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.