Slashdot Mirror
Boeing 737 Passenger Jet Damaged in Possible Midair Drone Hit (bloomberg.com)
Grupo Aeromexico SAB is investigating whether a drone slammed into a Boeing Co. 737 jetliner as the aircraft approached its destination in Tijuana, Mexico, on the U.S. border. From a report: Images on local media showed considerable damage to the nose of the 737-800, which was operating Wednesday as Flight 773 from Guadalajara. In a cabin recording, crew members can be heard saying they heard a "pretty loud bang" and asking the control tower to check if the nose was damaged. The collision happened shortly before landing. "The exact cause is still being investigated," Aeromexico said in a statement. "The aircraft landed normally and the passengers' safety was never compromised."
The potential drone strike stoked fears that the rising use of uncrewed aircraft will endanger planes filled with passengers. While most nations prohibit drones from flying in pathways reserved for airliners, the millions of small consumer devices that have been purchased around the world can't be tracked on radar, making it difficult for authorities to enforce the rules. In addition, many users don't know the rules or don't follow them.
The potential drone strike stoked fears that the rising use of uncrewed aircraft will endanger planes filled with passengers. While most nations prohibit drones from flying in pathways reserved for airliners, the millions of small consumer devices that have been purchased around the world can't be tracked on radar, making it difficult for authorities to enforce the rules. In addition, many users don't know the rules or don't follow them.
Nothing else flies in the air.
One solution might be to put in noise sensors around airports, drone flight noise is fairly distinctive and loud (especially for anything heavy enough to cause any real damage). Once you know a drone is there, you can use a number fo drone counter-measures to remove it.
I also figure at this point any commercial drone has enough parts in it that can be traced back to the owner, that any drone hit will lead to them finding you and presumably a lot of jail time. We should publicize that part more.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Or.... and I'm just throwing this out there...
You prohibit drones flying in air corridors (is that what they're called?) and you strictly enforce it with hefty fines or jail time. What's the difference between someone catapulting a rock into a 737 vs. a drone?
5kg isn't really a problem.
Drones capable of doing work weigh considerably more than 5kg. You're looking at a mass more like 50kg, possibly quite a bit more:
Drone Weight Article
Realistically you're not going to armor the front of a jetliner to withstand a strike against something as heavy as a person at eighty meters per second.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The number of youtube views.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
So many idiots out there, I guarantee that a drone will take out a airliner eventually. Then the whole drone industry will be subject to major lawsuits. This will only get worse as drones become more popular and owned by more idiots.
Dude, if you had a channel that was nothing but Catapult vs. Airliner battles, you would be the highest paid YouTuber ever.
The FAA actually has a pretty decent infrastructure and plan for this, it's called ADS-B. By the end of 2019 all manned aircraft that fly in US airspace are to have these transponders.
If drones had these then anyone would be able to get the registration data directly from nearby drones, so you could see who the peeping toms flying around your neighborhood are, in real-time, on a map.
It's just a matter of time before any drone capable of interacting with the national airspace system will be required to have such a transponder. Along with that expect inspection and compliance requirements - just like for manned aircraft. You want to take to the sky outside of class G airspace - then prove your craft is compliant. Manned aircraft are inspected at least once per year, commercial craft more often, based on hourly inspection requirements. Hobbyist drone operators should probably also be trained, tested, and required to show competency at least, oh, once every two years, to prove you even know what class G airspace is, and maybe a certificate of training of some kind.
Take your drone to class G airspace and stay there and below 400 feet - do whatever you want. With a functioning transponder. Enjoy the sky, but please realize you aren't alone up there.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
I don't know why you are so upset. I said it was a good idea to put noise sensors near airports. Not sure why I am modded Funny.
The last drone panic with startling pictures of the damage turned out to be a goose. Of course, "oops, it was a goose" didn't make the big headlines. That was strictly back page news.
Of course, our only source is Bloomberg, so it might have been a secret Chinese spy goose.
can't be tracked on radar
Wanna bet? You just need a better radar...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Proof that this is a good idea: https://anti-drone.eu/products...
They also make a range of anti-drone sensor systems, including radar.
It's about on par with the damage you see from bird strikes, and they weigh about the same. The difference being that birds are mostly soft pieces of meat which compress to absorb energy and bounce off, while drones are made of hard components which concentrate their energy into a smaller surface area and can thus penetrate further.
Odds are it's a bird strike, not a drone strike. There are something like a hundred billion birds aloft at any give time, while there are probably only a few tens of thousand of drones aloft at any given time. And there have been bird strikes before which left little to no organic matter. Not saying a drone strike can't happen, just that a plane is much more likely to hit a bird.
What's the difference between someone catapulting a rock into a 737 vs. a drone?
"drones" are much lower density (mostly plastic), aren't traveling at a high velocity and are expensive.
I feel like you have overlooked some important differences between the two.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Drug Residue ....
Special delivery went off course
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Or.... and I'm just throwing this out there...
You prohibit drones flying in air corridors (is that what they're called?) and you strictly enforce it with hefty fines or jail time. What's the difference between someone catapulting a rock into a 737 vs. a drone?
You put Mexico and enforce in the same context.
LOL
Terrorists no longer have any need to sneak bombs past TSA. Just wait at the edge of the airfield for a jet to take off and have a medium-size drone ready to fly up and hit the engine intake. Equipped with a video camera and maybe a small explosive, it's the equivalent of a very slow missile.
The potential for misuse is huge.
I'm not big on Big Brother regulation, but this tech screams out for some controls.
Planes must be armored against a 5 kilogram drone impact at landing and takeoff speeds.
They are. They are hardened against birds, which they hit quite a bit more frequently than drones. Some can be quite a bit larger than 5 kg.
The other day when I was onsite, our rich clients son decided to show all of his mates how high his drone flies. I have a private pilot license and I know their house is on a common flight route. We also constantly see stories of people using these in national parks and such here in Australia where its illegal, and people simply don't care. Whilst drones have their uses, unfortunately, they also attract the type of crowd who needs to overcompensate.
People shouldn't even be allowed to buy them without a license. It's pretty clear people aren't following the rules and its really sad people are risking others lives simply to post some photos on Instagram. Not everyone is breaking the rules, but a huge number seem to (both unknowingly, and knowingly)
At the very least, they should be required to have ADS-B so they are visible to aircraft.
Reports on local news this morning say that the plane went off it's planned flight path and strayed north of the border.
The plane was bound for General Abelardo L. Rodríguez International Airport in Tijuana from Miguel Hidalgo and Costilla de Guadalajara International Airport.
The Tijuana airport DIRECTLY abuts the border fence. I have photos I took of landing planes, the tower, etc. from Big Toy Depot on the other side of the fence. (My friend was keeping his bus there.) I mean it is literally RIGHT THERE. There was talk a few years ago about expanding it to be a bi-national airport.
https://www.google.com/maps/pl...
You tell me whose drone it was. Duh.
5kg is absolutely a major problem in the right circumstances. The nose of a plane (where this impact occurred) is generally a pretty flimsy cover for the radar system and has a very limited amount of structural integrity in order to be radar transparent, so even a fairly small bird can cause a lot of damage. There have been instances where the resulting investigation has concluded that similar amounts of damage were caused by hailstones, and even *air pressure*. Google images of "airplane radome impacts" and you'll find plenty of examples and their most likely causes.
A few people have brought up the materials difference of a drone vs. a bird, but I'm not seeing many mentions of F=ma yet; the velocity of the impact is obviously going to play a major part in the level of damage for a given object. Keep in mind that most in-flight impacts are going to be on the front profile of the plane due to the direction of travel, which includes the radome, engines (turbine blades are not as fragile as the radome, but are still fairly brittle), cockpit windows (armoured glass, but again, F=ma), some flight control surfaces, and (potentially) the landing gear. Basically, lots of opportunity for that unfortunately specific bit of damage that could really ruin your day.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
I'll believe it when they find pieces of the drone embedded in the nosecone or find LiPo residue. There is a disturbing fervor regarding the "dangers" of drones at the moment that can result in some hilarious/disturbing claims about their capabilities/risks. I have literally had family members believe that the palm sized quad-copter I have is going to chop off their fingers, and police have made some outlandish claims that were later proven to be demonstrably false.
NYPD flew helicopter at drone
Park helicopter tries to knock drone out of air
To hit a typical hobby drone (aka quadcopter, "drone" has many meanings), it would have had to be quite near the airport. A 737 coming in for landing descends at about 700 feet per minute. Drones are typically flown at 10 to 300 feet, with 500 feet possible. That means the 737 would need to be within seconds of landing to be low enough for a drone impact.
It's quite very illegal to fly a drone so near an airport. In the US, you can't even fly ten feet off the ground with five miles of an airport, without permission from the airport. I figure Mexico is probably similar.
There are several species of geese in the air this time of year near the US-Mexico border. It seems to me that's more likely than someone standing at the airport fence flying a drone up so high they can barely see it (and the wind at that altitude would tend to take it away from them).
Hobby drones (quadcopters) are almost all the same set of sizes. The outdoor size weighs about 1.3 Kg. That's the vast majority of "drones" - all the ones costing been $300-$1000.
The big (and VERY expensive) commercial drones that Amazon builds are a tiny, tiny fraction of drones.
Hobby drones (quadcopters) are almost all the same set of sizes. Weight of outdoor drones falls into two classes. Racing drones are limited to 800 grams by rule, with a 150 gram class also being popular. (The 35 gram class could be classified as an indoor drone).
The other group is the utility, camera-carrying drones. The outdoor size of a camera drone weighs about 1.3 Kg. That's the vast majority of "drones" - all the ones costing been $300-$1000.
The big (and VERY expensive) commercial drones that Amazon builds are a tiny, tiny fraction of drones.
go all the way and build it with black box armor
If a birdstrike can take down an Airbus A320 I'd be afraid to think what a medium sized drone can do.
that creates a No-Fly-Zone for drones by remotely hacking any drone that enters the area and forcing it to land
Woohoo, an artificially intelligent machine! Finally!
Ezekiel 23:20
Considering the phraseology you used in your assertion, I take it that you're fairly unfamiliar with how airspace works.
In the US, at least, UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems, the general term for things like drones) MUST be operated by someone with a UAS certificate from the FAA. Getting this certificate can be done online and the course teaches the student basic airspace knowledge, including the knowledge on where and, more importantly, where not to operate a UAS and who to contact if you do. Indeed, it's actually a subset of what a private pilot would lean, as someone with a PPL automatically has a UAS certificate. The point is, the requirements are already there, but most people think they're too cool for school and refuse to comply with those meddling gub'mint regulations.
Ultimately, it'll be the people who stay airspace-dumb on purpose who will ruin the party for other civilian UAS operators and perhaps the lives of unwitting passengers and crew. There are already costs incurred by drone strikes which, thankfully, haven't caused any deaths yet.
Expect regulation soon?
Excuse me... what planet are you living on?
There are already regulations forbidding the flying of drones within cooeey of airports and in controlled airspace.
Do you think that (if this was actually a drone), the rogue few who break these regulations will suddenly change their behaviour if more regulations are put in place?
By definition... lawbreakers don't take any notice of the law so more laws are simply a demonstration of how stupid the law-makers are.
Oh yeah, like they banned trucks after the Oklahoma City bombing -- and they banned pressure cookers after the Boston bombings.
What planet are you on?
People can use *anything* for evil if they put their mind to it (even commercial airliners -- 9/11 -- remember?).
Banning the item does nothing except show that those imposing such a ban have no real grasp of the problem.
YouTube video with the ATC traffic and translation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...