Slashdot Mirror
Jet Strikes Drone Near Heathrow Airport (marketwatch.com)
smooth wombat writes: "A British Airways flight Sunday appears to have collided with a drone on a flight bound for London's busy Heathrow Airport in what may be the first such incident involving a major airline," according to MarketWatch. "The flight from Geneva, Switzerland to Heathrow, Europe's busiest hub, is believed to have struck a drone, the London Metropolitan Police said in a statement. The plane landed safely following the incident, which occurred around 12:50 p.m. local time. 'It was only a matter of time before we had a drone strike given the huge numbers being flown around by amateurs who don't understand the risks and the rules,' said BALPA flight safety specialist Steve Landells... 'Much more education of drone users and enforcement of the rules is needed to ensure our skies remain safe from this threat'."
I hope everybody is ok. This bodes very poorly for drone ultraregulation and enforcement. As the summary says, it was only a matter of time.
There has been no evidence presented that it hit a drone. Just speculation at this point.
I got a small, China made drone here.
The bilingual (Chinese/Chinglish) manual makes me understand how to operate the thing, but not a single word about safety. Just adding legal limits (e.g. minimum distance from airports, maximum height, distance from buildings - or even links to national web sites where such rules are explained) of where to fly them would be a great improvement.
If shooting them down is illegal then running them down with a 747 has to be illegal too.
Nullius in verba
Most commercial airliners have what most people would call high landing speeds. About 150 to 160mph
Every time I hear that a pilot saw a drone on approach, I think: How? Maybe he saw something. A plastic bag, a large bird. At that speed, it isn't easy to see a lot of details on a small object. Maybe it was a drone. Those small jet front windshields don't give great views, and they aren't always perfectly clean.
Human eye's aren't perfect.
I challenge you to get a good look at a drone while driving a car at 160 mph.
Nobody got hurt. If the commercial aircraft had been damaged, they didn't admit it. You would think that with the degree to which they're desperately trying to control all drone flights, they'd want to boast about any possible extent to which the plane was damaged, so I assume it wasn't. No problem. The entire thing is completely blown out of all proportion.
The fact is, even a giant DJI Phantom Pro 3 or 4 is no larger nor any more dangerous than a large bird of pray and those are regularly sucked through jet engines for the entire time such technology has existed. And yet we don't hear about any mitigation efforts. Why? Because there is NO DANGER.
What there probably IS a danger of on the other hand, is that many sociopathic monsters in government and business continue to want to show their ugly faces in public, even as they are proven to behave as the monsters they are in their public policy decisions and they are probably justifiably worried that one of these days, one of the millions of people they are actively hurting with their greedy decision making will get angry enough to fly a drone up their big noses with explosives to express their discontent. THAT's why we're getting all these dumb drone rules here in the USA. Not because they're actually dangerous to any normal people.
...a large bird of pray and those are regularly sucked through jet engines for the entire time such technology has existed. And yet we don't hear about any mitigation efforts. Why? Because there is NO DANGER.
CAPT Sullenberger would beg to differ about the effects of bird strikes. Regardless, airports have robust anti-bird mitigation efforts.
What a moron. We have wait until an airliner crashes, then we do something, right? You'll notice that the thing was not sucked into an engine, and that the 747 was landing, not taking off. If both those criteria had been met then your post might read a little differently. You appear not to notice the research that has been conducted on bird strikes on large jets for many years. You also seem to be unaware of the unlucky passengers of light aircraft who have had large birds land in their laps, along with chunks of perspex and aluminium. The pilots are asking for more research, but you'd rather not find out because, hey, your rights trump everything and everyone.
The biggest danger isn't from birds of prey (at least in the USA); the danger is geese. There are serious geese mitigation efforts near major airports (example), and geese have seriously damaged and even brought down planes before (example).
Did you do any research before posting? I've heard about these mitigation efforts, and I don't know anything about flying. Then again, the word "lazy" is in your handle...
A 747 will land just fine with an engine out. The bigger issue is the USD 20 million in damage due to a blown engine, plus aircraft down time. When you aren't flying, you are losing money.
"We don't worry about the dangers of birds"
Excuse me?
Civil aviation spends millions trying to avoid birds near the major airports.
"perhaps it should actually show that small drones that weigh a few pounds really aren't more dangerous to aircraft than birds."
Except that:
1) We know (and act upon) birds *are* quite dangerous to aircraft.
2) We know drones have a distintive characteristic that may make them more dangerous: they have an intelligent will backing them up (i.e.: adding explosives and/or the ability to crash on purpose).
Every other device has grills, why not jet engines? Birds have been causing problems also. Can't ban birds.
Table-ized A.I.
flying Muhammad drones of Jihad.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
"The flight from Geneva, Switzerland to Heathrow, Europe's busiest hub, is believed to have struck a drone, the London Metropolitan Police said in a statement. The plane landed safely following the incident, which occurred around 12:50 p.m. local time."
"British Airways said its engineers inspected the Airbus Group SE A320 airliner, found no damage, and cleared the plane to continue operating."
So, again we have people getting worked up over drones with no more evidence than we have on the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. Maybe we should get worked up about the dangers of Bird strike and stop people from keeping or flying birds near airports.
A car, which costs ten thousand, has got a dashboard video camera recorder. A jet liner costs millions. Why not to install a video recorder too? So that we could have a clear picture of what happened.
Pilots of modern manned aircraft have got very little to do during a flight, so no wonder that they may see things. I would prefer not words, but a proof.
Every plane will land fine, no matter how many engines are in operation at the time. It just depends on what your definition of "fine" is...
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
And, do you really think that if someone wants to use a drone to try crashing a plane, the regulation is going to stop them?
If so, i have some snakeoil you might be interested in...
You don't hear about bird mitigation efforts ... because they've been in place for decades, are non-controversial and there's very little part of them that Joe Average is affected by. Pretty much unless you are into Falconry or breeding homing-pigeons the odds of them affecting you are near-zero.
But just like people into those hobbies, if your hobby is flying drones - then you can reasonably expect to be affected by such safety measures and laws as applies to drones.
Just because *you* haven't heard of something, does not mean it doesn't exist. In fact there are huge measures in place at airports around the world to try and reduce the risk of bird collisions because they can and do cause actual disasters. Drones would be a greater risk.
I'm not even sure we need a new law - if you fly a drone anywhere near an airport there isn't a sane judge in the free world who will NOT find your ass guilty of reckless endangerment at the very least.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
No, we know that birds occasionally cause freak accidents to aircraft so we try to keep the number of birds on the runway to a minimum. Have you ever been on a plane and the pilot calls out "Ladies and Gentlemen, we apologize for the delay, there is a ROBIN on the airport grounds, we will be taking off as soon as we can scare it away".
Sully ran in to a whole flock of geese, not just a goose. Even still, it was a freak accident.
I would at least like to wait until we can see an actual scuff mark on a plane to do something.
In the case of the 747, fine means only the pilot will even know.
Not as freak as you think - you can find several bird strike videos on youtube - even one that crashes a jet.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
1) The first rule of DDD: drones cannot cause any problem ever in any situation.
2) The second rule of DDD: always defend drones as harmless no matter what the circumstance. For example if firefighters call off aerial retardant drops because drones are flying in the fire zone: the missed drops didn't make any difference and/or drones didn't pose any interference and the authorities should have just kept flying.
In the current post three of the major denial themes are stated.
1) It wasn't a drone.
2) If there was a drone, nothing happened.
3) If there was a drone interaction, there was no actual damage.
It's so simple even the dullest of Slashdot Pundits can execute it with ease.
BTW, I've actually participated in a project with the FAA addressing bird strike mitigation. They take any physical impact on a aircraft very seriously. It's not just birds, but any strike by FOD (Foreign Object Debris). That includes anything on a runway, like trash. At DFW airport in Texas, they have a problem with foxes who live in the airport and are stuck by aircraft. They collect and monitor the corpses, and have a burial location for their bodies. The FAA has records of rodent strikes, when their carcasses are found on runways. Anything hitting a aircraft is considered very significant. Saying that it's not important is just a pledge of allegiance to the DDD. A true blue cult member.
Why is Snark Required?
You need to take into account the fact that there is absolutely no real evidence this happened. Just the word of the pilot. No damage, no bits of drone anywhere. No paint on the plane chipped, no engine damage. No physical evidence what so ever, but it's getting world-wide news headlines.
Engines are already tested for bird strike. Start including light to moderately heavy drones and see if it's possible for them to damage the engines. I would think the mass of birds alone would make them far worse than a drone for an engine, even one with a GoPro attached.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And, do you really think that if someone wants to use a drone to try crashing a plane, the regulation is going to stop them?
Might as well take that stupid "murder" law off the books as well, then, eh?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
2) We know drones have a distintive characteristic that may make them more dangerous: they have an intelligent will backing them up (i.e.: adding explosives and/or the ability to crash on purpose).
That's not the problem. Birds do in fact have intelligent will backing them up, albeit not as intelligent as humans, and birds generally avoid aircraft because they are not literally suicidal. The will behing drones on the other hand sometimes likes tochase aircraft because they look cool ad they want pretty photos.
The problem here is not small scale maliciousness, it's large scale stupidity.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That is wishful thinking. A drone destroying an engine can result in an uncontained engine failure, and that usually leads to severed hydraulic lines or damaged high lift devices, which can bring even a 747 down.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
I said that bird strikes that bring the plane down are freak events. That doesn't mean there isn't video of it. When you consider how many planes fly every single day, the handful of crashes attributable to birds are freak events.
You're speaking in the theoretical extreme worst case. I'm speaking of the more common case.
As for actual cases confirmed by reality, we have zero damage to aircraft from drones and one report that one might have gone 'whump'.
Other things (not comprehensive) that may in extreme conditions bring a plane down (but don't in real life), kites, big ass slingshots, big spotlights, helium balloons.
Given they might not have been too bright in the first place and may also have insured their new toy, particularly as many get fitted with expensive digital cameras, someone just needs to browse the insurance claims from the area.
If the camera memory survived and is found that could be some nice footage.
No charge for extra luggage. And don't forget, you can always upgrade to first class to have your payload delivered with a smile.
The engines on an airliner suck in a lot of air, too. The 777 is equipped with a pair of what could be considered 110,000 HP vacuum cleaners.
How likely is it to happen on one SPECIFIC flight? About as likely that you'll get in a traffic accident with a white pickup on your way to work this morning. How likely that it'll ever happen? About as likely that there will a white pickup involved in an accident, somewhere.
Totally wrong. Pilots regularly train for engine failures at all stages of takeoff, and unless spectacularly mishandled, does NOT lead to the plane crashing.
Also, losing an engine in cruise does NOT cause the a/c to start losing altitude quickly. Sure, you'll have to drift down to a single engine cruise altitude but it's not nearly as harsh as the poster seems to think.
why are so many comparing bird strikes with drone strikes?, just because they have same size and mass doesnt make them equivalent, now if both were made of same material..
What a stupid argument. We're talking about an additional law vs a fundamental law. Removing the law for murder makes someone get away with ... well murder. Not implementing some new law for malicious drone fliers however would produce precisely zero change on someone who would be facing several hundred counts of murder, terrorism, destruction of property etc. And really what is a punishment for drone use going to do at that point?
Everyone assuming these are accidents instead of trial runs. Two drones, each carrying a titanium bar, targeting an engine on ascent would make for a very sad day.
I'm a bit surprised this hasn't happened yet on US air bases in Afghanistan or Iraq, but on the other hand, targeting civilians is more 'terrifying'.
Here's hoping it never happens, but I can't see how.
Of course, it will instantly be used to justify even more destruction of our rights, privacies, and religious tolerance. The powers that be are delighted to still run (and profit from) the Bin Laden playbook and finally bring about the West vs. Islam war he desired.
It's not so much an engine shutting down as it is an engine assploding/disintegrating.
You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
Yup, that is the currently popular reasoning. Apparently, "panic" is the new "rational".
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
What part of "no damage found" are you unable to comprehend?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
That's what the cowling is for. If they can suck in a Canada goose, they can handle a drone.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
But this is 'merican website, for all its international audience, so absent any identifying information, that's the audience I target.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
1. Who's drone was it?
2. Are we sure it was a drone?
3. We have had radio controlled aircraft (that's what we called drones prior to the military using them), granted they're more prolific.
4. What altitude did this incident occur?
5. How near an airport was it?
6. Was it a government controlled drone? Sorry, I just don't put it past our government to do something like this shortly before the passage of legislation in order to get it passed. *shrugs*
From the article: "British Airways said its engineers inspected the Airbus Group SE A320 airliner, found no damage, and cleared the plane to continue operating."
So this is really much worry about nothing. All this hype and FUD about airplane vs drones is malarky.
The extra laws are put in place to throw the book at people in case they are caught before committing the main act. In this example, if a terrorist was caught with a drone modified with explosives, they could throw more charges at him and that would put them away for many years. If you did not have these additional laws then there would be fewer crimes to charge the bad actor with. I am not saying I agree with this method, I actually do not as it has 'minority report' written all over it but it is how the system works.
The US Constitution doesn't define rights of citizens, it defines powers of government. Does Congress have the power to ban drones? No. Therefore, Congress and the FAA can't ban drones.
If they interfere with interstate commerce (by bashing into airliners, say), Congress can regulate them. Article 1, Section 8.
If you did not have these additional laws then there would be fewer crimes to charge the bad actor with.
Even in these scenarios there are already a myriad of laws to throw at people. The solution is not more laws.
That goes double for the cases of terrorism where minor infractions are routinely ignored while they bait people so they can really throw the book at them instead of giving them a minor punishment.
Seriously... the drone operator clearly does not possess even the slightest bit of common sense to realize that flying something near an airport any higher than the buildings or lamp posts around you is going to at the very least jeopardize whatever it is you are flying.
Honestly, it could just as easily have been a kite flying there with no electronics involved whatsoever, and it would have been equally stupid, and certainly no less dangerous.
In fact, I think that the word 'drone' is superfluous in the headline, and suggests that an agenda is probably being sought to influence public opinion into thinking that the drones themselves are bad... instead of focusing on the real issue, which was that some imbecile was flying something too close to an airport when he wasn't supposed to be there in the first place!
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The problem isn't drones... the problem is people flying them irresponsibly. The exact same situation could have happened, actually possibly even a more dangerous one, if the person had simply been flying an ordinary kite at that altitude. The problem isn't the drone, the problem was that he was flying one too friggen close to the airport, where he had no business flying *ANYTHING* in the first place.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Unless you're china airlines flight 006:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Note: It SHOULDN'T cause that, no. But it has happened and could again. Failures during flight could cascade to worse events, and have before.
-=Lothsahn=-
Are you trying to tell me that thousands of planes go down in flames every year? If not, read what I wrote again, very carefully this time.
Even if it doesn't actually crash it's still millions of $$$ in damage if an engine is wrecked.
Just so some dumb teenager can fly his drone? Sensible people would say no to that cost/benefit proposition.
No sig today...
"and unless spectacularly mishandled, does NOT lead to the plane crashing."
Yes, because when a man-made object hits your engine and causes it to pretty much blow apart in a terribly unpredictable way in a crowded airfield during one of the most sensitive parts of the flight, mishandling by the pilot is obviously going to be fault of any crash...
Sorry, but when I make income it doesn't come with instructions that cheating on taxes is bad, nor did standard fireworks say not to fire them near an airport when last I used them. Perhaps laser pointers have an aviation warning but those didn't when last I bought one either.
Why, because f***ing COMMON SENSE should already apply. But then, you people seem to need labels on your peanuts that say "allergen alert: contains peanuts"
Which is the threat, the drone or the airliner??
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
A point of comparison:
- based on TNT content a hand grenade release between 400 and 800kJ when exploding. (example of source)
- unit conversion: 1Wh battery = 3.6 kJ (and 1Ah or 1000mAh x 3.7 V = 3.7 Wh = 13.3 kJ)
So your garden variety ~3000mAh LiPo "18650" 3.7V cell holds a little bit under 40kJ.
Your laptop long life 9-cell 8900mAh battery pack holds a little bit under 100Wh or nearly 360kJ, about the same ballpark range as a smaller grenade (hence the xkcd comic).
A long-ranged drone's (e.g.) 6s high voltage (= 6* 3.7V = 22V) 16000mah is 355 Wh or a whoping 1.2 MJ.
This drone has a battery that gives of the same range of energy as two hand grenades.
Yup, this is dwarfed buy the combustion of kerosene: 1 liter gives of 37 Mj (or about the same as pile of about a thousand "18650" batteries - fuel is still a denser energy storage than lithium). And the combustion chamber of the jet engine will probably not even notice if a puny little drone battery went "poof" inside.
The thing is, an air-plane is far more than just the interior of the jet engine's combustion chamber.
And there are a lot of parts of that air-plane that wont appreciate the explosion of a drone battery.
Think of it, if you need to test it by throwing chicken at it (ball park estimate: an average chicken weights ~2.5 kg. I use an approximate speed difference of 500km/h. That gives us Ecin = 1/2mv^2 = about 25 kJ of cinetic energy), an air-plane is going to take some damage from the equivalent of 2 hand grenades lobed at it.
A single drone impact won't cause the plane to sustain a catastophic hull failure (as TFA points out, the plane successfully landed safely afterwards), but it's certainly going to do a lot more damage that fowl.
When ingested by the engine, even if combustion chamber won't suffer much, the turbine is going to take quite some damage.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I just don't buy the assertion that pilots, focusing on landing the plane, busy with instruments, decent rates, staying on the ILS, check lists, are able to spot a less than a meter across "drone" from their little windows as they fly by it at 120 MPH (at the slowest speed).
And instead of one of the millions of birds flying around, it must have been one of the hundreds of "drones" flying around.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Cowling doesn't always help.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Totally wrong. Pilots regularly train for engine failures at all stages of takeoff, and unless spectacularly mishandled, does NOT lead to the plane crashing.
Also, losing an engine in cruise does NOT cause the a/c to start losing altitude quickly. Sure, you'll have to drift down to a single engine cruise altitude but it's not nearly as harsh as the poster seems to think.
Well it's good to know that the Air Conditioning will keep working whilst the airframe plummets it's occupants to an almost certain death.
For the humour impaired, this is a sarcastic post about using industry specific jargon and acronyms. If you take a BA flight over here to London Tesco have a basic sense of humour package for £20. Watch out for drones on your way in.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
No, but I've sat on my duffle bag inside a hanger for 8 hours waiting for our commercial charter plane to have it's cracked windshield replaced.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
What a moron. We have wait until an airliner crashes, then we do something, right? You'll notice that the thing was not sucked into an engine, and that the 747 was landing, not taking off. If both those criteria had been met then your post might read a little differently. You appear not to notice the research that has been conducted on bird strikes on large jets for many years. You also seem to be unaware of the unlucky passengers of light aircraft who have had large birds land in their laps, along with chunks of perspex and aluminium. The pilots are asking for more research, but you'd rather not find out because, hey, your rights trump everything and everyone.
On the whole, I agree with the gist of your post but it wasn't a Boeing 747, it was an Airbus A320.
Which makes the risk of an engine strike even worse as they only have two of them and a fair bit less wingspan.
It should also be noted that the drone, fortunately, struck the front of the aircraft rather than an engine or control surface (the article in the summary did not mention this, I read it on the BBC this morning).
Erm, but carry on. Apart from those minor quibbles I agree with your point.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
A plane crashes, they investigate, find the cause, and issue advisories or mandate changes. People accuse them of being too reactive and not doing enough to prevent accidents before they happen.
They try to anticipate problems before they happen, issue advisories and make regulations. People accuse them of stirring up irrational fears.
You can't have it both ways. The FAA takes an extremely cautious approach to regulation. e.g. The computers on most new planes are 1-2 decades old. They won't allow newer technology in avionics systems because it doesn't have a long enough industrial track record to reveal any long-term problems which might crop up. So for example, those swelling capacitors which plagued home computers in the early 2000s never made it aboard planes. This overabundance of caution is because if you screw up, the resulting accident is nearly 100% fatal. Vehicle accidents start to become fatal around 40-50 mph, and by 100 mph they are almost always 100% fatal. That means nearly all plane crashes are 100% fatal.
So they don't screw around. If there's even the slightest risk of a new technology causing an accident (e.g. phones and laptops being used in-flight), you ban it for a decade or two. Study it, gauge the risks, and only after you're thoroughly convinced it's safe do you allow it. If the FAA turns out to be wrong about drones, they can shrug and say "I guess we were wrong," and all they'll have done is inconvenienced a bunch of hobbyists around airports for a decade or two. If you turn out to be wrong and drone-airliner collisions aren't safe, shrugging and saying "I guess I was wrong" won't be enough. A couple hundred people will be dead, and the people running the FAA will be hauled into Congress for an inquiry where their competence is called into question. The consequence matrix here is skewed wildly in favor of taking the overly cautious approach.
The vast majority of plane crashes are caused by multiple factors which combine to bring the plane down. Eliminate any one of those factors and the plane never would have crashed.
You're correct that the loss of a single engine normally is not a serious problem. But increasing the chances of it happening also increases the chances it'll coincide with another problem, and the combination of the two (or three or more) will be enough to bring the plane down. So if at all possible, you avoid increasing the odds of any single problem occurring, period. Even if that single problem by itself could never bring down the plane.
That's true, but in both cases the engine had a manufacturing flaw which caused a lot more destruction than the cowlings were designed to contain. Ingestion presumably would cause fan blades to fly apart, not for the whole thing to come apart at the hub/disc.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
This is not about the FAA. This is about the press stirring up a drone-panic. Flying drones in Airport space is already illegal, that is quite enough.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This may surprise you, but birds that are not predators do in fact weigh much more than a drone. A canadian goose is 7-14 pounds and yes they DO fly, in fact they fiy a lot! One of the larger drones, the DJI - Phantom 3, weighs 1280g (just battery and propellers) - 2.82 pounds. You can't add much more than a pound in payload, so it's significantly lighter than a goose.
The reason geese are the reference for birdstrikes as they are by far the most common problem for planes hitting birds because there are so many of them in flight during migration at altitudes that can easily mess with landing/takeoff..
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Did radio control airplanes suddenly be renamed 'Drones' ?
To me, a drone indicates some kind of AI or autopilot capability. Is that no longer an accurate definition ?
I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
I mean, it could very easily be this was the result of some dumbass flying around the airport and accidentally hitting a 747. But could it also have been the result of a terrorist attack? Seems like it would be one hell of an easy and cheap way to take down a airliner if it's actually a viable way to do such - and we are seemingly convinced of that somehow based on the posts thus far. Is a drone you can buy at the local store or from Amazon really capable of such? I don't know, I really don't. But if I was the type that wanted to take down a large passenger plane, I'd invest a few hundred in finding out in a "live" test.
what part dont compare apples and oranges do you not understand?
For multi engine airplanes I totally agree, they exist precisely for situations like this, offering safety through redundancy. However single engine aircraft have an unsafe region between V1 (during takeoff roll when there isn't sufficient runway to come to a stop) and being at pattern altitude. Engine failure during this region results in the pilot not really having many good options. Often they can't turn around and land backwards on the runway because priority number 1 is maintaining safe airspeed. No runway to land ahead, best option is a road just outside the airport with about 20-30 seconds worth of altitude. Once at pattern altitude of approx 1000 ft it's a bit better, but not much. My Piper Arrow descends at 1000+ feet/min in landing config with gear down/throttle full back. During practice engine failures at pattern altitude of 1000 ft, it can be challenging to get the plane turned around 180 deg, lined up and safely on the ground. In a nutshell: uncontrolled traffic like drones need to follow the law and stay away from airports.
If doing that caused zero disruption and never caused a crash, it would probably be quite common.
You are deranged.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I'm sure that was annoying, but not really life threatening.
Having a windshield blow out of a 747 at 35,000 feet and travelling at 500MPH probably would have been.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It's even sillier to go into full on panic every time a drone is spotted within a mile of a plane. For example, we don't even have evidence that this plane was struck by a drone rather than a bird.
I'm not saying flying drones in the flight path is an act of genius, but I do believe we can drop the pretense of air safety as a reason to limit drones as sharply as the various authorities want to.
The solution here is to track down the idiot flying drones at the airport.
Having the wings fall off would be pretty bad too, but what's your point?
Those are factolets you get from all those junior tech books some of us nerds have read when we were children. I don't claim to be an ornitologist nor an aeronautics engineer.
Acutally a bird-stike is a plausable cause for cracked windshield, and my flight was delayed so it kind of relates to your "Ladies and Gentlemen, we apologize for the delay, there is a ROBIN on the airport grounds, we will be taking off as soon as we can scare it away" line.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Only if the whole airport shuts down for the robin.
Counting only new planes built each year, one gets to a number in the thousands, and each of those has several engines. So annual sales of engines must be in the thousands. E.g. in 2015, Airbus delivered about 650 planes, Boeing 800 planes, other manufacturers delivered about 800 jets (not counting turboprops and piston-engined planes). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.gama.aero/media-cen...
"And, do you really think that if someone wants to use a drone to try crashing a plane, the regulation is going to stop them?"
Quite so, if that's really the intent.
But the problem is what they'll come with under the "oh, my... it's the drones!" excuse.
in reality it was suspected to be a plastic carrier bag used for shopping!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
http://www.standard.co.uk/news...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/new...
this was VERY widely reported yesterday as not a drone strike at all but most probably a plastic shopping bag.. yet here it is still being reported here as if it were a drone strike... get a grip and keep up!