Slashdot Mirror
African Airline Reports Drone Collision With Passenger Jet (airlive.net)
McGruber writes:
Airlive is reporting that a drone collided with a Boeing 737-700 as it was on approach to Tete, Mozambique airport on Thursday. The 737 landed safely, but the right-hand side of the nose dome and fuselage were badly damaged.
The plane was carrying 80 passengers and a crew of 6, according to the Aviation Herald, which has more pictures of the damaged nose dome. "The crew heard a loud bang," they report, adding that "no abnormal indications followed. The crew, suspecting a bird strike, continued the approach for a safe landing." But USA Today notes that "While pilots have reported hundreds of sightings of drones near planes, previous suspected collisions have been debunked."
The plane was carrying 80 passengers and a crew of 6, according to the Aviation Herald, which has more pictures of the damaged nose dome. "The crew heard a loud bang," they report, adding that "no abnormal indications followed. The crew, suspecting a bird strike, continued the approach for a safe landing." But USA Today notes that "While pilots have reported hundreds of sightings of drones near planes, previous suspected collisions have been debunked."
They may have been debunked but this one looks to be debris.
It lacks the scratches to the exterior paint and a large hole that aluminum, carbon fiber, battery packs and other hard man made and heaven materials would leave. I suppose it could actually be a bird but it just looks like a low speed collision with something like a stairway.
I just want to make sure I'm understanding your comment correctly.
Are you saying that you suspect that the African crew of this plane landed it, and then collided with a movable passenger loading/unloading staircase while on the ground? And then they came up with this drone/bird/whatever strike story to deflect blame away from themselves?
Or are you trying to say something else?
http://avherald.com/h?article=... - also in africa.
http://avherald.com/img/comair... - this damage was done by a red billed kite impact.
Broadly similar amount of buckling, though in a different place.
There are a lot of large birds in Africa, and aircraft frequently hit them.
>> Are you saying that you suspect that the African crew of this plane landed it, and then collided with a movable passenger loading/unloading staircase while on the ground? And then they came up with this drone/bird/whatever strike story to deflect blame away from themselves?
I would buy that far quicker than the drone story,
Are you saying that you suspect that the African crew of this plane landed it, and then collided with a movable passenger loading/unloading staircase while on the ground? And then they came up with this drone/bird/whatever strike story to deflect blame away from themselves?
That is plausible. It is also plausible that some bean counter made up the story because the insurance covers in-air collisions differently. Or some PR person made it up for publicity. Or maybe the ground crew tweeted the picture, and the rumor spread from there. TFA contains almost zero information, and does not say that the drone story came from the pilots. The Facebook post by the airline doesn't even mention the drone, although I may have misunderstood since I can read Spanish way better than Portuguese.
The public statement released in Portuguese by the airline does not say anything about a drone. Get back to me when someone comes up with a squashed drone that has a paint match with the aircraft.
It must have been a big-ass drone to do that kind of damage.
Probably it's the UFO spotted earlier in Chile.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This particular theory has been espoused in a couple of aviation related sites. It is certainly possible that the crew ran into something on the ground without anyone else fessing up. But - it's going to be pretty obvious in the flight data recorder. Either you here a big thump or not....
If it was a UAV, then it hit the side of the radome with a lot of force. Some other posters are suggesting a fairly acute angle - more impact than you would expect in a glancing blow. So, either that theory is wrong or the timing was just right. It would have had to be a fairly large UAV - well outside of the recreational Phantom-type drones (which would likely have just dissolved). Mozambique is an odd area for military class drones, but other commenters have mentioned that there is a lot of mining in the area. An industrial drone (operated by a compleat idiot) could have done the trick.
I want to see the flight recorder data.
Or else it's just some clumsy alien.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The Illuminati is just everywhere these days.
(Think industrial drone from a mining company.)
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
We do need to have classes of drones. For example, there is no reason at all to make a 9 year old receive formal training before operating a toy in the back yard. Simple camera carrying drones don't need much more, though it might be possible to justify minimal training for commercial use. That, by the way, would cover the currently known near misses with people on the ground (sporting events and professional coverage). The most likely dangers to aircraft would be police and military drones. Those should very much require training and qualification. They are, after all, bigger and heavier.
As far as hobby/sport/toy flying, we have no incidents worth reporting out there. We should eliminate the various silly regulations that apply to them immediately, including registration.
You'd be surprised. "Africa" isn't some homogenous continent of droughts, poverty and suffering. Some countries have a decent middle class, albeit small by our standards. And the upper class can afford private jets, so they can well afford to give a pretty nice drone to their kids.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
My first thought was someone in Africa can afford a drone?
Is this because you think Africa only has starving children, people living in grass huts and wildlife wandering around on dirt roads? I initially wanted to provide a few enlightening facts and figures, but have decided it is not worth the effort. If this is your view of Africa, one post is not enough to change your very misguided perceptions.
Actually, the damage pattern looks almost exactly consistent with a ground impact.
It is reasonably clear from the images that the impact came from the front right, not straight on, and any
drone moving fast enough to create that impact vector at approach speed would have punched straight through,
not made the distributed damage we see - this was quite clearly a low speed impact.
The pilots 'reporting a loud bang' on approach makes it sound like a good dose of arse-covering, something
endemic in Africa when costly damage happens.
You will note there is no evidence given of drone remains, etc. Something that would most certainly have been
chased down immediately if this was actually a drone strike.
A bird strike (which would do less damage that a drone of the size they are claiming) looks like this:
http://www.birdstrike.it/birdstrike/file/images/file/2012.06.05_birdstrike.png
Very VERY different.
Yes, but today, in the wrong hands, they can also be overpriced dangerous toys.