|
|
| Just saw the pictures of a 320 hitting a drone at Heathrow. Wonder if they can
find enough parts to ID the unit.
It is only a matter of time before one damages an engine and maybe kills a plane
full of people. Then watch the new rules for these toys.
|
|
| |
|
Yorkshire UK | You saw pictures of the collision?
I think at this stage it's all speculation until some actual evidence like debris is found.
It's hard to believe the pilot was able to id anything that hit the front at 300mph.
Also rather re-assuring that no damage was caused. |
|
| |
|
Chebanse, IL..... | Gerald skca First, let me say, that apparently someone was violating UK/London rules by flying drones in that location. That was wrong & the perpetrators should be punished. What do we do about violations? I believe it may have been against the rules to fly 757s loaded with people into the sides of buildings...but that was done. Banning drones will not stop violaters. There will be a black market economy. I don't think you're supposed to have shoulder launched rockets, but people have those also...not just for target practice either. Can you link the photos you saw of the drone hitting the Airbus? Or, photos of the non-damage caused? Articles I've read said the 320 was immediately returned to service. The account I read said the crew "thought" they hit a drone. That means what? Maybe they did. It would seem there would be some pieces to find. All they'd have to do is use the radar track of the inbound flight & the CVR to find the exact spot, then allow for a little wind drift for the falling debris & find some debris. Again, I suspect most aircrews, based on experience, fear more the striking of flocks of waterfowl. Hitting groups of 10 lb birds will take out an engine(s). You read about it, we all did. It's the feathers, blood, & guts that causes the problems. Seldom, if ever, do you see flocks of drones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 But, to be certified, a jet engine has to be able to ingest hail, and a lot of it. Good size hail. Same w/the airliner (or most pressurized aircraft) windshield. Certified for hitting baseball size hail balls @ cruise speeds, not just "approach" speeds. I suspect a 2-3# hail ball would have the more striking force than a 2-3# plastic/aluminum drone. Again, if it was a drone strike, there were rules in place. Someone violated them. Just like aircrashes, often there's a rule violation involved. |
|
| |
|
| Good summary Ron.
First thing I said when I heard about it was, "there is no way they saw the drone before they hit it so how do they know they even hit a drone?"
I've been in the air looking for an airplane that ATC is asking me to maintain visual separation from enough to realize that the chances of ever seeing a drone before you smoke it with your airplane is extremely close to 0. Almost as close to 0 as actually hitting the drone with your airplane. |
|
| |
|
Lincoln, NE | Not saying it didn't happen or won't happen in the future.
As with the rest of you guys - I just want to see the irrefutable evidence.
One report I heard on the news was that the incident occurred at 12,000 AGL.
If this is true - it wasn't at final approach speed - as other news reported.
Just saying - Lets not be so quick to speculate.
With all due respect - I want to see the pictures you saw, Gerald.
Just to be clear. "TOYS" to some perspectives- "TOOLS" to others.
Edited by Old&Ugly 4/19/2016 06:39
|
|
| |
|
Altoona, WI | The way the media works, if they do eventually determine that it was not a drone strike we will never hear of it.
And if all it takes to bring a plane load of people down is a 2 to 3 pound drone I will drive or take a boat. Birds are everywhere. Large birds too. |
|
| |
|
Chebanse, IL..... | Gerald Can you link us yet to those photos you saw of the drone supposedly hitting the A 320 @ Heathrow? I can't find any myself. Wondering who took photos & how? Even event reports are confusing. 1700'? 12,000'? If 12K, that would hardly be in Heathrow airspace. |
|
| |
|
| Ron..NE ILL..10/48 - 4/19/2016 05:52 Gerald skca First, let me say, that apparently someone was violating UK/London rules by flying drones in that location. That was wrong & the perpetrators should be punished. What do we do about violations? I believe it may have been against the rules to fly 757s loaded with people into the sides of buildings...but that was done. Banning drones will not stop violaters. There will be a black market economy. I don't think you're supposed to have shoulder launched rockets, but people have those also...not just for target practice either. Can you link the photos you saw of the drone hitting the Airbus? Or, photos of the non-damage caused? Articles I've read said the 320 was immediately returned to service. The account I read said the crew "thought" they hit a drone. That means what? Maybe they did. It would seem there would be some pieces to find. All they'd have to do is use the radar track of the inbound flight & the CVR to find the exact spot, then allow for a little wind drift for the falling debris & find some debris. Again, I suspect most aircrews, based on experience, fear more the striking of flocks of waterfowl. Hitting groups of 10 lb birds will take out an engine(s). You read about it, we all did. It's the feathers, blood, & guts that causes the problems. Seldom, if ever, do you see flocks of drones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 But, to be certified, a jet engine has to be able to ingest hail, and a lot of it. Good size hail. Same w/the airliner (or most pressurized aircraft) windshield. Certified for hitting baseball size hail balls @ cruise speeds, not just "approach" speeds. I suspect a 2-3# hail ball would have the more striking force than a 2-3# plastic/aluminum drone. Again, if it was a drone strike, there were rules in place. Someone violated them. Just like aircrashes, often there's a rule violation involved. Good post |
|
| |
|
Lincoln, NE | Could have been a plastic bag according to UK transport minister Robert Goodwill.
http://qz.com/667427/that-drone-that-hit-a-british-airways-plane-mi...
Edited by Old&Ugly 4/22/2016 07:39
|
|
| |
|
Des Moines, IA | Exactly. Every time I see an article claiming a near miss with an aircraft, I take it with a grain of salt. "Drones" are today's version of the UFO. Pilots claim to have just missed a drone while flying at 4,000 feet. There has yet to be a proven airplane collision with a drone. I know it is a matter of time, but it really irks me how much the media sensationalizes these stories. |
|
| |
|
Chebanse, IL..... | Whatever "struck" the Airbus apparently didn't even scratch the paint, or there would've been photos by now. Plastic bag, or mylar balloon would make no scratches either. Whatever the outcome, I hope that it is given official closure, but if it is NOT a drone, that won't make a newsworthy article. The "naysayers" will simply say, "well, maybe not this time....but just wait....it will happen!". Gerald....I still haven't seen your photos. Can you describe them if you can't link them? |
|
| |
|
north east IN | I think I saw the same picture and it was just an Airbus like the one that got hit not the one that got hit |
|
| |
|
north east IN | Ron: here is the picture I saw
 (image.png)
Attachments
----------------
 image.png (143KB - 344 downloads)
|
|
| |
Well it happened
