested areas.

It says an airplane must fly over 1000ft above highest object within 2000ft radius.

Also I find it strange such a low flying aircraft wouldn't cause anyone to look up. But then again they could have been very distracted considering.

reply to post by muzzleflash


They had probably been hearing helicopters overhead the whole time, and didn't think anything of the Cessna noise. It was all just a drone to them by that point. Along with being more concerned about other things.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Thanks for the comment. I understand how a telephoto lens can distort distances but the plane seems reasonably in focus in relation to the ground which makes it seem closer to the ground and so smaller in my guesstimation.
And it's speed as it crosses the picture seems... I don't know... slow perhaps? It just doesn't look full size to me but I'd like to be proved either way.
How far away would the helicopter be do you think and therefore how high would the plane be?
I've no idea what distances news choppers can be to have that close and still a picture with their cameras.

reply to post by manmental


News helicopters can be hovering much higher than you realize, and still get a great picture. A lot of times there are multiple helicopters in the area, so they'll stagger their altitudes, after the accident in Arizona. They can be anywhere from 300 feet, to over 1000 depending, but according to one pilot, they tend to hover in the 7-800 foot range, other stations try to stay above 1,000 feet so it all just depends on the station. But I'd say somewhere around 1000-1500 feet. The Cessna is only required to stay above 500 feet so he could be anywhere from a couple hundred feet below, to a 1000 feet below.

reply to post by manmental

Right above your post is this:

General Conspiracies: This forum is dedicated to general conspiracy theories, cover-ups, and government scandals that may not fit into other topical forums on ATS. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.

Please explain how your topic fits here exactly?

reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012


Hi. I wrote in my post I wasn't sure if this was the correct forum. Perhaps it should be moved. Thanks.
As to its relevance... I think it looks like a RC plane flying low over a mass shooting and i find that odd given the circumstances and timing.
If its a full size plane I stand corrected and hope the thread goes to the 'solved' forum of whatever forum you approve of.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Thank you for your intelligent response.

What I see as more strange than the size is the angle this light aircraft is banking. You do not bank this aircraft this sharply without going past its stress rating. Could be just visual distortion, but it really doesn't look quite right.

reply to post by LoneGunMan


Actually a Cessna trainer can do some serious banking. I've been in banks that I thought were a lot farther than the aircraft was rated for, and came out of them no problems. I flew 172s when I was younger. You can bank up to 60 degrees legally, per the FAA before you're considered in acrobatic flight, but a 172 in an uncoordinated turn will pull 90 degrees, and easily pull 50 degrees in a coordinated turn. I've been up to 55 before when we were learning about G effects in a small aircraft.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by manmental

 

The Cessna is only required to stay above 500 feet so he could be anywhere from a couple hundred feet below, to a 1000 feet below.

What? It is 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle in congested areas for that light aircraft. 500 feet in a non congested area. Someone needed to get its "N" number and report it.

The pilot is required to provide clearance based on several factors, one of which is the amount of human congestion below. If there is little or no human activity below, he may fly at an altitude which provides safety in the event of engine failure (i.e. no specified minimum altitude, but he must be high enough to make a successful landing if the engine fails). If there is a low density of human activity or construction in the area, he must fly 500 feet above it. If there is a congested area below, he must fly 1000 feet above it, or 2000 feet horizontally away from the area or obstruction. These requirements are contained in USA FAR Part 91.119, which governs flight activity.

Maybe it was the glare but I did not see an "N" number did you?

Don't all small aircraft have numbers on the tail?

I didn't see any on that plane...

It was really white though...sun?

reply to post by LoneGunMan


Generally "congested areas" have usually been considered to be cities, with large buildings. I've seen small plane, and military pilots get away with 500 feet over small towns quite a few times.

As for the N number, it goes by too fast, and is too low quality to see it.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by LoneGunMan

 

Actually a Cessna trainer can do some serious banking. I've been in banks that I thought were a lot farther than the aircraft was rated for, and came out of them no problems. I flew 172s when I was younger. You can bank up to 60 degrees legally, per the FAA before you're considered in acrobatic flight, but a 172 in an uncoordinated turn will pull 90 degrees, and easily pull 50 degrees in a coordinated turn. I've been up to 55 before when we were learning about G effects in a small aircraft.

A 172 in aerobatic flight? lol. My cousin before he died in his fully aerobatic bipe would disagree. At 70 degrees a 172 will stall at a relatively high speed. I don't think you can do 90 degrees in a 172 without a wing stall and snap it into the ground.

But it is hard to tell what his degree of bank is...just wanted to correct some hyperbola.

reply to post by DaTroof

I am a private pilot, and I can tell you with certainty that the news helicopter was not flying at 8-10 thousand feet!! most of the time they are maybe, maybe, at the highest altitude 1500 to 2000 ft. when covering a story. Smaller private piloted planes fly usually between 2000 - 4000ft depending on traffic and terrain. I have flown out of Albany NY many, many, times and the terrain is just about the same, The tower always directed me to hold an altitude of 2000 ft another thing is smaller planes and a lot of choppers don't have a pressurized cabin, which limits there ceiling at 10000ft max.If they go above that they are or could be in serious trouble. My guess from viewing the video and view level of the plane vs. news helicopter and the ground, i would say that the chopper may be at 1500 ft. and the plane flew under it at about 1000. ft. possibly lower but it is difficult to tell because we don't know what the camera zoom level is. There is no way, In my opinion though, there is no way this could be anything hire than 2500ft and that is being generous.

reply to post by LoneGunMan


You can't do a COORDINATED 90 degree turn, but you CAN do an uncoordinated turn at 90 degrees. I know a few people that have done them. You can't do coordinated turns much past 60 degrees in a 172. But if you aren't after pretty, or if you want a low G turn, and you have the altitude, why not do an uncoordinated turn?

What I want to know is what is the 'general conspiracy' angle here? A plane flying over sandy hook? is this really that shocking?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by LoneGunMan

 

You can't do a COORDINATED 90 degree turn, but you CAN do an uncoordinated turn at 90 degrees. I know a few people that have done them. You can't do coordinated turns much past 60 degrees in a 172. But if you aren't after pretty, or if you want a low G turn, and you have the altitude, why not do an uncoordinated turn?

You better have enough altitude to lose...you are damn close to throwing that baby into a stall spin. As I am sure you know.