Heathrow Plane In Near Miss With Drone

An anonymous reader writes with news about a near miss between a drone and a plane near Heathrow. "An unidentified drone came close to hitting a plane as it landed at Heathrow, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has confirmed. An Airbus A320 pilot reported seeing a helicopter-style drone as the jet was 700 feet off the ground on its approach to the runway at 1416 GMT on 22 July. The CAA has not identified the airline or how close the drone came to the plane, which can carry 180 people. It gave the incident an 'A' rating, meaning a 'serious risk of collision'. This is the highest incident rating the CAA can give. Investigators were unable to identify the drone, which did not appear on air traffic control radar and disappeared after the encounter."

Comments

It won't be long

[Anonymous Coward]

until these morons flying drones over and around airfields cause death, probably some kind of small light training vehicle with an inexperience "pilot".

Re:It won't be long

[ColdWetDog]

Really now? You trust a some random moron who's motivation and skills are complete unknowns? You have a higher opinion of mankind than I.

Yes, it's unlikely that a small drone will crash a commercial jet. No, it's not impossible at all.

Re:It won't be long

[Anonymous Coward]

Your utility theory about the value of the drone fails to take into account human stupidity. The fact a collision almost did occur disproves your entire thesis. Anyone prioritizing the value of their drone back would not fly near airports in the first place, obviously. Airspace around airports obviously needs protecting, not against your hypothetical rational drone operator, but against the irrational drone operators which this story proves exist.

Re:It won't be long

[ketomax]

What if the motive of the "operator" is to bring the plane down?

Re:It won't be long

[dreamchaser]

It is not a non-issue in that these sorts of things could be prevented with proper regulation of drones, or at least the chances of something like this happening could be greatly reduced. No amount of rules, training, or regulation can control what the birds are going to do. Your analogy is very bad.

Re:It won't be long

[gweihir]

Then said operator could also do that with a model airplane or a model helicopter. That technology has been available for a few decades. The only thing different about drones is that they are slow and hence easier seen. There is zero new risk here and history shows that there is zero actual risk in this as nobody ever brought down a commercial airliner with a model airplane or helicopter. AFAIK it has not even been tried, ever.

Re:It won't be long

[LordLimecat]

Slashdot has spoken: risk management should be performed with no mind whatsoever paid to the likelihood of a risk.

I hope yall have meteor insurance.

Re:It won't be long

[Noble713]

Not more likely than a bird doing the same. In fact less likely, as the bird has no clue what is going on, but the drone operator wants the vehicle back and hence will try to avoid the collision. This is really a non-issue.

Unless the drone operator is trying to fly kamikaze drones into a landing aircraft's engines....

Re:It won't be long

[Half-pint HAL]

Stop being stupid. There is a ton of risks to flying airplanes that are relevant, this is _not_ one of them.

It is an avoidable risk, in that we can tell idiotic humans to stop flying quadcopters near planes, you fools! Unfortunately, geese and other dumb animals cannot understand us when we tell them this, but humans do... and then choose to ignore it.

These people are presumably buzzing planes on purpose as a "how close can I get" thrill, or to get close-up footage of planes. These are not valid reasons to wilfully and knowingly risk the safety of an aircraft and its passengers. There are laws with names like "reckless endangerment" for this sort of thing....

Re:It won't be long

[gweihir]

Indeed. The same stupidity every time.

Re:It won't be long

[Half-pint HAL]

Extending that logic ad absurdum, prior to the ninth of September 2001 there was zero risk of terrorists flying planes into the twin towers, but now there is a very high risk, even though the twin towers no longer exist.

Re:It won't be long

[BlacKSacrificE]

That technology has been available for a few decades.

Yes it has. But there has been a fundamental shift in the accessability of the technology. A majority of this technology has historically been radio transmitters that cost hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars, recievers that cost similar, and models that actually require a solid understanding of aerodynamics to build, trim and fly. Dozens if not hundreds of hours of work to build it. An big investment of time, money, and a dash of pride meant that flyers protected their craft like a their first born. Flying near an airfield would be unspeakable; No way in hell do I want my toy wrecked by errant prop or jet wash! (..I guess it would suck if I brought an actual plane down as well.. I guess).

The only thing different about drones is that they are slow and hence easier seen.

I disagree. Any spanner with a credit card and a desire to see their neighbours tits can go buy a ready to fly FPV drone cheap on eBay, hook it up to their smartphone, and get in the air in a second. No expensive equipment investment, no time invested in the build, no incentive to protect their flyer. THIS is the difference, and it has seen people who would never consider an RC aircraft suddenly snapping them up like the "toys" they are often marketed to be. So now you have a bunch of people who have no knowledge about aerodynamics or aviation generally who suddenly think "wouldn't it be sick to go fly this around an airport for lulz and photos", and suddenly we have the problems we are now seeing. Most fixed and rotary wing hobbyists I know have an inherent respect for their fellow flyers, be they scale or full size pilots. We all share the sky, and we'd rather not kill each other.

HISTORICALLY there has been close to zero risk (no such thing as zero risk, where there are humans involved, there is always room for something to fuck up) but now the technology is more accessable to the "pleb public", the risks of serious incident is and will continue to increase. As you have said, there have been next to no incidents historically, but as many have pointed out to you, the fact this story even exists to publish is a demonstration that the danger is indeed increasing. To ignore these factors is about as ignorant as using an absolute term like "zero actual risk" when there is no way for you to know what is and has happened globally in the past.. however many years of RC flying as a hobby.

Re:It won't be long

[dywolf]

Not Insightful.

The only thing different about drones is that they are slow and hence easier seen.

Neither true nor untrue, just simply compeltely and totally ignorant and unfactual.

There is zero new risk here and history shows that there is zero actual risk in this as nobody ever brought down a commercial airliner with a model airplane or helicopter. AFAIK it has not even been tried, ever.

the risk has increased simply due to proliferation.
the fact it hasnt happened yet is not proof that it cant happen.
all you have to do FOD out an engine on takeoff and the plane is going down.

Re:It won't be long

[gweihir]

Not quite: Before 9/11 there was a small risk of anybody flying a plane into the twin towers: It required either a very disgruntled pilot or people learning to fly when they have no reason to. In actual fact it required exceptional stupidity by the FBI when they ignored the flight-instructor telling them about these strange people that were not interested in learning to land. The risk has _not_ increased, people flying wide-body aircraft into large buildings is still something that basically never happens and there is no need for precautions against that specific scenario. There is need for precautions against hijacking (now less because passengers will fight instead of being sheep) and those neatly address the plane-into-building risk as a beneficial side-effect.

Re:It won't be long

[dywolf]

you apparently have zero knowledge of airfield, or birds.
or logic.

if a drone operator is flying near an airport he is by definition doing by by choice, willingly in violation of already established FAA regulations.
and if hes already willfully violating regulations and flying near an airport it is no longer a given that he will try to avoid a collision,
because why is he flying over an active flightpath int he first place?!?!?
Rationality and motive are called into question by the very situation you have posed?

birds arent making conscious choices like that.
most birds tend to avoid giant noisy objects hurtling at them. few birds regualrly fly across a flightline.
the chief threat is that in their evasion they get overtaken and sucked in by an engine. that's why airports work to make the land the flightlines, taxiways , and runways occupy unattractive to birds. No trees, no ponds, and active denial systems (IE, devices that randomly emit loud noises). in general they work quite well.

Re:It won't be long

[ultranova]

This is called "living in a free society", and you do it every day you encounter strangers on the road,

So do you support letting people drive on the runway in the name of freedom? Or on the left lane? Or park their car in the middle of the highway?

Or do you simply think quadcopters should be exempt from regulation for some reason?

Re:It won't be long

[MikeLip]

Ah well, that makes it ok then! Since there is already a risk of birdstrike, then it's fine to add the risk of a drone strike too. Freaking brilliant.

Re:It won't be long

[dywolf]

and yet we still have laws against homicide.

Re:It won't be long

[Half-pint HAL]

In the UK, model aircraft flying is already heavily (but reasonably) regulated. The laws are being revised to make access to the skies easier. The problem isn't the laws, it is that people are ignoring the laws. What would be wrong with having licensing, with mandatory testing? Restricting the sale of functional model aircraft to people with a valid photocard would not affect serious hobbyists, but it would reduce the number of idiots with DJI Phantoms from the nearest branch of Gadget Shop.

Re:It won't be long

[Half-pint HAL]

Ah, so the risk of flying model aircraft into aircraft is zero because although it is possible, it has never happened; but the risk of people flying planes into buildings wasn't zero before 9/11 wasn't zero because although it hadn't happened, it was possible. Well, I can't argue with that logic....

Re:It won't be long

[ihtoit]

Apart from the fact that WTC1 and 2 were both designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft (albeit one not laden with fuel)? Way to mitigate the risk that, according to you, didn't exist!

Re:It won't be long

[dywolf]

So you logic is:
Because it almost, but did not, happen, everything is ok and there is no ened for rules to prevent further almost or even actual happenings?

Really you are a moron. You have no clue what you are talking about, or any concept of risk management.

Further, a single bird very much is a potential threat to a plane. Bird strikes cause over 600 million dollars in damage to the airline industry every year. Whule a variety of birds can be found at airports, the most common birds encountered on airports are geese, because even though they try to make airport land unattractive to birds, geese have a proclivity for eating grass, and airports tend to have that. And since you dont seem to know much of anything, you should be aware that geese arent small. An 8 lb bird striking an aircraft moving at over 120mph, and even ignoring thr birds own airspeed and momentum, is sufficient to crack plexiglass, dent airframe aluminum, and/or destroy an engine (just bending/breaking one blade on a turbine can unbalance it sufficiently to tear itself apart). Herons and large raptors have also been ingested into engines. An F16 canopy was partially dislodged (though still held by the catches) and nearly shattered after an impact. These are objects made of soft tissue with wery weak/hollow bones.

Re:It won't be long

[trewornan]

It is an avoidable risk, in that we can tell idiotic humans to stop flying quadcopters near planes, you fools!

Oh, just tell them to stop and that will solve the problem. How little some people know of human nature.

Re:It won't be long

[Half-pint HAL]

That's completely beside the point. I'm not saying the risk didn't exist, or commenting on whether or not it was mitigated. I'm arguing against gweihir's logic, which is utterly ridiculous, hence the reductio ad absurdum.

Re:It won't be long

[mandark1967]

Technically, the risk of flying a plane into a building in New York wasn't zero before 9/11 not because, "although it hadn't happened, it was possible", but because someone already flew a B-25 Mitchell bomber into the Empire State Building

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

Re:It won't be long

[RPI Geek]

The only thing different about drones is that they are slow and hence easier seen.

No, absolutely not! Motion is much easier to see. Consider a deer; hard to spot when it's standing still, much easier once it starts moving.

The easiest way spot other aircraft when I'm flying (did I mention I'm a student pilot?) is because of their apparent motion against a (usually contrasting) background. When birds or other aircraft are at the same altitude as me they appear just about on the horizon, and they're much harder to spot. Even gliders with 15-18 meter wingspans are tough to spot when they're at the same altitude - in fact, head-on collisions is a big safety issue that can even trip up top glider pilots (http://www.flarm.com/news/presscoverage/SSA_MainArticle_201405.pdf - the description on page 1 is particularly enlightening, and the graphic on page 3 shows the relative size of gliders relative to the time left to react). Drones are small and seeing one directly in front of me would NOT be easy.

There is zero new risk here and history shows that there is zero actual risk in this as nobody ever brought down a commercial airliner with a model airplane or helicopter. AFAIK it has not even been tried, ever.

The problem with this argument is that traditional model aircraft pilots didn't have cameras on their planes/helis. Now that drones come with them pre-installed, their pilots can fly at much longer range and without direct line of sight - traditional model aircraft pilots need to constantly watch their aircraft to keep it under control. Imagine the difficulty of hitting a target when your R/C heli is a few hundred feet away. Then imagine using an onboard camera to watch your target approach.

Now if you'd said that laws wouldn't prevent a terrorist from doing this, I'd agree with you. If you'd said that an outright ban on drones is unreasonable and untenable, I'd agree with you. I'd have even agreed if you'd said that the chances are slim of a terrorist actually using a drone maliciously. Where I strongly disagree is saying that the threat level hasn't changed. Technology has made drones more readily accessible and easier to pilot in a malicious manner, one need only look at the increased reports of near misses to realize that the number of drones being flown recklessly is increasing.

Re:It won't be long

[sjames]

Let's be more realistic here. People shouldn't be stupid and fly drones at the airport, sure. But they are vastly more likely to cause property damage than death if a collision actually happens.

The last thing we need is 'officials' wetting their pants over yet another 'dire threat' and overreacting again.

The drone's radio control has a limited range and well known frequency range. It should be possible to track the idiots down, fine them, and remind them that if they actually have a collision the damages will well exceed their annual income.

Speaking of actual collisions, there haven't been any anywhere.

Re:It won't be long

[serviscope_minor]

I think you may have interpreted the AC. I *think* he was pointing out that the GP's post about rational drone operators fails to take into acconut that they are not in fact rational.

Anyway re: birds.

Geese tend to like airorts, due to the grass.

I'd hazard a guess that RC/Drone fliers ALSO like airports, probably more than geese due to the planes. I mean you have to be a bit of a plane nerd to fly those a lot and big planes are cool.

Another problem is that quads in particular have 4 large motors made out of chunks of hard metal. While birds and geese in particular (grass is tough to grind up) hold a bunch of stones in their gizzard, the drone will have a LOT of large, hard parts.

On the plus side, drones don't tend to flock.

Herons and large raptors have also been ingested into engines.

Aparently a Ruppell's Vulture wsa ingested at 37,000 feet and presumably at a cruising speed of about 600 mph. Given their weight of 8kg that must have come as an astonishing shock to the pilot.

Re:It won't be long

[CaptainDork]

This.

And, we REALLY need to come up with a different name than "drone." While we know a drone is an RC, the name "drone" seems to put it in a different class. It is not.

Re:It won't be long

[serviscope_minor]

the risk has increased simply due to proliferation

Proliferation and ease which go hand in hand.

I had a few goes at flying an RC helicopter when they were very much part of the RC crowd and available from model shops only, not every random toy store. I also tried flying an early (and also building) an early quadcopter when they were basically the domain of university research groups and rich hobbyists.

My god those things were hard to fly. The quad copter was much easier but still very, very hard and took hours before I could hover the thing, provided it stayed within about 45 degrees of pointing forward relative to me. The helos were much, much harder due to much less linear coupling between the various controls and a substantially higher power to weight ration (early quads were quite marginal).

The reason this matters is you didn't get any random yahoo flying them. You had to be quite seriously dedicated in terms of time and reasonably in terms of money (a new helo could be had for £100 or so, but learning to fly could easily eat up that much in spare parts). Oh and be mechanically adept enough to fix the bugger when you wiped out and wrecked some important part again.

Basically this raised the barrier to entry to really dedicated people.

They generaly fall into the category of "know what they're doing" and have more of a feel for aircrft in generl due to the time spent and I would say are less likely to do something stupid. I think in part this is also because many people also joined local clubs because getting advice on these things was very useful.

Secondly, thwasn't much you could do except fly them aroud and watch. The modern style with a high res camera and remote video link is a new phenomenon and makes people willing and able to fly these things further away.

The combination of cheap, accessible to any yahoo and also interesting for more than flying to its own sake all add up.

Re:It won't be long

[wonkey_monkey]

This is really a non-issue.

Just because X is less of an issue than Y (for now), that doesn't make X a non-issue.

Re: It won't be long

[Hognoxious]

It is not relevant if it has not happened in a few decades of the technology being available.

I was wondering where the kids had gone and who that old woman is.

I've slept till 2025, haven't I?

Re:It won't be long

[Hognoxious]

It did _almost_ happen. That means it did _not_ happen yet.

FTFY.

Re:It won't be long

[Bob the Super Hamste]

but now there is a very high risk

If by very high you mean likely an order of magnitude less likely than getting struck by lightning then I will accept that. I would say that the likelihood of a commercial airliner being hijacked and crashed into a building is substantially lower now than it was before 9/11 because of simple precautions like locking the cockpit door, having a hardened cockpit door, and passengers who are likely to turn someone into a red smear on the nasty carpet if they attempt to breach the cockpit door.

Re:It won't be long

[rwise2112]

It is an avoidable risk, in that we can tell idiotic humans to stop flying quadcopters near planes, you fools!

how do we know that this wasn't a government drone and/or operated by or at the government's direction?

Idiotic humans covers that possibility!

Re:It won't be long

[R3d M3rcury]

[...] geese and other dumb animals cannot understand us when we tell them this [...]

But has anybody really tried?

Re:It won't be long

[N Monkey]

[...] geese and other dumb animals cannot understand us when we tell them this [...]

But has anybody really tried?

Yes. Using a trained bird of prey can give other birds an unsubtle hint to stay away.

Re:It won't be long

[LordLimecat]

No, I support rational risk analysis based on empirical data, rather than hysteria.

Re:It won't be long

[LordLimecat]

Pretty sure it is legal to carry a gun, however. Also, its already illegal to bring a plane down regardless of whether with a gun, rocket, or drone.

Re:It won't be long

[shortscruffydave]

Aparently a Ruppell's Vulture wsa ingested at 37,000 feet and presumably at a cruising speed of about 600 mph. Given their weight of 8kg that must have come as an astonishing shock to the pilot.

I bet it was a bit of a surprise for the vulture as well.

Re:It won't be long

[lgw]

It is an avoidable risk

If humans have one glaring flaw in their ability to act rationally, it's this. Avoidable risks are no more risky than any other kind of risk! Life will never be safe, and each and every price we pay to reduce risk needs to consider both the cost and benefit. If a given risk poses less than a 1-in-a-million chance of hurting the average person, there had better be no meaningful downside to prevention.

We freak out over all kinds of not-actually-important risks, often throwing liberty over the side in pursuit of meaningless safety, simply because the risk is avoidable. Well, fine but avoidable at what cost?.

All private use of drones is going to end up getting outlawed over something like this, because we seem immune to rational consideration of risk.

Re: It won't be long

[xaotikdesigns]

I could build a trebuchet near an airport, and fling big rocks at aircraft while landing or taking off.

It may not have happened before, but it certainly could happen...

Re:It won't be long

[gweihir]

This is a complete side-show, and does not matter at all in the bigger picture. There is no sense in trying to address 0.000...01% risks. In fact it is harmful as it detracts from actual problems.

Re:It won't be long

[gweihir]

Indeed. That is risk-management 101. Apparently many people here have not even the minimal understanding required for that. These are probably the same morons that are afraid of being killed by terrorists, when they probably will not even come near one in their whole life.

Re:It won't be long

[gweihir]

Many here support hysteria. Always the same stupidity, it is pathetic.

Re:It won't be long

[gweihir]

And they have zero effect. Nobody that is thinking about killing somebody is deterred by laws. They just do not matter in such a situation.

Re: It won't be long

[gweihir]

Ban trebuchets! And make offering plans for them on the Internet a terrorist offense! On a completely unrelated note, if planes fly low enough, you could be throwing rocks with your bare hands at them and hit (there are some approaches like that). Ban rocks and hands! And anybody explaining the concept of throwing rocks is surely a terrorist as well!

Re:It won't be long

[gweihir]

And you fail, because you have not understood what I was saying. Stop projecting your misconceptions.

Re:It won't be long

[Some_Llama]

"Apart from the fact that WTC1 and 2 were both designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft (albeit one not laden with fuel)? "

How would you fly a plane into a building unladen with fuel?

Re:It won't be long

[gweihir]

These type of stories are always good to see how many stupid people are on /. that do not understand probability _at_ _all_. There are really a lot.

Re:It won't be long

[brainboyz]

The UK's definition of reasonable is anything but.

Re:It won't be long

[brainboyz]

There are already rules in place about this. Rules that have governed RC craft for decades. Rules which include no-fly zones. Somehow, strapping a camera to it has mystically changed it into a drone which requires new rules.

It makes about as much sense as patents claiming "...on the internet!"

Re:It won't be long

[cerberusti]

I cannot imagine any sort of reasonable risk analysis deciding it is ok to allow drone flight near an airport.

A commercial passenger jet at 700 feet is either taking off, landing, or crashing... so we can safely assume this was in controlled airspace near an airport.

Re:It won't be long

[BlueStrat]

There are a lot of unsupported assumptions being made all around.

Moderated "Flamebait".

Classic Slashdot.

Re:It won't be long

[Hognoxious]

It is a different thing. Old-school RC model is steered by a pilot who can - at all times - see it.

A drone isn't. It may use a camera link and/or have a certain degree of autonomy, i.e. it gets no signal it hovers.

Re: It won't be long

[Hognoxious]

Small calibre SAM? Right.

You're clearly an expert in these matters.

Re:It won't be long

[CaptainDork]

A person can put a camera on board a traditional RC and there are those that hover, as well.

Re:It won't be long

[david_thornley]

Right. Most risks in fact are avoidable. If I'd stayed home today, I'd have zero risk of getting killed on the highway.

On the other hand, there are stupid risks, like flying drones near aircraft. AFAICT, there is no upside to doing so, and some risk.

Re:It won't be long

[sjames]

That is not just an over-reaction, it is approaching wet pants. Care to point to any actual collision at all anywhere involving a drone and a larger aircraft? Anything? Anywhere in the world? Ever? How many died?

I would guess that there have been many more lawn-mower related accidents (and that DOES include fatalities) yet mowing the lawn requires no license, equipment inspection, club membership, or insurance.

I know how frequency hopping works. I also know that the more you boost the radio, the easier it is to track it. Further, I know that unless you also boost the radio on the drone itself, there's no use for the boosted controller since you won't have any way to fly the drone.

So again, track the transmitter and fine the idiot. Jam the signal and capture the drone when it lands/crashes to the ground. Sell it at auction as-is.

Re:It won't be long

[wonkey_monkey]

What's to understand? Does flying a drone inside restricted airspace increase the probability of an incident of any kind?

Re:It won't be long

[gweihir]

Your question exemplifies the problem very well.

Re:It won't be long

[wonkey_monkey]

How?

Re:It won't be long

[sjames]

Your solution is to pre-emptively submit to the yoke of slavery in order to be free. Maybe massah won't whip you too hard.

I choose to suggest that we all point and laugh at 'authorities' who wet their pants in public.

We live in an era where they wet their pants over lite-brite and led lapel pins. You aren't going to restore their continence by suggesting crazy levels of regulation.

Perhaps the best bet is to create a few fake news stories about terrorists eating eggs and beans then farting in public to keep their minds occupied while people try hard to remember that we are the home of the brave.

Re:It won't be long

[gweihir]

Just my point.

Re:It won't be long

[wonkey_monkey]

Well, if you can't be bothered to help me understand your point...

Incidentally, the question "does flying a drone inside restricted airspace increase the probability of an incident of any kind?" was rhetorical, and not just because flying a drone into restricted airspace probably counts as an "incident" in itself.

You seem to think it's basically no problem at all to have drones flying around in restricted airspace, based solely on the instinct of the pilots to safeguard their toys. There are plenty of good reasons why this wouldn't be a good idea, even if you could trust a drone pilot to try to keep a "safe" distance.

An unidentified drone

[Anonymous Coward]

So, being that it is called "An unidentified drone", do we know that it was a drone and not a bird or something else?

How about we just call it for an Unidentified Flying Object until we figured out what it was?

Re:An unidentified drone

[sound vision]

Aliens.

Re:An unidentified drone

[Zontar The Mindless]

And if a news story referred to "an unidentified car", you'd be asking if it wasn't really a freight train because, "unidentified". *eye roll*

Re:An unidentified drone

[Roodvlees]

Unidentified means they don't know who owns the drone and they would be unable to tell it different from any other drone.
When they say it's a "drone" that means they did identify it as a drone, otherwise they would say unidentified flying object (UFO).

Re:An unidentified drone

[gweihir]

That would not fit the agenda of the people blowing this up beyond all proportions. What happened was basically a non-event. What gets reported is a near mass-casualty. There is a political agenda behind this, as there sure is no valid risk-management angle.

Re:An unidentified drone

[ColdWetDog]

No, this is Slashdot so you would get a 40 count thread with various potential impact energies depending on whether it was an Audi or a Ford Truck. Somebody would bring up a DeLorean and somebody else would talk about 1.8 gigawatts. Then there would be another 40 replies about how the OP should not have used watts, but instead discussed energies in Coulombs/erg.

Re:An unidentified drone

[xOneca]

did not appear on air traffic control radar and disappeared after the encounter.

Enough said. :)

Re:An unidentified drone

[jeremyp]

somebody else would talk about 1.8 gigawatts.

Don't be silly, they'd talk about One point twenty one jiggawatts. Then there would be a flamewar on the correct pronunciation of "giga" and whether a lightning strike can deliver 1.21Gw.

Re:An unidentified drone

[Buchenskjoll]

It's in England. A Ford truck would be unlikely. Oh, somehow it seems you predicted my posting....

Re:An unidentified drone

[Half-pint HAL]

In Soviet Russia, 1 point 21 jiggawatts delivers YOU! (Or should that be "in 1959s capitalist America"...?)

Re:An unidentified drone

[Half-pint HAL]

UFO is established aviation terminology. The popular interpretation is not the only one.

Re:An unidentified drone

[mean pun]

Cheap and easy to fly drones are a new phenomena that have an obvious potential to endanger airplanes. Reports like this indicate that this is more than a theoretical danger. Surely there is a risk-management angle then? It seems to me you are denying the obvious. What is your agenda?

Re:An unidentified drone

[ultranova]

There is a political agenda behind this,

Obviously. Specifically, airlines don't want their $$$ planes to turn into flaming scrap, and passengers don't want to die. What's less certain is your agenda.

Re:An unidentified drone

[ninlilizi]

You forgot the impact energies being calculated in units of Burning Libraries of Congress.

Re:An unidentified drone

[mellon]

In addition, had the drone hit the airplane, how do we know that it wouldn't have bounced off? Did it weigh more than a frozen turkey? Mid-air collisions between airplanes are really bad, but mid-air collisions between airplanes and turkeys are generally only bad for the turkey, modulo the occasional fluke where you get enough birds in each engine to cause a real problem.

I frequently see other airplanes from my airplane when I travel. Does that mean that there was a risk of a mid-air? No, they're at a different altitude. So "the pilot saw a drone" is evidence of a near-miss only in the realm of directed reasoning. Someone has an agenda, and that's why this is news.

Re:An unidentified drone

[TangoMargarine]

And somehow it was all systemd's fault.

Re:An unidentified drone

[TangoMargarine]

What happened was basically a non-event. What gets reported is a near mass-casualty.

Pretty sure that it's a fair call to label anything that happens to an airliner on final approach as a near mass-casualty, considering the number of people on board and how takeoff and landing are by far the most vulnerable parts of the flight for an aircraft.

If the drone went into one of the engines and the pilot made a mistake, I would bet on casualties.

Near miss?

[maestroX]

When two planes almost collide, they call it a near miss. It's a near hit. A collision is a near miss.

George Carlin

Re:Near miss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Loved the Carlin quote, but in that context I believe "near" is merely a qualifier of the kind of "miss" that occurred. As in, they missed by a small margin, as opposed to a "far miss" where the potential for a collision is considerably smaller, hence it's a much less severe "miss".

Re:Near miss?

[The Mysterious Dr. X]

I'm a fan of Swiss Miss.

Re:Near miss?

[RivenAleem]

There's a difference between nearly missed, and a near miss. A collision is nearly missed.

No bigger than ...

[jamesl]

... a bird. And airplanes hit birds on approach almost every day. Certainly every week.

N417SW SKYWEST AIRLINES FLIGHT SKW2608 BOMBARDIER CL600 AIRCRAFT ON FINAL, STRUCK BIRDS, LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT, DAMAGE TO AIRCRAFT IS MINOR, SACRAMENTO, CA
http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/a...

UAVs (sometimes called "drones") shouldn't be operating around airports but the likelihood of one downing a transport category aircraft is just about zero.

Re:No bigger than ...

[Viol8]

Clearlty you see no distinction between a soft squishy bird and solid lump of metal, plastic and potentially explosive lithium batteries hitting a fan blade at 200mph.

Even if 1 engine out is unlikely to bring a plane down I doubt an airline really wants to pay millions for a new engine (not to mention the service disruption of the airliner being taken out of service) just because some juvenile asshat gets his kicks playing with his toy near a flight path.

Re:No bigger than ...

[N1AK]

But a bird is made up of meat and feather...whereas the drone could potentially contain titanium or other such strong material. It could contain explosives too. So size shouldn't matter.

What on earth is the point you are making. He said drones shouldn't be near airports then made the valid point that a typical drone would almost certainly not cause a crash when hitting a large plane. Obviously if you strap a bomb to one the calculation changes, but then so would the calculation if you shoved a grenade up a ducks ass and managed to hit a plane with it! Neither point is counter to his post.

Re:No bigger than ...

[dbIII]

So 200 deaths since 1988 is no big deal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike#Incidents

Re:No bigger than ...

[Richard Kirk]

Bird strikes can be dangerous if one goes into the engine. This rarely downs an aircraft unless you have a two-engined aircraft and both engines get hit at the same time. Remember the plane that landed in the Hudson after a double bird strike? That was an Airbus A320.

Whether this is a significant risk depends on what the drone flyer is trying to do. If they are trying to get close-up pictures of aircraft then they are probably no bigger risk than birds. If they are aiming for the engines because they want to take down an aircraft, then there is a significant risk, particularly of the drone is carrying some load designed to do damage. Why would someone do this? I dunno. Why do people use laser pointers to try and blind pilots? Maybe not terrorism: some people are just dicks.

What do we do? Well, if they are radio-controlled then we can pinpoint the controller by radio. It would be a nice problem to design a set of drones that can triangulate the source of a radio signal, home in on it, and track what they find.

Re: No bigger than ...

[Feral Nerd]

Muslims are more likely to fly a bomb carrying drone into the part of an aircraft than stick a grenade up a duck's are.

Muslims? Try the Russians: KAL007, MH17 ... They seem to be making a habit of flying drones into airliners.

Re:No bigger than ...

[skegg]

So we need more regulation to protect the profit of giant corporation? When they fly their plane over my house my property lose value.

Lemme get this straight:
you're concerned about aircraft noise reducing the value of your property, but refuse to accept regulations that may (just may) prevent an aircraft from falling onto you while you're sleeping.

O ... kay ...

Re:No bigger than ...

[Overzeetop]

" A solid lump of flesh and bone or a solid lump of styrofoam, plastic, and some small bits of metal." FTFY

I would worry more about the "potentially explosive" lithium batteries, but the actual energy involved is likely less than the rated capacity of 57Wh (for a DJI Phantom, a fairly large consumer model), or 205kJ of energy. If you consider they fire multiple chickens (at 3-4kg) at a combined vector of aircraft speed and compressor blade speed of 275m/s, the impact energy is north of 300(+/-)kJ. If you're concerned about high temperatures, remember that this is a jet engine made of high temperature steel and ceramics. Don't forget that they also fire 120+g balls of ice into the engines at hundreds of m/s, so it's not all "soft stuff" they test against these engines.

That's not to say that a large drone might not do damage to an engine, but if you combine the chance of an idiot drone pilot *and* the chance of getting ingested into an engine *and* the chance of actually having an impact which severely damages the engine you're talking very very remote possibilities. You may as well start patrolling the highways to make sure nobody flies above them for fear of the drone losing power and diving into traffic. Current laws cover the conditions well enough for general safety (glide slope and general hobby a/c altitude limits).

Re:No bigger than ...

[oobayly]

... just because some juvenile asshat gets his kicks playing with his toy near a flight path.

Like this dickhead - literally over the road from a London Heathrow runway.

My office is on an old Halifax (WW2 bomber) airfield and we get RAF Pumas and Chinooks doing low (shakes the building low) level training over it. So when I built my quadcopter and was testing/tuning it, I double checked whether we are in a MATZ - it ends on pretty much over our office (though the chart is a small scale, so it' difficult to be precise), so I can fly up to a thousand feet (if I was stupid enough).

The problem is that I know what to lookup to work out if I'm flying safe or not, but most people wouldn't even have heard of a MATZ, even if they're aware that flying at the end of a runway at the word's busiest international airport is monumentally stupid.

Re:No bigger than ...

[ColdWetDog]

I'll give you another anectdote. And you can do this all day. It's fun!

How about "UAVs (sometimes called "drones") shouldn't be operating around airports but the likelihood of one downing a transport category aircraft is low, certainly not zero and something responsible people are concerned about".

Re:No bigger than ...

[bluegutang]

Obviously if you strap a bomb to one the calculation changes

What if you strap a gas tank or high-capacity battery to the drone?

Re:No bigger than ...

[sandbagger]

I miss the old Slashdot when phrases like 'titanium or other such strong material' would not have appeared.

Titanium is many things but strong isn't one of them. Try again. The battery's probably a bigger concern.

Re:No bigger than ...

[Neil Boekend]

Indeed, if you weigh it against the amount of passenger km/s in that same period.

Re:No bigger than ...

[sociocapitalist]

... a bird. And airplanes hit birds on approach almost every day. Certainly every week.

N417SW SKYWEST AIRLINES FLIGHT SKW2608 BOMBARDIER CL600 AIRCRAFT ON FINAL, STRUCK BIRDS, LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT, DAMAGE TO AIRCRAFT IS MINOR, SACRAMENTO, CA
http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/a...

UAVs (sometimes called "drones") shouldn't be operating around airports but the likelihood of one downing a transport category aircraft is just about zero.

Might depend on if it's got a couple of sticks of dynamite (or whatever) stuck to it when it gets sucked into an engine.

Re:No bigger than ...

[TangoMargarine]

Good luck getting the duck to fly straight at the engine after the grenade-ass-up-shoving.

Re:No bigger than ...

[rwise2112]

Yeah, but birds can't carry explosives

It could grip it by the husk.

Re:No bigger than ...

[magarity]

Well, if they are radio-controlled then we can pinpoint the controller by radio

Yes, this! I envision a system where some radio seeking fully automated drones fly near the airport searching for hobbyists on the ground with radio transmitters. The drones can then fire beam-rider missiles at the drone operators before any passenger planes can run into the drones. Problem solved!

Re:No bigger than ...

[drinkypoo]

Birds are mostly hollow and crush easily.

Uh, how many birds have you taken apart?

Drones have a battery

Yes, yes they do. That battery is made up of maybe some excruciatingly thin sheet metal, and probably more like plastic-backed foil, filled with paste.

Throwing rocks at cars is a much better analogy ... cars driving 200 KPH.

I agree that a drone is probably ounce for ounce more serious than a bird, but there are some pretty big birds out there, too. Most drones don't contain any big chunks of metal because that would make them heavy. They have dinky little motors and a relatively small battery pack.

Re:No bigger than ...

[Zalbik]

Birds are mostly hollow and crush easily.

Uh, how many birds have you taken apart?

Typically birds are fairly hollow, and do crush reasonably easily. Ask any cat.

From wikipedia:
"Birds have many bones that are hollow (pneumatized) with criss-crossing struts or trusses for structural strength"

That being said, I agree that is is very unlikely that the plastic & tiny bits of metal in a drone would be any more dangerous than a bird. For obvious reasons, drones are typically designed with as lightweight materials as possible. The ones I've seen also crush fairly easily.

Re:No bigger than ...

[Zalbik]

Why do people use laser pointers to try and blind pilots?

That's it!

We need drones with frickin' laser pointers attached to their heads!

Footnote:
For the comedy impaired, the above is intended as a humorous amalgamation of the GP's point that some idiots use laser pointers to blind pilots, and the scene from Austin Powers where Dr. Evil planned to have lasers attached to sharks heads. It is not intended as a serious suggestion. The author maintains no responsibility for any repercussions that may occur if you attempt the above and informs you that any attempt to do so immediately qualifies you as a real dick. The author further hopes that if you do successfully carry out the above that any plane you attempt to interfere with manages to land safely directly on top of your bloody carcass.

Re:No bigger than ...

[drinkypoo]

Typically birds are fairly hollow, and do crush reasonably easily. Ask any cat.

Yeah, ask my cat (who is an absolute badass) what she thinks about ravens. And those aren't even the biggest birds around here, but she ain't getting anywhere near a buzzard. There's birds, and there are birds. And nothing we've talked about is as big as a goose...

Re:No bigger than ...

[thegarbz]

Well, if they are radio-controlled then we can pinpoint the controller by radio.

Yeah? Which frequency? Which protocol?

The unfortunate things about these radio transponders is that they come in all shapes and sizes. Trying to tell them apart from a mobile phone or a wifi hotspot is not an easy task. Locating radio signals are great when they are incredibly powerful and transmitted from one location (e.g. Pirate Radio), but not so good if you're equipment is within the licensed ISM bands and behaving correctly.

Worse still you could be looking for something that looks no different to a mobile phone in a world where everyone has a mobile phone. You can buy the transmitter / receiver pair in pretty much any frequency combination. Being illegal is no barrier in this case evidently given the decision to fly at high altitude near an airport.

Re:No bigger than ...

[dbIII]

That's straying waaaay off the point of whether drones sharing airspace with aircraft is a good idea or not. You can't keep the birds away as easily as stopping people flying drones near airports or at aircraft operating altitudes.
It's enough to identify that a bird in contact with an aircraft is a problem, compare that with drones in contact and then decide what to do about likely contact.

Re:No bigger than ...

[Neil Boekend]

I agree with that.
Birds are a problem, if only a minor one. There is no need to add drones to that.
Shooting the drones out of the air seems like a reasonable solution.

Phew

[StripedCow]

Thank goodness my Amazon drone-delivered goods were not destroyed by this incident.

Re:Panic!

[Dunbal]

Drones are mostly made out of solid plastic, except for the battery and the motors. I'm not saying the turbine fans would be perfect after swallowing one but I'm pretty sure it would be no worse than a bird-strike.

Do go back under your bridge

[Viol8]

And look on the plus side - if an aircraft does come down because of a drone taking out an engine then at least the bridge might offer you some protection.

Re:Panic!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we hear about incidents with drones but not about incidents with RC aircraft?

Apart from the fact they're really the same thing but with different gadgets.... Those with HD cameras can be flown out of sight of the operator while RC cannot. That makes it possible for the operator to fly a drone some distance away so they cannot be spotted and incur the penalties for entering a no-fly area. Also RC planes are hard to fly, it needs an experienced operator who by then will then be (hopefully) more responsible. Drones can be flown by a complete amateur thanks to their stability and gyros. That means someone is much more likely to fly it somewhere they aren't allowed to go just for kicks on their first flight.

TFA contains gems like "drones could potentially threaten commercial aircraft". 10kg aircraft "threatens" airbus a320. Sure. If you can down commercial aircraft by flying a drone in its general vicinity then there's something wrong with commercial airliners, not with whatever it is that flew into it. Might've been a bird, and those don't come with radio control.

All airliners have an achilles heel that their engines are vulnerable. Losing a single engine mid-flight isn't necessarily a massive deal, though scary. On take-off they're running at full power though, having a 10kg object enter the engine then could be very bad. Also a drone might be harder than a bird (metal parts) and birds don't contain lithium batteries that can explode when punctured.

Re:Panic!

[The Grim Reefer]

Of course, a thing made mostly out of solid metal is much more dangerous than a bird.

Bullets are made of solid metal. Most hobbyist R/C aircraft, that are considered drones, are mostly Styrofoam and/or plastic. The hand built ones are usually balsa wood wrapped in shrink wrap plastic film. There are a few larger hand built R/C plane s with metal skin. But I don't think I've ever heard of hobbyists at that level being so irresponsible. It's become more of a problem since the relatively cheap "ready to fly" planes have gained popularity.

Re:Panic!

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It would seem that a drone is the perfect terrorist weapon to hit a starting airliner with.

Re:Panic!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression these things are mostly plastic and electronics since they have power-to-weight ratios to worry about. The most solid part is probably the chunk of chemicals making up the power source, then there's the various motors. Even if there's a metal shell around it, it'll have to be thin and light, say aluminium sheet. Much like aircraft are rather thin (but because of their size at the very least, thicker than drones) shelled contraptions.

The biggest threat is that of "Foreign Object Damage" to the motors. Turbojet engines are themselves rapidly spinning hunks of metal, comprising much more mass than even a solid metal drone (that won't be up there for those literally wouldn't be able to fly), that nonetheless don't take well to even a hunk of feathers, muscle, blood, and (hollow!) bone that is the typical makeup of a bird. This doesn't have to be: You can feed the jet engines engines in an A10 "warthog" large chunks of its own wing cladding, and they'll chomp and cough and spit it out and still bring the plane home. But commercial aircraft have prima donnas for jet engines.

And, of course, the world of commercial airline flying is hyper-sensitive to anything that possibly eventually maybe might cause accidents of any kind. If flying a drone near a commercial aircraft merits the highest grade of incident they have, it becomes indistinguishable from, say, two fully-laden passenger craft colliding on the runway. Meaning that this sort of classification is not the most helpful in sorting out the big from the small incidents. By the by, "Fukushima" showed us that the nuclear power world has a similar problem (along with some troubling others).

But anyway, I think it's a pertinent question to ask why "drones" attract "idiots" where the RC aircraft folk have themselves well in hand. Perhaps someone, possibly the government, should promote the flying of drones in clubs, where there's like-minded people that can teach each other not to do the ignorant thing and fly drones near airports.

Methinks that would be a more constructive approach than scaring up the public and the politicians until knee-jerking time when they'll "do something" by slapping on ill-thought-out regulations that likely will punish the harmless more than it'll prevent actual "possible" problems. Because the latter is what usually happens, it pains me to see it in action so transparently yet again.

Re:Panic!

[dbIII]

Geese have managed to bring down jet fighters so a bird strike is bad enough.

This is _not_ an plane-vs-plane collision risk...

[gweihir]

Unless said drone carries some hardened steel components, this is more like a collision with a bird. Even airplane engines (the most vulnerable part) are designed to withstand that. A direct collision will probably result in some light paint scratches on the airplane. Unlike the case of an airplane collision, the destruction of the drone is not an issue here.

What is going on here is that some bureaucrats inflate the risk perception of something that is basically a non-issue to look really, really dangerous. This is likely done for purely political reasons, to inflate their perceived importance.

Re:Cue Ayn Rand worshipping Libetarians...

[mwvdlee]

Don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but a drone hitting the fan of a jet engine can be quite damaging.

Re:Cue Ayn Rand worshipping Libetarians...

[gweihir]

Indeed. Sure, a drone carrying explosives or a long steel rod could do real damage. But a model helicopter or model plane could the same and that risk has existed for a long, long time. AFAIK nothing ever happened. There is no risk angle that "drone" brings in here.

A bird carying a grenade?

[brunes69]

For one, commercial quad-copters are a lot larger than the average bird unless you are talking about a giant eagle.

Second, if the drone is powered by a LiON battery pack and gets sucked into the engine, when the drone is struck by the impeller it COULD rupture the battery pack in a way that causes a small explosion. I don't know if this would be enough to damage the engine but I certainly would not dismiss it.

Re:A bird carying a grenade?

[gweihir]

And you think anybody would be flying a commercial quad-copter near a runway approach? That is BS. Nobody is going to risk not only a very expensive piece of equipment but also a huge fine and possible loss of permission to operate drones. This clearly was something far lighter and far less expensive.

Also, Li-Ion can _not_ explode. It burns, very hotly, but it burns _slow_. There is no "could" here. Really, there is not. Goose feathers are a far better explosive than Li-Ion batteries. They _can_ explode if pulverized finely enough and mixed just right. Does that happen? No. It does not. Would it be a problem? No. Not enough energy in there to do actual damage. If you want a drone to blow up an airplane engine, you better add some pretty damn powerful explosive.

 

Re:A bird carying a grenade?

[gweihir]

No. There has been zero explosions of Li-Ion batteries. There have been ruptures of _casings_ of Li-Ion batteries and they are not very dangerous as these casings have safety-valves. It is a bit like popping a bottle of champagne and less dangerous. Sure, if you do that right next to your ear, you will get hurt. Drones carry Li-Polymer as they are lighter and these cannot under any circumstances even produce that "pop". But even Li-Ion would be a total non-issue as a pressure-rupture on this scale is not something you can use to destroy more than soft tissue.

Really, stop being stupid. It is pathetic.

Re:A bird carying a grenade?

[dotancohen]

I had occasion to see cheap Ebay li-ion batteries "explode". There is a pop, but that pop is then followed by a small tongue of flame and smoke. This lasts a few seconds but it ruins whatever that tongue of flame was pointing at. I certainly would not want that in my pocket.

Re:A bird carying a grenade?

[dotancohen]

No tongue of flame, but you might like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:A bird carying a grenade?

[dotancohen]

Flames on this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:A bird carying a grenade?

[Neil Boekend]

What that engine is designed to do is already between a lithium fire and an explosion. Don't worry about the lithium.
Having said that, anyone operating a drone on an airport (without authorisation from the tower) is an idiot and should, at the least, lose their drone.
If it becomes a real problem I vote for a hunter that just shoots them down before they get anywhere dangerous.

As for bird strikes: Those do bring down the occasional aircraft. We can't do much about them. However, there is no need to actively add to that problem.

Re:A bird carying a grenade?

[drinkypoo]

I wouldn't want that in my pocket, and I wouldn't want it in my jet engine, but it still isn't an explosion. It's the bursting of the envelope.

Re:A bird carying a grenade?

[dotancohen]

I see you've never sat in a Cessna 172.

Re:A bird carying a grenade?

[cciRRus]

Just want to highlight that RC models such as multirotors do not use lithium ion batteries. They use lithium polymer batteries (LiPo / Li-Po). The two have different chemistries and that makes LiPos suitable for "drones" instead of Li-On.

just about zero

[wiredog]

But not quite zero.

Re:Cue Ayn Rand worshipping Libetarians...

[Barny]

Really? Those same engines are tested by firing frozen chickens into them while they are running.

Re:Panic!

[skegg]

10kg aircraft "threatens" airbus a320. Sure.

Yes, it IS a threat. And a responsible person wouldn't be flying these things where they can put other people's lives at risk.

Might've been a bird, and those don't come with radio control.

Yet airports DO take measures to discourage birds from being in their vicinity. Now, most birds generally don't fear fines and prison sentences, so the measures usually take the form of: (i) changing the environment, to make it less appealing -- removing surrounding trees, food sources, etc; (ii) trained birds of prey; (iii) sound-generating devices.

Why do we hear about incidents with drones but not about incidents with RC aircraft?

RC aircraft have historically been used by a small number of (responsible) hobbyists. Drones are becoming more widespread, and their owners are starting to include idiots.

It's a shame that some idiots are behaving this way. I say release the falcons on them!

Re:This is _not_ an plane-vs-plane collision risk.

[anarcobra]

Birds contain batteries now?

Re:WHOOSH

[Viol8]

Its hard on here to tell when people are being sarcastic because some of the genuine opinions are so out there.

Re:This is _not_ an plane-vs-plane collision risk.

[gweihir]

No. Batteries found on a drone are not a problem. Stop being stupid.

How this differs from birds

[ciaran2014]

First, drones are made from harder materials.

Second, we can ban drones.

Re:How this differs from birds

[gweihir]

And third you are being stupid. A model helicopter is actually far more dangerous as it has a hardened rotor shaft. Does anybody call for them being banned? No. Has one ever being used to bring down a commercial airliner? No.

Re:How this differs from birds

[Lord Crc]

A model helicopter is actually far more dangerous as it has a hardened rotor shaft. Does anybody call for them being banned? No. Has one ever being used to bring down a commercial airliner? No.

It's also significantly more difficult to operate than a quadcopter, as well as more expensive.

Re:How this differs from birds

[Half-pint HAL]

And mostly piloted by experienced people, dedicated to their hobby, that typically keep in regular contact with air traffic control to make sure they're not causing a problem. Typically, hobbyists were self-regulating, as they understood it was in their interests to make sure they weren't regulated out of existence. But most quadcopter owners aren't part of any "scene" and have no long-term investment in making sure that regulation is kept light. This means that heavier regulation is now required.

Re:How this differs from birds

[gweihir]

Those amateurs are not going to fly anything that is a real threat.

Re:How this differs from birds

[Deadstick]

And mostly piloted by experienced people

Yes.

dedicated to their hobby

Yes.

that typically keep in regular contact with air traffic control

No. They simply keep away from airports.

Re:How this differs from birds

[Hognoxious]

I know it's bad form, but did you RTFA?

Re:How this differs from birds

[Half-pint HAL]

Not like constant contact, but lots of clubs make themselves known to local ATC so they can be informed of any changes to regs, and so that ATC knows when and where they typically fly.

Re:This is _not_ an plane-vs-plane collision risk.

[gweihir]

Have you forgotten that drones are energy-constrained and hence need to be light? Also, if somebody actually wants to bring down a plane, a model helicopter does the job just fine when packed with enough explosives. Really no different from a drone, but available for the last few decades. There is _no_ new risk here.

Re:Cue Ayn Rand worshipping Libetarians...

[The Mysterious Dr. X]

Wow! I didn't know that. This knowledge just made my day brighter. I'll never look at sliced deli meats the same way!

Forget paranoia, more likely about the $$ it costs

[fantomas]

Let's trust Wikipedia on bird strikes and assume that small objects (under about 10kg) rarely cause a catastrophic collision, mostly it looks like bird strikes and similar are survivable for planes, they just cost lots of money. Looks like most aircraft aren't going to fall out of the sky even faced with a drone operator who successfully crashes into a plane. However the photos show it can make a pretty mess of expensive jet engines.

So I suspect that commercial interest might also be at play, it would be in the airlines' interest to claim a terrorism threat to stop idiots going to the supermarket in the morning then flying a drone near commercial airspace in the afternoon. Going to cost a lot to replace one of those jet engines from the look of the wikipedia photos showing what happens when a bird hits them.

Seems like if you want to commit an act of terror then a 5kg lump of plastic isn't likely to knock an airliner out of the sky, but it will probably cost the airlines a lot of money so I can imagine they'd quite like some regulations in place to stop idiots flying them near their planes.

Re:Panic!

[Attila Dimedici]

Why do we hear about incidents with drones but not about incidents with RC aircraft?

Because "drone" is the word which the news now uses to describe RC aircraft. The reason they do that is that "drone" sounds much scarier than "RC aircraft".

Toys

[Necroloth]

and it's because of people like this that we probably won't be able to have cool toys like drones

Re:Cue Ayn Rand worshipping Libetarians...

[TheRaven64]

The important bit of the story is that the chickens are defrosted first. The engines will not survive if a chicken-sized lump of ice is thrown into them.

Re:Cue Ayn Rand worshipping Libetarians...

[johnw]

But I'm fairly sure they don't continue running after the test.

Goose Strike Bollocks

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fed up with hearing the old trope that engines are tested by firing geese into them. Whilst this is true, the test is to ensure that the engine does not completely disintegrate peppering the cabin with shrapnel. The engine is most certainly not unscathed and if not written off completely would require extensive and costly refurbishment.

A drone may not be as heavy as a goose but it would very likely cause damage to the turbine blades resulting in reduced power and vibration and necessitating expensive repairs. Reduced power would also pose a danger.

Consequently, it goes without saying that airports do everything possible to prevent bird strikes and will presumably do the same for drones.

It's unfortunate that idiots like this (and the idiots that shine lasers into cockpits) will spoil it for us all. Inevitably, good toys will eventually be banned.

Re:Goose Strike Bollocks

[Neil Boekend]

In the case that this becomes a real problem I hope that the airports are going to employ hunters that shoot the drones down. The cost would be limited, for the airport. The cost for the idiot who flew his drone there would be quite big.

Re:Goose Strike Bollocks

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Hell I would volunteer to do it for free if they also let me shoot the damn sky carp that cause problems as well.

Re:Forget paranoia, more likely about the $$ it co

[OzPeter]

Going to cost a lot to replace one of those jet engines from the look of the wikipedia photos showing what happens when a bird hits them.

Cost of engine repairs
Cost of plane being out of service while the engine is repaired
Cost of (unwarranted) bad publicity from all those passenger youtube videos showing "ZOMG The engine just exploded!!!"
Cost of dealing with all the passengers who are now delayed because the flight didn't make it to the gate on time.
And probably several other things that I can't think of right now

Re:Cue Ayn Rand worshipping Libetarians...

[Half-pint HAL]

Yes, but e biggest danger isn't the drone body (carbon fibre composite etc) but the Li-ion battery and quite possibly a fairly chunky metal bodied bridge camera (Sony NX-3 & 5 being popular models).

Re:Panic!

[jamesl]

Do you have a reference for this?

All the bird related large aircraft (includes jet fighters) bird related crashes have been the result of flying into a flock of birds -- enough to clog the engine intake and cause the engine(s) to flame out.

Re:Panic!

[Half-pint HAL]

There's also he issue of the mounted camera. A lot of people flying in the $300+ range use bridge cameras with metal bodies. Now we're talking about throwing a brick into a jet engine. Along with TWO nice little blocks of flammable Li-ion....

Re:Creating Precedence

[ledow]

A pilot earning a small fortune, whose entire professional life is based on trust in him to save lives, whose entire career can be blighted by a single "what I saw wasn't there" incident, who's sitting next to co-pilots, lying in order to get an aircraft that he probably plays with at home himself banned?

Yeah. Right. It's all a conspiracy. Or some dickhead tested out his kids Christmas present and didn't know the laws surrounding drones because "it's just a toy", or wanted to get a cool shot of a plane taking off.

Heathrow is restricted airspace. NOTHING should be in that area, it's the world's busiest airport. You report ANYTHING out of the ordinary as a matter of course, as a pilot. And radar won't see a drone any more than it will see a house, or a car, or a cloud, or a big bird on it's own, or a lost birthday balloon. It's looking for aircraft. And all aircraft carry transponders blurting out their name and position by law anyway, which is the basis for air traffic control. Radar isn't there to find these kinds of things.

Occam's Razor. Either it's a conspiracy by the airports, the pilots, the governments and the CAA to ban drones that they themselves are using. Or it's some idiot with a Christmas toy. And they are already having enough problems with laser pointers, etc. by such idiots. I'm going with the later.

Re:This is _not_ an plane-vs-plane collision risk.

[AmiMoJo]

"Withstand" is a relative term... The engine is designed not to explode in a ball of fire and take the aircraft with it if hit by a bird, but that doesn't mean it will continue working properly. At the very least the aircraft will have to loop round and land again for inspection.

Re:Forget paranoia, more likely about the $$ it co

[ihtoit]

I would rather trust the CAA's own reporting and videos on Youtube ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ) showing bird strikes and what one (that's 1!) goose can do to a £230,000 engine. Three strikes a year which result in emergency landings, and that's just in UK airspace. Sometimes strikes aren't through engines, but through cockpit windows.

That is a risk.

Drones? That's just fucking lunacy. I'd go so far as to call it malicious intent.

Re: Panic!

[Half-pint HAL]

First up, not all planes are turbine engines. Secondly ignition in a turbine engine occurs at a very specific part of the engine, which is not the surface of the blades. A Li-ion battery might well explode on impact.

Re:Panic!

[Dunbal]

Comparing a single engine jet fighter to a multi engine passenger jet. Yeah!

Re:Panic!

[ihtoit]

really??

This one was hobbled by a single bird: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Panic!

[Dunbal]

Seriously a brick would probably ding a couple turbine blades and that's about it. See exactly how many turbine blades get damaged by say a 5 pound bird during testing. A brick or the metal from a camera case would be through there so fast that maybe one or two blades would be dinged. As for the flammable Li-On battery - exactly what do you think a jet engine is? A nice calm environment? It's an inferno where jet fuel is being combusted. I doubt such a battery being burned would be any hotter than the conditions already present in an engine.

You also have to bear in mind the speed at which all this debris passes through the engine. It's not going to be there long. At most there's a compressor failure or the engine loses a bit of power and needs to be serviced on landing, and pilots are supposed to be very competent in handling this sort of event.

Re:Panic!

[CrackerJackz]

One example: F16 + 1 Bird = 30+ Million dollar hole in the ground :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This is why we cannot have nice things...

[fredrik70]

...idiots like this will make sure that it's only a question of time before drones are forbidden/regulated.

Re:This is why we cannot have nice things...

[the grace of R'hllor]

Personally, I'm expecting someone to strap a half kilo of C4 to one and FPV it into an embassy to be the cause of the regulation. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.

Re:Cue Ayn Rand worshipping Libetarians...

[defnoz]

Really? Those same engines are tested by firing frozen chickens into them while they are running.

Ah, that reminds me of one lunchtime debate with a colleague when this factoid came up:

Me: ... yeah, I don't think they use live ones
Him: Nah, they use frozen chickens
Me: Defrosted though I'd think?
Him: No - at that altitude, they *would* be frozen
Me: ......

Re:Cue Ayn Rand worshipping Libetarians...

[mwvdlee]

Makes you wonder how well they'll handle a clump of metal making up a drone motor or battery.

Re:Cue Ayn Rand worshipping Libetarians...

[mwvdlee]

Cool. And I'm sure they'll survive a fluffy pillow too. How about throwing in a battery or rotor engine?

Re:Creating Precedence

[BBCWatcher]

Heathrow is restricted airspace. NOTHING should be in that area, it's the world's busiest airport.

Though I absolutely agree nothing else should be in the controlled airspace around Heathrow (or any other controlled airspace) without the full knowledge, permission, and constant monitoring of air traffic controllers, Heathrow is not the world's busiest. Heathrow serves the largest number of international airline passengers annually. Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport is the world's busiest both in terms of passengers served and aircraft movements.

Re:This is _not_ an plane-vs-plane collision risk.

[hackertourist]

Birds are notoriously squishy. A drone carries one or more electric motors and a battery pack, both of which are rather denser and less breakable than bird bones.

A few unbelievably flippant comments here

[caseih]

Several posters incredulously have stated that the risk to the plane was nonexistent, equating it to a bird strike (which in fact *is* dangerous). This is just plainly irresponsible on their part. We in fact cannot say what the outcome of a collision would be but we can say the risk of loss of life or damage to the aircraft is not zero. Is this acceptable to you personally? Perhaps it's okay for strangers whom you do not know? Family and loved ones? The risk of collision, however small, is a completely preventable risk, and it shouldn't even be there in the first place. That's why authorities are coming down hard and harder on the hobby.

Whether the airplane was in real danger or not, this incident is just one more of what are becoming weekly if not daily occurrences and show the utter stupidity of some people who fly these RC toys in reckless and dangerous ways. Every serious RC modeler knows that there are restrictions flying near airports, and strives to be safe and situationally aware. These idiots flying their RC toys next to full-scale aircraft are neither safe nor situationally aware, and really are ruining the hobby for everyone, and it will be a loss to all of the rest of us. Yes I'm sure this is all said so often that it gets really old, but this story makes me very angry as someone who flies RC airplanes and the occasional quad, and the situation is not improving. Self regulation is not working because idiots don't self-regulate. So sooner or later the entire hobby will be banned (besides that, none of these airplane buzzers build their own craft; they just buy a ready-made unit and toss it in the air without any apparent thought), plain and simple.

Re:Forget paranoia, more likely about the $$ it co

[DutchUncle]

You left out the potential "cost of funerals, cost of damage and death in crash area, cost of airframe replacement . . ." An engine failure could be catastrophic. People who don't live in the New York City area may not fully appreciate just how many buildings the "Miracle on the Hudson" plane avoided crashing on when both engines were stopped by bird-strike, not to mention just how much trouble crashing into the George Washington Bridge along the way would have caused (it's the world's busiest motor vehicle bridge). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

Re:Creating Precedence

[jbwolfe]

A pilot earning a fraction of what they used to earn, whose entire professional life is based on trust in him to save lives...

FTFY. Nonetheless, its still a very satisfying career under the right circumstances. At least for me...

Re:Panic!

[serviscope_minor]

But commercial aircraft have prima donnas for jet engines.

Of course they do. the A10 engine is a rather rough, inefficient thing designed ot deal with foreign objects. A modern jet airliner has an engine with an astonishingly high pressure ratio, which requires very exotic materials and very fine tolerances. They're designed for maximum fuel efficiency, low maintainance and not shedding blades into the cabin whe na birdstrike happens.

It's the high pressure ratio that makes them prima-donna engines, but that and the low maitainance is what makes moderately cheap flights possible.

But anyway, I think it's a pertinent question to ask why "drones" attract "idiots" where the RC aircraft folk have themselves well in hand.

RC things used t obe expensive and hard to fly. As a result of an investment of time and money the operators were somewhat thoughtful, and enthusiastic about flying for its own sake. Now any yahoo can buy a quadcopter with a camera mount and go look at interesting stuff for a few hundred bucks. No knowledge required.

Are DeVry doing pilot training now?

[Hognoxious]

Another point, TFS quotes an altitude of 700 feet for the aircraft. That would mean that a drone would not need to be operated at a very high (or technically 'illegal') altitude to be "near" the extremely low-flying aircraft.

Around an airport controlled airspace is shaped like an inverted wedding cake. The smallest layer - which contains the runways - touches the ground; therefore you can be knee height in there and still flying illegally if you don't have permission.

Re:Cue Ayn Rand worshipping Libetarians...

[serviscope_minor]

There is no risk angle that "drone" brings in here.

Um yeah there is. RC helicopters are fearsomely hard to fly. Drones are trivial to fly. As a result there are now many, many more drones in the air and that massiely increases the risk. They're also flown by much less experienced people which further increases the risk. AND they can be flown BVR which they can be flown into troublesome areas more easily. That increases the risk even further.

Drone is not a "scare word" but that doesn't mean that the drones do not come with increased risks.

Just like with lasers in cockpits. sure in the 80s, someone coud have bought a $15,000 lab laser and invested time to learn how to operate it and shone it at an aircraft. Funily enough no one did until cheap, integrated lasers you could buy ready to operate came available.

This does not mean technology is evil, but making potentially dangerous tech more easily available does increase the risk.

some drones are heavier

[peter303]

The "toys" are only a pound or two. But drones being conssidered for farm or foresting work are more substantial. they carry fuel and payloads.

Im not sure I'm buying the premises

[tatman]

We have little drone, weighing at most 3lb. And then we have a jumbo jet, weighing tons. The jumbo jet creates all kinds of turbulence and wind eddys. The little drone can barely hold in any wind.

I realize if one of these gets into the engine of a plane it could be devastating. However, being an owner of one of these "drones", I have a hard time seeing one of these ever getting to that point. The higher you get with the drone, the more wind to contend with. Wind and drafts will throw a drone so far out of control it will be like a piece of paper blowing in the wind.

Re:Im not sure I'm buying the premises

[raxx7]

Nobody was suggesting that the drone pilot was intentionally trying to hit the aircraft or that's it's easy to do so.
But if you have a drone in the general vicinity of an aircraft, there's a chance it will end up being sucked into the engine, smashing through the cockpit or something else with dangerous consequences.
And as you may or may not know, Murphy's law is a bitch.

Hundreds of aircraft get damaged each year by hitting birds. Some also get damaged by objects or animals in the runway.
And that is despite airports taking huge (and expensive) measures to minimize the problem.
These incidents cost a lot of money in repairs and, while most result in no harm, each represents added risk.

Having small RC aircraft flying around in the restricted airspace of an airport is an added risk for no good reason. People who operate these things should just be aware not to operate them near airports.

diff between drone and remote control

[ciaran2014]

The pilot of a remote control model helicopter is usually in the vicinity. People can see them, they can be caught on camera.

A by-internet operated drone brings no such level of responsibility or accountability.

The price evolution is also a factor. When remote flying things were expensive, they were bought by people who liked flying things remotely. This brings in a higher average of skill and care. When they cost very little, they will be bought by people with little or no skill or care, and instead of enjoying flight, some will be using them for anti-social purposes (invading privacy, annoying people for fun, etc.).

Re:diff between drone and remote control

[ShaunC]

A by-internet operated drone brings no such level of responsibility or accountability.

Internet operated drones? Even with the more modern RCs, even with higher-end transmitters, you still need line of sight to operate them; we're generally talking 2.4 GHz here. Aside from the military, I don't think anyone is sitting around in their flight ops chair controlling RCs miles away. If you encounter a "drone" somewhere, the operator is nearby.

Piffle

[koan]

The CAA has not identified the airline or how close the drone came to the plane, which can carry 180 people. It gave the incident an 'A' rating, meaning a 'serious risk of collision'. This is the highest incident rating the CAA can give. I

Then nothing really happened did it, this is just propaganda in the run up to taking away radio controlled aircraft.

It was most likely a Phantom (DJI) and the Phantom firmware will not allow flights within 5 miles of a airport.

Prove it.

[buckfeta2014]

Show me a picture of the drone taken from inside the aircraft. I've heard this kind of story so many times, only to find out that the drone was nowhere near the altitude or location that the complaint originated.

Re:This is _not_ an plane-vs-plane collision risk.

[dloyer]

A drone is likely to have screws and other hardware that are hard steel as well as a high density power source (battery).

The high speed interaction between a airplane with a thin aluminum airfoil and jet turbines and a steel hardware is not part of the certification tests, so it is just a guess what would happen.

If it hits the aircraft skin, it might just dent or might punch through.

But if the drone was ingested into the engine, the steel parts might be spun around by the turbines and eject at very high speed out the side. The shrapnel would be like bullets. It would be a roll of the dice if they ejected into a fuel tank, flight control system, or into the passenger compartment.

So, no, this is not just some political game. Drones need to be separated from other aircraft.

There are rules to keep aircraft separated from each other and drones need to respect and follow those rules just like any other aircraft. That is why airspace near a airport is "controlled"

Re:Panic!

[drinkypoo]

Seriously a brick would probably ding a couple turbine blades and that's about it. See exactly how many turbine blades get damaged by say a 5 pound bird during testing.

Here's a fun test you can do at home. Hit yourself in the face with a one pound chicken breast. Now, hit yourself in the face with a one pound rock. Let us know which you enjoy more. The plane would have pretty much the same answer, if it were sentient and communicative.

The question then becomes, what kind of drone was this? Was it a cute little plastic piece of nothing, or something serious enough to carry a signifcant payload like a DSLR or what have you?

Even drones can fly away

[asasdlfgnjl]

Now we know why the bee population is declining.

Re:Panic!

[Dunbal]

Hit yourself in the face with a 5 lb chicken going at 300kph. Hit yourself in the fact with a brick at 300kph. Not much difference. Plus I'm sure the titanium fan blade will slice through brick just as happily as chicken breast. Bricks are not that tough, you can smash one with a sledge-hammer. Besides, no one is talking about bricks, we're talking about a drone made of plastic, aluminum and other mostly soft metals.

Not Likely

[sycodon]

An airliner in the pattern is doing well over 100 MPH just to stay in the air. They are way too busy checking lists, communicating with ATC and flying the plane to spot some 48" Quadcopter off their wingtip. No consumer "drone" is going to be able to keep up with any passenger plane.

It may be tin foil hat, but I think someone is making up shit as a pretext to regulate or ban these all together.

Re:Not Likely

[gweihir]

Just my point. The drone had to be at a significant distance so that they could even see it. Anything close they would _not_ have noticed. Bird-strike you notice when the performance of your engine drops, you do not see the bird before.

Re:Not Likely

[Some_Llama]

"An airliner in the pattern is doing well over 100 MPH just to stay in the air. They are way too busy checking lists, communicating with ATC and flying the plane to spot some 48" Quadcopter off their wingtip"

I'm pretty sure not only do they have multiple pilots in the cockpit (isn't minimum two for commercial flight?) but i'm very sure they aren't "checking lists" when they are 700 ft off the ground on approach.

When all you have in front of you is less and less sky and more and more earth coming towards you fast, you tend to notice small things in the path of your plane (be it wires, blinking lights, or birds of the same size), especially since birds cause crashes all the time.

take off the hat "once" in a while. (although that's how they "get ya")

Re:Not Likely

[sycodon]

Not having been in a commercial airliner's cockpit, I could not comment.

I have been at the yolk of small planes and at 700 feet, you are pretty busy with the flaps, monitoring your speed and sink rate. At that point you are on final, have been cleared by the tower so watching for other traffic isn't necessarily at the top of your list of things to do. I can only imagine that things are much busier with two engines, probably three and an aircraft that has very specific flight profile you need to follow. So searching the sky for traffic is something left to ATC.

Rules && Defence

[tomxor]

This made me think... everyone always discusses the rules and laws for drones and their co-existence with larger aircraft... which is fine. However that's not going to stop anyone who doesn't mind breaking the rules (intentionally or otherwise), drones are relatively cheap, no license is required to get one, and there's pretty much nothing physically enforcing the use of drones.

So what about enforcing those rules when it comes to the larger non military manned aircraft... Perhaps they should have some kind of basic defence against small unmanned craft in their flight path. I wonder what kind of "airline" level weaponry would be acceptable to take out drones while not posing a risk to military aircraft. For starters an on-board radar and tracking system would be needed to pick up drones that are too small to be visible to ground based radar... It could even make the occasional encounter with bird shaped projectiles a little less dangerous.

The only problem with shooting a drone out of the sky is of course falling bits of drone... so i guess avoidance would be preferable given a sophisticated enough on board radar.

Re:Forget paranoia, more likely about the $$ it co

[gweihir]

I am not at all against charging a drone flyer that damages an engine the full repair cost and I am not at all against fining them for flying drones where they should not. But it is not a risk of killing a lot of people, it is an almost completely economic problem. Laser-pointers are much more of a problem in that regard (still zero deaths despite a lot of morons shining them at cockpits...).

Re:Forget paranoia, more likely about the $$ it co

[gweihir]

Rare events are not indicative of what normally happens. There is a reason it is called a miracle and that is not that these planes usually crash. It is that the whole situation is exceptional unlikely to occur.

Re:Panic!

[drinkypoo]

Besides, no one is talking about bricks, we're talking about a drone made of plastic, aluminum and other mostly soft metals.

You brought up bricks. Now you want to pretend like it never happened. I'm calling bullshit.

Re:Forget paranoia, more likely about the $$ it co

[cerberusti]

There is a big difference between a bird, and a metal drone.

Bird strikes are a bad thing for aircraft, but mostly survivable. If you suck a bird into the engine it is going to cause a ton of damage come out as a fine mist.

Ponder for a moment the amount of energy it will take to render your drone into a fine mist. Now consider the energy content of battery or fuel. If the engine casing breaches the plane probably is coming down, or it will at least be a very bad day for all involved.

Still think it would be no big thing?

Re:Forget paranoia, more likely about the $$ it co

[cerberusti]

We could do that... except that it will lead to the requirement to carry insurance, as with other situations where you can cause more damage than you are likely to be able to pay for.

Your insurance company will in turn tell you to stay away from airports or the policy is not valid, meaning you are illegally flying. The end result would basically be a drone tax, and you would still not be allowed to fly near an airport.

It seems easier to just ban drone flight near airports, and cut out the middleman.

Re:Cue Ayn Rand worshipping Libetarians...

[cerberusti]

Pretty much, now that the cost of a drone has gone sub $100, and can be flown with no real understanding of the forces involved in keeping it in the air... it is a very different risk.

Think child, or dude with a mcjob getting all drunk and deciding it would be great fun to park near an airport and fly with the real planes.

I actually mostly agree with the proposed FAA rules for the commercial variety as well: pilot license, stay low, stay away from airports, stay in visual contact. They can relax them as the technology improves.

Re:Panic!

[Dunbal]

No actually Half-pint HAL is the one who brought up bricks.

Re:Panic!

[Dunbal]

You've never played the Chinese Whispers/Broken Telephone game? lol.

Re:Panic!

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The goal of terrorists is to spread fear and slow down economy and other daily goings-on in a country. Why do you think that random risk to ordinary air traffic wouldn't help them further such goals? Especially if the means for doing so are so primitive and seemingly innocuous...until a drone with a piece of a metal bar in it hits an engine inlet? Imagine this happening at a dozen airports simultaneously.

Why so tolerant of possible damage to a plane?

[src1138]

I know a lot of car owners that get irritated if a pebble from the road nicks their paint job.

If you owned a plane, why would you tolerate people crashing stuff into it while you fly it around? That shit's expensive.

A friend of mine did hit a bird with the driver-side rear view of his car at 45 mph. Glass and bird blood (actually, some of it was his) everywhere - window was down...

I'm pretty sure drones large enough to fly a few thousand feet up will damage a plane if they collide - maybe it won't bring down the plane, but it will push maintenance costs up. It's just something we don't need regardless of the perceived safety. You wouldn't (I hope) drive an RC car around on a busy street. Sure, it wouldn't total a car, but you'll probably get your ass kicked.

Near miss

[markdavis]

It is not a "near miss", it is a "near hit", or more properly "Heathrow Plane Nearly Hit a Drone". If it were a near MISS, then the two would have collided.

Re:Panic!

[dbIII]

There's more than one incident that was due to losing an engine at a bad time with multi-engined aircraft. To me that sounds like a good enough reason to keep drones away from airports - losing an engine during takeoff or landing can mean things like wingtips hit the runway before the wheels.
So I don't see anything at all wrong with the comparison and suspect you are not seriously considering the subject if you do.

Re:Panic!

[ihtoit]

it was a bird collision that for one reason or another, grounded an aircraft by being the direct cause of catastrophic engine damage.

I think the point of this thread is, if a soft and fleshy bird with hollow bones can do that to an engine in the time it takes to inhale, what about something built of carbon fibre composite (which splinters beautifully and burns extremely toxically), a smidge of a highly reactive element in an equally unstable substrate (lithium polymer batteries are fine as long as they're not damaged, and if you want to see one explode just poke a Polaroid pack with a screwdriver and stand clear), and between two and four pairs of rare-earth magnets (motors are packed with magnets, yanno)? Consider that the RB211 and the Trent engines are built by Rolls Royce to the same tolerances (primary turbine blades ride 0.4mm away from the rim of the cowling).

Re:Panic!

[Half-pint HAL]

I bring up chickens. You can't bring up bricks.