Jet Strikes Drone Near Heathrow Airport (marketwatch.com) 401
smooth wombat writes: "A British Airways flight Sunday appears to have collided with a drone on a flight bound for London's busy Heathrow Airport in what may be the first such incident involving a major airline," according to MarketWatch. "The flight from Geneva, Switzerland to Heathrow, Europe's busiest hub, is believed to have struck a drone, the London Metropolitan Police said in a statement. The plane landed safely following the incident, which occurred around 12:50 p.m. local time. 'It was only a matter of time before we had a drone strike given the huge numbers being flown around by amateurs who don't understand the risks and the rules,' said BALPA flight safety specialist Steve Landells... 'Much more education of drone users and enforcement of the rules is needed to ensure our skies remain safe from this threat'."
regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope everybody is ok. This bodes very poorly for drone ultraregulation and enforcement. As the summary says, it was only a matter of time.
Re:regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing though-
Every commercial plane is tested against strikes with fowl. Are they really going to tell me a drone is going to cause more damage that a chicken being shot through a cannon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun
I get you don't want airspace to be packed with drones, but is an occasional strike really worth all this handwringing?
It seems more they are in search of finding a reason to regulate than addressing any current problem.
Re: regulation (Score:3, Informative)
Re: regulation (Score:5, Informative)
If a fan blade is even chipped
Small chips are routinely repaired during engine overhauls by "blending"; filing and sanding away the sharp corners caused by FOD that accumulates in in-service engines. There are manufacturer guidelines covering the location and size of damage may be repaired through blending, and tool manufacturers sell specialized blending tools. Your claim that "even chipped" blades will disintegrate an engine is bogus. It is impossible to operate a gas turbine in real-world conditions without accumulating small "chips" in compressor and turbine blades and stators.
Please don't make stuff up to amplify concerns about drones, or anything else for that matter.
Re: (Score:3)
...and millions of $$$ in repair bills.
Just so some dickhead can fly his drone in a flight path? How about we say "no"?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. The battery is alot more dense than a bird.
A soft squishy bird yes, but they don't ingestion test with soft squishy birds, but rather solid frozen birds.
LiPos are soft anyway. There's very little resistance to chopping them up with an ultra fast moving turbofan blade. I'd be more worried about the 4 solid chunks of ferrite and copper that make the little drone fly.
Re: regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
D'you know what, until said testing is done, I'm actually fine with "don't fly your drones near an airport, you twat."
And, actually, I'm fine with that afterwards as well.
Re: (Score:2)
How likely is this to happen? The total surface area of the front of the motors, divided by the total surface area of the front of an airplane. Which is not insignificant. I'd say about 1/5 on most plane types.
Re: regulation (Score:2)
Drones are far less likely to take out multiple engines. I mean a flock of drones are not that common. I'd argue jets engines are more susceptible than props, but most jets have multiple engines.
I'd also like someone to test the claim that a lipo batteries are more devastating to a jet engine than a bird.
if you decide to cut through a lipo cell make sure it's fully charge and record it. also make sure you have proper protective gear and fire extinguishers.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be pretty obvious unless there are some iron eagles flying around.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd also like someone to test the claim that a lipo batteries are more devastating to a jet engine than a bird.
It should be pretty obvious unless there are some iron eagles flying around.
Are lipo batteries as hard as iron? Harder than bone?
I'm not a bird guy or anything but aren't bird bones hollow, less dense and lighter than land based animals to help them fly? I don't think the compressor blades would have any problem shattering them to a jillion bits. Also aren't bones no where near as hard as iron to begin with?
Re: (Score:3)
1.5cm? That must be some cray euro coin. Here in America we use normal coins.
Re:Loss of one engine deadly near takeoff (Score:5, Informative)
Totally wrong. Pilots regularly train for engine failures at all stages of takeoff, and unless spectacularly mishandled, does NOT lead to the plane crashing.
Also, losing an engine in cruise does NOT cause the a/c to start losing altitude quickly. Sure, you'll have to drift down to a single engine cruise altitude but it's not nearly as harsh as the poster seems to think.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Note: It SHOULDN'T cause that, no. But it has happened and could again. Failures during flight could cascade to worse events, and have before.
Re: (Score:3)
if you decide to cut through a lipo cell make sure it's fully charge and record it. also make sure you have proper protective gear and fire extinguishers.
On second thought, just make sure it's fully charged and record it.
Protective gear around the camera. We don't care if he's damaged, but we do want to see the footage.
Re: regulation (Score:2)
I hit a balloon by accident with a Cessna 152 on my way back from my private pilot exam. My flight instructor said he couldn't hit one if he tried.
He told me a story where his flight instructor was like:
Balloon!!! *pull back on yoke*
Re: regulation (Score:3)
I was about to ask what the outcome of the enquiry was, and then realised you meant a helium balloon, not one with a basket full of people hanging below it.
Coffee[0] awaits...
Re: regulation (Score:2)
They should be no more dense than a bird.
I imagine you've probably held a LiPo in you hand; however, it's quite clear that you've never held a bird... either that our you're simply comfortable making shit up.
Relative (Score:3)
A point of comparison:
- based on TNT content a hand grenade release between 400 and 800kJ when exploding. (example of source [yahoo.com])
- unit conversion: 1Wh battery = 3.6 kJ (and 1Ah or 1000mAh x 3.7 V = 3.7 Wh = 13.3 kJ)
So your garden variety ~3000mAh LiPo "18650" 3.7V cell holds a little bit under 40kJ.
Your laptop long life 9-cell 8900mAh battery pack holds a little bit under 100Wh or nearly 360kJ, about the same ballpark range as a smaller grenade (hence the xkcd comic [xkcd.com]).
A long-ranged drone's (e.g. [dronesetc.com]) 6s high voltag
Re:regulation (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently, no repairs were needed, nobody was injured and they are not even sure it was a drone. Talk about irrational fears...
Manufacturer's responsibility (Score:2, Insightful)
I got a small, China made drone here.
The bilingual (Chinese/Chinglish) manual makes me understand how to operate the thing, but not a single word about safety. Just adding legal limits (e.g. minimum distance from airports, maximum height, distance from buildings - or even links to national web sites where such rules are explained) of where to fly them would be a great improvement.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Manufacturer's responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting in a general notice such as "limits may exist in your part of the world, look them up before flying this thing", and maybe even spending a few hours online to get links to rule making bodies in their major export markets, shouldn't be too much to ask.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The CE logo is protected, and there are fines for using it withoutwithout certification. So instead they use one that is very similar: In the proper one the circle described by the C intersects the one described by the E such that the outlines (if they were present) would overlap exactly.
Anything that has the other logo is colloquially known as Chinese Export.
What's really dumb is the general public is largely ignorant about the difference. If your house burns down due to a faulty CE certified device you ca
Re: (Score:3)
The bilingual (Chinese/Chinglish) manual makes me understand how to operate the thing, but not a single word about safety. Just adding legal limits (e.g. minimum distance from airports, maximum height, distance from buildings - or even links to national web sites where such rules are explained) of where to fly them would be a great improvement.
Here's a "common sense" suggestion that really shouldn't have to be in the manual: Don't fly your drone in the approach path of an airport.
Re:Manufacturer's responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
There are lots of "common sense" things, especially in US manuals, such as don't iron clothes on your body or while taking a bath.
Obviously plenty of people need reminders.
Re: (Score:3)
There are lots of "common sense" things, especially in US manuals, such as don't iron clothes on your body or while taking a bath. Obviously plenty of people need reminders.
If you need to be "reminded" not to fly a drone in the approach path of an airport, you should not be flying a drone. As well, the "reminder" would probably do no do. Flying drones around airports is almost certainly a specific conscious decision.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, other than a bit of bold text in a manual, there's not much in the way of education. Any fucking idiot in most places can buy a drone, use it to fly in the path of aircraft, spy on their neighbors, and so forth, and there's usually no way to tie a particular offending drone to the fucking moron whose using it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
All bets are off when we live in a world where "WARNING: Contains peanuts" is a thing on containers of peanut butter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or even links to national web sites where such rules are explained) of where to fly them would be a great improvement.
Honestly if I were a manufacturer I would have written nothing too. The rules have changed multiple times in the past year when the FAA changed classifications, the government decided all of DC was a no fly zone and the rules were made, relaxed, made, registration, then registration only above a weight class.
The only thing that I would have written as a manufacturer would be "check local rules and regulations before flying"
Re: (Score:3)
On most products, such warning labels aren't there to inform users; they're there to give vendor a legal pass in case user does something stupid.
On electrical equipment: "do not submerge in water", "do not operate when cord is damaged". On something that uses (open) flame: "do not place near curtains or other combustible items". On a plastic bag: "do not eat". Or anything along those lines. Come on... Darwin takes care of that. The labels are there so vendor can sa
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Manufacturer's responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, yes, definitely, the manual for the Chinese drone should include all the relevant air safety laws for your location. Just like my Japanese Supra came with a copy of the California Driver Handbook. Oh, wait, it did not!
Knowing the applicable laws is the user's responsibility. The drone's documentation should contain what's applicable to the drone, not a compendium of all laws governing the use of airspace from the North to the South pole. Even if the local regulations required that the relevant laws are included with the drone, it would be probably left to the local distributor to do so.
Re: Manufacturer's responsibility (Score:2)
I got bored one spring and decided to build a quadcopter. Because I'm close to an RAF base and because we sometimes get Pumas and Chinooks doing low level training over the [abandoned] airfield where I work, I checked VFR chart. Turns out I'm at the very end of a MATZ (Military Air Traffic Zone) stub, so you can legally fly up to 1,000ft below, or 3,000ft above - not a problem for me.
It's not hard to find out the rules. Stupid people are stupid and lazy people are lazy. No point tarring everyone with the sa
Re: Manufacturer's responsibility (Score:2)
Bah, replied to wrong comment. Careless people are careless!
Re: (Score:2)
Can you fly a drone in VFR airspace though? Pretty much everywhere in the world that airspace is restricted to licensed aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Some drone users... Like some car drivers... or anything you can think of
The difference is that an idiotic car driver is somewhat unlikely to cause a plane crash.
Re: (Score:2)
It says the warranty doesn't cover damage from running over adults. Or from hitting a moose. I think it was written by Canadians.
Isn't that illegal ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I call BS (Score:2, Interesting)
Most commercial airliners have what most people would call high landing speeds. About 150 to 160mph
Every time I hear that a pilot saw a drone on approach, I think: How? Maybe he saw something. A plastic bag, a large bird. At that speed, it isn't easy to see a lot of details on a small object. Maybe it was a drone. Those small jet front windshields don't give great views, and they aren't always perfectly clean.
Human eye's aren't perfect.
I challenge you to get a good look at a drone while driving a car
Re: (Score:2)
A British Airways flight Sunday appears to have collided with a drone
It's not just a pilot who merely thinks he saw a drove, the flight apparently collided with a drone, not the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
He saw something and there was a dull thud. They decided it must be a drone because that's a lot more exciting.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there is another reason behind this "drones danger" media campaign. There is a worry that the Chinese civil drones producers, - DJI Innovations, Yuneec, etc. have got the leading positions on the market. These companies left behind western enterprises for about a decade, their sales are in tens o
Re: (Score:2)
More likely, there is a deep seated fear that if Citizens get their own air power, they can show the truth on camera to other citizens. They want us afraid of the eye in the sky, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember how difficult was the aerial photography before. People had to use kites, helium balloons, water rockets to lift a camera in the air with mixed results. A kite needs very strong wind, helium balloons' cord vibrates like a guitar string. A water rocket flies OK, but a camera parachute is not reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
"Maybe this too. Until now flying was the domain of a State. The flight of a helicopter costs 9000 per hour. Only a State can afford it on a regular basis."
Um, are you suggesting $9,000 per hour? If so that's completely false, that's not even remotely near the cost, in fact, it's out by an order of magnitude. Try closer to $500 per flight hour, including fuel and maintenance costs, scaling up to maybe $1500 for helicopters that are more expensive to run. Even that low end is probably an overestimate in prac
Why no engine grill? (Score:2)
Every other device has grills, why not jet engines? Birds have been causing problems also. Can't ban birds.
Re:Why no engine grill? (Score:5, Informative)
Airports can, and do, put a huge amount of effort into clearing birds from around their runways, due to the risks that birdstrike presents during takeoff and landing. To quote from one of Heathrow Airport's own documents: [heathrow.com]
Birds can present a safety risk if they become caught in aircraft engines. Heathrowâ(TM)s bird hazard management team aim to make the airport as unappealing as possible for birds through habitat management, disturbing birds using distress noises, letting off flares and, as a last resort, through culling.
Bird populations can even influence the siting of airports. When a major recent UK study ruled out the construction of a new airport in the Thames Estuary (to the east of the capital), [www.gov.uk] the scale of the bird-management that would be necessary was one of several reasons cited:
The operational risk to the airport posed by birdstrike could increase the scale of compensatory habitat required as it would require it to be sited further away, ideally to a minimum of 20km away from the site, and certainly outside of the 13km bird safeguarding circle, increasing the uncertainty as to its suitability as replacement for the habitat lost. It may also necessitate additional mitigation measures to be put in place. If any remaining bird habitats within the 13km safeguarding circle (that is those not already displaced by the airport's direct impact) were considered to pose an operational safety risk additional mitigation measures would be needed and it may ultimately be necessary to remove those habitats, increasing further the environmental impact and cost of compensation.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be assuming a pretty wimpy "grill", when in fact they could be made extremely strong.... Think: Prison bars.
In addition, a nice sharp beveled angle is required, so the debris can be deflected and pushed away from the engine.
Additionally, jet turbines around the 50s certainly DID have screens, in an attempt to prevent debris from entering engin
Re: (Score:3)
Do you seriously think you're smarter than the many, many Ph.D laden folks who work on this every single day for a lifetime?
I'm not kidding - I'd love an answer. Do you really think they've not thought of this and that you're somehow more adept, smarter, and insightful than they are?
I see this a lot here on Slashdot and it baffles me. "They should do X!" Umm... They've already tried X and, for whatever reason, decided X was stupid. They really do know more than you. If they need their Windows box cleaned of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it also have to do with the size of the intake? The grill will have to be much stronger to protect a larger engine from the same impact.
Using this [wikipedia.org], and comparing to the wingspan (14.7m), the intake on a SU-27 has a cross-sectional area of ~0.60m^2 (assuming it's square).
Compare that to a GE CF6-50 [wikipedia.org], where the intake has a CSA of ~5.6m^2, almost 10x that of the Sukhoi.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Curse you Red Baron!
Re: (Score:2)
Curse you Red Baron!
Psalm 109:17 He loved to curse; let curses come upon him! He did not delight in blessing; may it be far from him!
Re: (Score:2)
Way too hot for even George Foreman to cook on that grill.
More seriously a grille cuts down on air flow, adds drag, adds weight and adds an extra failure mode. A 1950s jet engine can be hooked up to generate 20MW of electricity FFS so the more recent ones move vast amounts of air so that grille would have to be able to take a lot of force so would be heavy.
Re: Why no engine grill? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow you would think the PHD level engineers that have been designing jet engines for decades would have thought of that ... and maybe if it was so easy, they would have done it by now ?
There's only about a billion reasons it wouldn't work, and one of the first that springs to mind is that jet engines are sucking in air - at a huge speed (in many cases several times the speed of sound)... you stick a grill in there, you are reducing the possible airflow. That grill will have to be made of something incredibly (probably impossible) strong just to prevent it getting sucked in itself (seriously - you have no idea the force a jet engine generates -it's not like an air-conditioner - those things put out hundreds of KILONewtons in thrust). And if you actually build your super-grill, you will hugely weaken the engine because it will not be able to get air in as fast. Even most basic grill that actually does something useful will be at least a 30% reduction in engine power (50% is more likely for anything strong enough to do the job)... so now you'll need twice as many engines. Which means twice the fuel, and of course you've greatly increased the weight of the aircraft so you have to increase the wing-size massively to compensate... but that means you have to go *faster* to be able to generate enough lift which means you need more engines...
They don't call it the tyranny of the rocket equation for nothing.
Re: Why no engine grill? (Score:2)
You're not just throttling the air intake, a grill will also cause turbulence which could affect the efficiency of the bypass fan turbine places.
Re: Why no engine grill? (Score:3)
Because in the real world budgets matter and engines are expensive. Military Cargo planes may have four engines even though empty they can fly just fine on 2 but thats because "full" means "add the mass of a tank" or even "add the mass of another plane" like the B52s that were used to carry the X15 to altitude. The X15 being a rocket plane it is far less fuel efficient than a jet. It could go to space but it didnt carry enough fuel to get there from ground level.
Re: Why no engine grill? (Score:2)
Half the number of parts. Making a bigger version of a part usually costs less than making two.
Especially for things like jet engines which are fairly labour intensive. There is limited gain to be had from automation and almost no economies of scale because the market is just too small. The total annual sales of all jet engines are in the tens because they last q very long time and their used on things thar take ages to build and once sold are used for years or even decades.
This is one reason airplane compa
Re: (Score:2)
I'd speculate that it's economics of scale. It's easier to make one larger engine of a given power than two smaller engines at half the power, with the same efficiency.
Re: Why no engine grill? (Score:2)
Yes - the anecdotal evidence is that we see airlines operating 2-engined short haul aircraft, and manufacturers make aircraft that airlines will buy.
Also, compare the Trent 500 & 700 engines (4 on the A340 and 2 on the A330 respectively).
500 - 5.25 TWR
700 - 6.76 TWR
They cost about the same, and have similar specific fuel consumption, but your engine cost and mass is double on the A340.
Re: (Score:2)
Another question: why not have 4 engines instead of 2? Are 2 really more economical than 4 for smallish passenger jets?
Yes, two engines really are much cheaper than four. Every engine requires regular tear down and inspection, and having them a bit larger doesn't add as much cost as having to tear down two extra engines.
Also four engines may not really help you that much when it matters. Twin-jets are quite capable of operations on one engine. There are even approvals now for flights where, in the worst case, the aircraft my have to fly 370 minutes on a single engine over water after a failure. This is a testament to how re
New terrorist method (Score:2)
flying Muhammad drones of Jihad.
Beatup - RTFA (Score:2)
"The flight from Geneva, Switzerland to Heathrow, Europe's busiest hub, is believed to have struck a drone, the London Metropolitan Police said in a statement. The plane landed safely following the incident, which occurred around 12:50 p.m. local time."
"British Airways said its engineers inspected the Airbus Group SE A320 airliner, found no damage, and cleared the plane to continue operating."
So, again we have people getting worked up over drones
Re: (Score:2)
>Maybe we should get worked up about the dangers of Bird strike [wikipedia.org] and stop people from keeping or flying birds near airports.
We already do. But since the number of people into Falconry and homing pigeon races (pretty much the only bird-related hobbies where the birds actually fly) are relatively little, you don't KNOW about the regulations that apply to them unless you're one of them.
No material evidence, again (Score:2)
Pilots of modern manned aircraft have got very little to do during a flight, so no wonder that they may see things. I would prefer not words, but a proof.
A new cult: Drone Danger Denial (Score:5, Funny)
1) The first rule of DDD: drones cannot cause any problem ever in any situation.
2) The second rule of DDD: always defend drones as harmless no matter what the circumstance. For example if firefighters call off aerial retardant drops because drones are flying in the fire zone: the missed drops didn't make any difference and/or drones didn't pose any interference and the authorities should have just kept flying.
In the current post three of the major denial themes are stated.
1) It wasn't a drone.
2) If there was a drone, nothing happened.
3) If there was a drone interaction, there was no actual damage.
It's so simple even the dullest of Slashdot Pundits can execute it with ease.
BTW, I've actually participated in a project with the FAA addressing bird strike mitigation. They take any physical impact on a aircraft very seriously. It's not just birds, but any strike by FOD (Foreign Object Debris). That includes anything on a runway, like trash. At DFW airport in Texas, they have a problem with foxes who live in the airport and are stuck by aircraft. They collect and monitor the corpses, and have a burial location for their bodies. The FAA has records of rodent strikes, when their carcasses are found on runways. Anything hitting a aircraft is considered very significant. Saying that it's not important is just a pledge of allegiance to the DDD. A true blue cult member.
Re: (Score:3)
UAS pilots are not idiots, if I hear a low flying manned aircraft I immediately dive to the ground. It is not like a stupid bird.
You may very well not be an idiot, you might operate your drone with intelligence and common sense and are aware of how to fly your UAS safely. If so good for you, way to set the example!
But the problem is not you, it is those idiots that do not think about the consequences of their actions that is making your hobby look like shit. Like the moron that flew his drone into a fire zone [cnn.com] causing the fire fighters to ground their flights. Or another idiot that dropped his drone onto a kid [arstechnica.com] at a movie theater. Or
How about a common sense approach (Score:2)
Engines are already tested for bird strike. Start including light to moderately heavy drones and see if it's possible for them to damage the engines. I would think the mass of birds alone would make them far worse than a drone for an engine, even one with a GoPro attached.
Why do you ignore geese? (Score:3)
This may surprise you, but birds that are not predators do in fact weigh much more than a drone. A canadian goose is 7-14 pounds and yes they DO fly, in fact they fiy a lot! One of the larger drones, the DJI - Phantom 3, weighs 1280g (just battery and propellers) - 2.82 pounds. You can't add much more than a pound in payload, so it's significantly lighter than a goose.
The reason geese are the reference for birdstrikes as they are by far the most common problem for planes hitting birds because there are s
What does the user put on the insurance claim? (Score:2)
Given they might not have been too bright in the first place and may also have insured their new toy, particularly as many get fitted with expensive digital cameras, someone just needs to browse the insurance claims from the area.
If the camera memory survived and is found that could be some nice footage.
Re:"May Have" Struck a Drone (Score:5, Interesting)
There has been no evidence presented that it hit a drone. Just speculation at this point
Of course I get all my aerospace news from MarketWatch... However, other sources suggest the pilots saw it bounce off the nose:
After landing, the pilot reported an object - believed to be a drone - had struck the front of the Airbus A320. [bbc.com]
As someone who works at a major Air Force bace that flies "heavies", I can tell you that often there is no physical damage and the only way to confirm a "bird strike" is the blood left behind, and small drones do not have blood.
Re: (Score:2)
"As someone who works at a major Air Force bace that flies "heavies", I can tell you that often there is no physical damage and the only way to confirm a "bird strike" is the blood left behind, and small drones do not have blood."
But hang on... surely you're not saying that the media, the pilots union and the regulators have lied to us when they have repeatedly told stories that any kind of collision between a recreational drone and an airliner would result in a devastating loss of life?
Who'd have thought :
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they've said that such collisions could result in a loss of life.
This drone apparently hit the plane's nose. If it were an engine intake at a critical moment, the story could be quite different. It happens occasionally with bird strikes, and it can happen with drones, that an incident [wikipedia.org] will cause significant damage.
One key difference between birds and drones, though, is that birds tend to avoid aircraft. Stupid humans, on the other hand, tend to do ever-dumber things without realizing the risks they're c
Re: (Score:3)
Even commercial airplaines start against the wind if possible, so the layout of an airport is alway
Re: "May Have" Struck a Drone (Score:4, Insightful)
This is bullshit. All you have to do is park your car on the side of the highway close to the teavel lane to experience the extreme buffeting that shakes the entire car as every single vehicle goes by at high speed 6 feet away.
Yes, as the vehicle passes, not before it gets there. I see why you didn't log in, son.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorists arent using drones to take down airplanes in populated areas.
Re: "May Have" Struck a Drone (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't forget..
Once being an airline pilot was a premier occupation. Pay was large, work was easy, you stayed in the best hotels and were tested like royalty.
Unfortunately that was a long time ago. These days it borders on bus driving. Long hours, average pay, and fast eroding working conditions.
Is it any surprise they grab at any chance to feel more important? Grab a little media attention and make people sit up and take notice again?
Sad but true.
Lightning strikes are far worse than laser pointers.. And a g
Re: (Score:3)
...a large bird of pray and those are regularly sucked through jet engines for the entire time such technology has existed. And yet we don't hear about any mitigation efforts. Why? Because there is NO DANGER.
CAPT Sullenberger would beg to differ about the effects of bird strikes. Regardless, airports have robust anti-bird [bbc.com] mitigation efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
Sully ran in to a whole flock of geese, not just a goose. Even still, it was a freak accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Not as freak as you think - you can find several bird strike videos on youtube - even one that crashes a jet.
Re: (Score:2)
I said that bird strikes that bring the plane down are freak events. That doesn't mean there isn't video of it. When you consider how many planes fly every single day, the handful of crashes attributable to birds are freak events.
Re:Obviously, no safety problem was demonstrated h (Score:5, Insightful)
What a moron. We have wait until an airliner crashes, then we do something, right? You'll notice that the thing was not sucked into an engine, and that the 747 was landing, not taking off. If both those criteria had been met then your post might read a little differently. You appear not to notice the research that has been conducted on bird strikes on large jets for many years. You also seem to be unaware of the unlucky passengers of light aircraft who have had large birds land in their laps, along with chunks of perspex and aluminium. The pilots are asking for more research, but you'd rather not find out because, hey, your rights trump everything and everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
A 747 will land just fine with an engine out. The bigger issue is the USD 20 million in damage due to a blown engine, plus aircraft down time. When you aren't flying, you are losing money.
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of the 747, fine means only the pilot will even know.
Re: (Score:2)
That is wishful thinking. A drone destroying an engine can result in an uncontained engine failure, and that usually leads to severed hydraulic lines or damaged high lift devices, which can bring even a 747 down.
Re: (Score:2)
You're speaking in the theoretical extreme worst case. I'm speaking of the more common case.
As for actual cases confirmed by reality, we have zero damage to aircraft from drones and one report that one might have gone 'whump'.
Other things (not comprehensive) that may in extreme conditions bring a plane down (but don't in real life), kites, big ass slingshots, big spotlights, helium balloons.
Re: (Score:2)
I would at least like to wait until we can see an actual scuff mark on a plane to do something.
Birds are a real problem (Score:3)
The biggest danger isn't from birds of prey (at least in the USA); the danger is geese. There are serious geese mitigation efforts near major airports (example [nytimes.com]), and geese have seriously damaged and even brought down planes before (example [wikipedia.org]).
Did you do any research before posting? I've heard about these mitigation efforts, and I don't know anything about flying. Then again, the word "lazy" is in your handle...
Re: (Score:2)
You don't hear about bird mitigation efforts ... because they've been in place for decades, are non-controversial and there's very little part of them that Joe Average is affected by. Pretty much unless you are into Falconry or breeding homing-pigeons the odds of them affecting you are near-zero.
But just like people into those hobbies, if your hobby is flying drones - then you can reasonably expect to be affected by such safety measures and laws as applies to drones.
Just because *you* haven't heard of somet
Re:Are drone dangers exaggerated? (Score:5, Informative)
"We don't worry about the dangers of birds"
Excuse me?
Civil aviation spends millions trying to avoid birds near the major airports.
"perhaps it should actually show that small drones that weigh a few pounds really aren't more dangerous to aircraft than birds."
Except that:
1) We know (and act upon) birds *are* quite dangerous to aircraft.
2) We know drones have a distintive characteristic that may make them more dangerous: they have an intelligent will backing them up (i.e.: adding explosives and/or the ability to crash on purpose).
Re: (Score:2)
No, we know that birds occasionally cause freak accidents to aircraft so we try to keep the number of birds on the runway to a minimum. Have you ever been on a plane and the pilot calls out "Ladies and Gentlemen, we apologize for the delay, there is a ROBIN on the airport grounds, we will be taking off as soon as we can scare it away".
Re: (Score:2)
2) We know drones have a distintive characteristic that may make them more dangerous: they have an intelligent will backing them up (i.e.: adding explosives and/or the ability to crash on purpose).
That's not the problem. Birds do in fact have intelligent will backing them up, albeit not as intelligent as humans, and birds generally avoid aircraft because they are not literally suicidal. The will behing drones on the other hand sometimes likes tochase aircraft because they look cool ad they want pretty photo
Re:Are drone dangers exaggerated? (Score:4, Insightful)
And, do you really think that if someone wants to use a drone to try crashing a plane, the regulation is going to stop them?
Might as well take that stupid "murder" law off the books as well, then, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
You need to take into account the fact that there is absolutely no real evidence this happened. Just the word of the pilot. No damage, no bits of drone anywhere. No paint on the plane chipped, no engine damage. No physical evidence what so ever, but it's getting world-wide news headlines.