Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Passenger Jet Nearly Collided With Drone In March

Posted by Soulskill on from the lining-up-our-next-aerial-disaster dept.

SonicSpike sends word of an FAA report that a small, remote-controlled aircraft was nearly struck by an American Airlines passenger jet as the jet was preparing to land. The pilot saw it briefly as he flew by — it was close enough that he was sure it stuck the plane, but no damage was found upon inspection. Jim Williams, head of the FAA's drone office, said the incident highlights the risk of ubiquitous, unregulated drone use. He said, "The risk for a small UAS to be ingested into a passenger airline engine is very real. The results could be catastrophic." The article notes that the FAA "currently bans the commercial use of drones in the United States and is under growing pressure to set rules that would permit their broader use. Hobby and many law-enforcement uses are permitted. Last year, the agency began establishing test sites where businesses can try out commercial uses."

5 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Drone? by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you read the stories on this carefully, you find out that it was a model of an F4 Phantom, not a copter type "drone" that we think of now.

    Why is it that everything that flies now and doesn't have a pilot is called a drone and is a major new concern, even if it's been around for decades?

    1. Re:Drone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Simple.
      "Fucktards keep flying R/C planes and choppers in restricted airspace, just like they have been doing for decades" won't get many views/clicks.

    2. Re:Drone? by tysonedwards · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because thanks to the Terminator movies and the US Air Force's use of the term "drone", the populous now emotionally associates a drone as a fucking scary autonomous killing machine; a Model Airplane... not so much. A UAV, still nothing... So, the thought of some anonymous twenty-something kid going around and flying their own "drones" and nearly killing hundreds of people will resonate emotionally with people and help to create the state of fear that is being fostered by those in power to control the masses.

      It doesn't matter that this act is no different than those over the past forty years, nor that it is no different than what damage that can be caused by a bird.

      Plus, if said kid's name was even vaguely ethnic or could be made to sound ethnic, do you think that it would still be kept "confidential" or would it be trotted out in the court of public opinion as a "Towel-Headed, 'Murica Hatin' Muslim Terr'rist!"?

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
  2. Enforce the laws already on the books. by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While there are certainly some people who will hold this up as an example why hobbyist drone flying should be banned, it just looks like a case of existing laws being broken. Am I believe there is not already rules governing the airspace immediately around airports? I'm sure there is, and I'm sure this person was violating those rules as they stand. So new laws against drone flying aren't going to have any effect on the outcome.

    Secondly: The idea this drone could be pulled into the engine of a commercial aircraft with "catastrophic" results... and how is this any different than a large bird being pulled into the engine of an aircraft? If the sudden loss of a single engine from what should be an accidental interaction with a drone is all it takes to cause something "catastrophic" from happen, maybe the airplane needs to be designed better. If it's not accidental, but intentional (terrorism) then all the laws in the books aren't going to prevent it.

    1. Re:Enforce the laws already on the books. by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Secondly: The idea this drone could be pulled into the engine of a commercial aircraft with "catastrophic" results... and how is this any different than a large bird being pulled into the engine of an aircraft? If the sudden loss of a single engine from what should be an accidental interaction with a drone is all it takes to cause something "catastrophic" from happen, maybe the airplane needs to be designed better. If it's not accidental, but intentional (terrorism) then all the laws in the books aren't going to prevent it.

      Large birds crunch up quite well when hit with a sharp blade. Bird strikes are quite common and there's a few good videos on youtube showing bird ingestion tests on turbines with partially frozen birds, so something quite a bit harder than a typical pigeon. Throwing a piece of aluminium with a few weighted magnets into an engine on the other hand is quite a different problem to deal with.

      Secondly you seem to be under the assumption that bird strikes are just shrugged off, the reality is airports employ a lot of resources to do wildlife control in like training predators (dogs, cats, falcons etc), or using sirens, or knocking down nests, etc to reduce the number of potential bird-strikes around airports, and it really only is a problem close to the ground as birds don't fly at 30000ft.

      Thirdly "catastrophic" does not mean loss of plane. An emergency landing and a passenger jet out of action due to a downed engine is considered "catastrophic" failure. It doesn't need to kill someone.