What's this Jet that people think is a Drone?

[Mick West]

Initially, this seems a bit odd, as the front landing lights are visible.

But then, as it passes overhead, they are not:

I'm not entirely sure, but a Challenger 605 seems close.

It's complicated by not knowing what parts of the plane are illuminated or in shadow.

 

[jarlrmai]

Cessna Citation X?

 

[flarkey]

Source:

Source: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/BQauCuCxB9QTPY8m/

 

[jarlrmai]

So do we have a date?

 

[flarkey]

So do we have a date?

I'm pretty sure it was last night 9 Dec around 10pm local NJ time. But we really need an exact time to check ADSB, and the other issue is if it is a private jet it may not be on ADSB anyway.

 

[jarlrmai]

I'm sure I saw a date on FB version of the video that was on the 9th so that wouls make it the 8th.. But now I cant find it


Another candidate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomba...llenger_300_Severstal_Aircompany_RA-67223.JPG

There was one of these over Bergen County at that time on the local date oth the 8th..

 

[jarlrmai]

Maybe there's some sort of localisation for some links on Facebook?

 

[flarkey]

View attachment 74284

Maybe there's some sort of localisation for some links on Facebook?

I think that time is your local time @jarlrmai , what timezone are you in? UK?

 

[flarkey]

Could be this Citation 700

N803QS..

This video shows their landing lights at the front of the belly like in the original video

Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-EoVJa-Sp_w

 

[jarlrmai]

Yeah 10 Dec, 03:20 UTC is 9 Dec 22:20 local

So that would mean it was posted 20 mins or so after being filmed, but then it says last night

Which would make it the 8th?

 

[jarlrmai]

 

[Calter]

What's really throwing me off is the red light at the bottom of the drone

I'm somewhat surprised at the amount of people that seem to be getting absolutely stumped by different planes' lights configurations, basically anything that is outside of "red light on one wing and green light on the other" is taken as some uncanny valley mimic.

Just as a few examples from the reddit post about this sighting but it also happens in other posts:

Oh yeah, weird. Looks like an airplane but the lights don't match the bottom of an actual plane at all.

Sounds just like cheap Chinese knock offs. They never really get everything right.

Yeah, that's the weird thing, these comments saying it's a plane don't know what the FAA lighting requirements are

What is really interesting is the light pattern, this doesn't match commercial FAA lighting requirements. The hue of the lights makes me want to believe it is a part of the power system, akin to the triangles with three white lights and a red light in the center

I've worked in aviation for 15 years, this is not an airplane. Collision lights are not accurate at all. Even the wing shapes are off. Looks like something impersonating what the underbelly of a plane would look like.

Many on the subreddit are calling it out as an obvious plane and what not, but it's interesting nonetheless how there's so much discord over something like how lights on a plane look like. While I have seen the sub bicker about things I don't find as confusing as they claim (camera artifacts, how straight a balloon can fly, parallax, etc), lights on planes just seems to be the simplest most well documented thing to bicker about.

Even if they don't know about some lights, you can generally just google them and find examples. Simply googling "red light at bottom plane" already shows photos and gifs that explain it

 

[FatPhil]

What's really throwing me off is the red light at the bottom of the drone

[...]
Many on the subreddit are calling it out as an obvious plane and what not, but it's interesting nonetheless how there's so much discord over something like how lights on a plane look like. While I have seen the sub bicker about things I don't find as confusing as they claim (camera artifacts, how straight a balloon can fly, parallax, etc), lights on planes just seems to be the simplest most well documented thing to bicker about.

We seem right underneath it - there's no reason for the anticollision lights to even be visible from that angle:

-- https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac 43.13-2b.pdf , Par 402, p.33
(googoo doesn't seem to want to cooperate finding the actual regulation where that 75 degrees is specified, but that AC is FAA, so close enough for government work.)

 

[john.phil]

googoo doesn't seem to want to cooperate finding the actual regulation where that 75 degrees is specified

The AC has the wrong reference in it. Instead of Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 23, § 23.1401, which does not exist, it should be part 25, § 25.1401.

§ 25.1401 Anticollision light system.

(b) Field of coverage. The system must consist of enough lights to illuminate the vital areas around the airplane considering the physical configuration and flight characteristics of the airplane. The field of coverage must extend in each direction within at least 75 degrees above and 75 degrees below the horizontal plane of the airplane, except that a solid angle or angles of obstructed visibility totaling not more than 0.03 steradians is allowable within a solid angle equal to 0.15 steradians centered about the longitudinal axis in the rearward direction.

source: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-...ect-group-ECFR0cb7970b9d1fd5f/section-25.1401

 

[Jack Mallory]

I'm somewhat surprised at the amount of people that seem to be getting absolutely stumped by different planes' lights configurations, basically anything that is outside of "red light on one wing and green light on the other" is taken as some uncanny valley mimic.

And why is there always one of these [quoted below] in every online discussion? Some "expert" with "experience" chimes in to verify that, in fact, something totally normal is, apparently, highly unusual (and probably alien).

"I've worked in aviation for 15 years, this is not an airplane. Collision lights are not accurate at all. Even the wing shapes are off. Looks like something impersonating what the underbelly of a plane would look like."

"Worked in aviation 15 years."

 

[JMartJr]

"Worked in aviation 15 years."
View attachment 74302

Partial, incomplete and some-what-cherry-picked list of jobs in the industry:

Baggage office agent
Janitorial staff at Boeing
Accountant for Southwest Airline
Air cargo sales agent
Travel services greeter
Wheelchair attendant
Gate agent for United
Flight attendant
Travel agent
TSA Security Gate Agent
Cabin Appearance Agent/cabin cleaning crew
Call center customer services agent
Shuttle/ground transport/parking agent
Catering
Director of Charter Sales
Firefighter
Load Master

Found searching a couple of job sites, notably Indeed. All of those are respectable, responsible jobs. Nothing wrong with any of them. But they d not confer expertise in identifying planes in flight by their light patterns, or by anything else.

 

[Alytha]

Hey, I've worked in aviation for 16 years, and I can tell you that's probably an airplane!
(don't ask me which one though)

 

[john.phil]

The lighting configuration is a bit unusual because of the pylon work lights.

In some aircraft, these flood lights are mounted on the engine pylons and point downwards, towards the trailing edges of the wings (video below). And in other models pointing towards the fuselage (second video below). They can be just for aiding pre-flight checks, or for illuminating around the aft cargo compartment and service doors.

Example on the Cessna Citation 680:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXkh_6icQ5M&t=46s


Bombardier Global 6000:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtef7CtFZNU&t=86s

Could be this Citation 700

The Cessna 700 is fitted with both wing box fairing landing/taxing lights and the pylon flood lights, making it a primary candidate:

source: https://www.airteamimages.com/cessna-citation-longitude_ok-jre_smartwings_403681

 

[flarkey]

@john.phil that is an extremely avgeek post. I think you might be my spirit animal. Nice work.

 

[John J.]

With all these reports of flashing in the skies, and considering the season... ...it couldn't be, could it?

 

[justthefacts]

Cleaned up, easier to identify.

 

[Duke]

View attachment 74278

Cessna Citation X?

Yes

Aircraft:

Cessna 750 Citation X

Reg: OE-HAK full info | OE-HAK photos
Serial #:

750-0300

Airline: JetAlliance
Photo Date: Sep 03, 2023
Uploaded: Feb 08, 2024
Lipki - UMMI, Belarus

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/11220043

 

[martin bradshaw]

Maybe not this particular jet but the others I think these are large rc planes made from foam. They have the same speed and noise of rc ducted fan rc planes too and some of them probably have 4 vector thrust ducted fan that rotate so they can hover like a quadcopted/drone. The reports of some of them zig zagging makes me think some are using ardupilot autopilot systems too so can be programmed a route on the ground and fly miles out of sight and return. Somone with a gps jammer near by would probably mess them up.