Reported near miss at LHR

[ac0j]

787 vs drone at 3200ft........ They must have been terrified. (sarcasm, for the literal types)
The thud of impact probably would not even been noticed by a soul on board.

 

[frank candor]

Again more airprox garbage.

"Drone like object". Not confirmed a drone or any sort of identification. Yet their summary its a drone. No questioning, no research, no investigation. "Drone like object" becomes "Drone".

Its like the drone at 15,500ft a few months ago. Without question their cause/risk/summary its a confirmed drone.

3,200ft is a little high as well given the general height of the land around that area.

tan person over a fence of a lawn they were mowing while tan, had to take a leak in some bushes

 

[ac0j]

Go to the last couple minutes, watch, then tell me at this speed 225MPH approx. with no rear view, and limited side view. if you could positively identify a drone. if you say yes, I dont believe you.

 

[sar104]

Go to the last couple minutes, watch, then tell me at this speed 225MPH approx. with no rear view, and limited side view. if you could positively identify a drone. if you say yes, I dont believe you.

Not if my vision were as blurry as that video. But, to answer your question, I've seen and clearly identified seagulls on approach at very similar speeds. Pilots have excellent side view, by the way.

 

[ac0j]

So, I'll take that to also mean that at interstate speeds, you can identify every drone size item that may be in the ditch as you pass? Maybe you were EXPECTING seagulls?

 

[sar104]

So, I'll take that to also mean that at interstate speeds, you can identify every drone size item that may be in the ditch as you pass? Maybe you were EXPECTING seagulls?

I think you need to go for a drive. Identifying drone-sized items at 80 mph is trivial. Unless your eyesight is poor you should be able to see much smaller objects at that speed.

And no - I wasn't expecting seagulls.

 

[ac0j]

So you can tell roadkill badger, cat dog, possum, and roadkill raccoon apart at 75mph every time?
Never said "Oooh, What was that?" Maybe you eyes ARE better than mine.
So, to the OP;
The pilot reported he SAW a drone at over 3000'.
Nobody gets to question that? Because he is a pilot he is incapable of error? we have to believe a total stranger? How many birds did he see?, How many other manned aircraft did he see? Did he see a blimp or balloon? I assume he has to report everything he see's. Or is it just drones?

All this is showing is that there are a couple stupid people flying drones at 3000' plus. Hardly representing drones as a whole. Just like there are stupid people buying guns and cars.
How are we supposed to change the perspective people have, when we use these reports against ourselves, and support their validity to our last breath just to win the internet discussion?

Probably around 40,000,000 flights happen a year worldwide. We have had just TWO? confirmed hits without catastrophic result WORLD WIDE. And a hand full of "I saw a drone out my window" reports that at least 1/2 CAN NOT be confirmed. like the one at 32,000'. Not anywhere near the bird strike statistics that have caused MILLIONS of dollars in damage every year. Even some death and personal injury. Just add drones to the very slight but possible risks, about 1000% less likely than hitting a bird to your reasons to fly in a plane or not.

We cannot let this type of news to go on. It has not been proven to be a hazard that is more dangerous than a bird strike, or foreign material flying up from the runway surface. Which happens over 100,000 times a year, but the news doesn't try to make THAT a big story.

 

[Chip]

From the CAA's 2018 Drone Safety Risk Assessment:

"...based on current levels of reporting, a pilot is currently around twice as likely to have a birdstrike resulting in damage to the aircraft as they are to report seeing a drone in proximity...

...the CAA’s analysis indicates two incidents of proximity per million flight movements and for this specific risk the likelihood of an actual collision would be considerably less than this...

the probability of a passenger airliner experiencing a drone in proximity whilst above 340kt and at or below 12,000ft in the London TMA was about 2x10-6 per flight. This equates to a probability of two drone proximity incidents above the velocity to which airliner windscreens are certified per million aircraft flights."

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1627_Jan2018.pdf

 

[Chip]

"...the expert opinion of a leading jet turbine engine manufacturer is that the
current suite of certification requirements for aero-engines provides a very significant
degree of protection for any structural integrity issues that might be posed by
potential drone ingestion. With the possible exception of any particularly dense items
that the drone might be carrying, which as identified earlier can vary considerably,
the manufacturer believes it is unlikely that small drone ingestion would significantly
affect the ability of the engine to produce thrust. The manufacturer also views it as
extremely unlikely that drone ingestion would compromise the ability of the engine to
be shut down safely."

 

[ac0j]

I think you need to go for a drive. Identifying drone-sized items at 80 mph is trivial. Unless your eyesight is poor you should be able to see much smaller objects at that speed.

And no - I wasn't expecting seagulls.

Ok, what if you were in an aircraft flying along, and you see the hawk.(or drone) hovering right in your path, as you get closer, it seems to be directly in line with the leading edge of your wing. An experienced pilot just closes his eyes, grits his teeth and waits for the sound of impact? Or does he adjust his flight path to a less obvious collision?
One answer validates a recent study of perfectly aimed projectiles and also suggests maybe some pilots aren't that bright.
The other answer shows the study is really not that needed. Since pilots can see and identify drones at a mile out, at 200 plus mph. and have plenty of time to avoid them.

 

[sar104]

"...the expert opinion of a leading jet turbine engine manufacturer is that the
current suite of certification requirements for aero-engines provides a very significant
degree of protection for any structural integrity issues that might be posed by
potential drone ingestion. With the possible exception of any particularly dense items
that the drone might be carrying, which as identified earlier can vary considerably,
the manufacturer believes it is unlikely that small drone ingestion would significantly
affect the ability of the engine to produce thrust. The manufacturer also views it as
extremely unlikely that drone ingestion would compromise the ability of the engine to
be shut down safely."

Yes - we can all play that game. For example:

• The windscreens of small helicopters and light aircraft are more susceptible to rupture if struck by a small drone, even when flying below normal cruising speed.
•  Helicopters face more particular risks because of the additional susceptibility of helicopter rotors to damage from a collision with a drone, and their operating patterns which typically involve lower-level flying and take-off and landing from a range of sites.

• Small drones can introduce severe damage to some aircraft structures, with greater damage at higher speeds (and therefore typically higher altitudes);
• Non-severe structural damage can create significant economic burden to aircraft operators; and
• Drone collisions cause greater structural damage than bird strikes for equivalent impact energy levels.

• In conclusion, CAA’s review of existing risk evidence indicates that drones do pose a potential safety risk to other airspace users, though commercial aircraft are designed and manufactured to high standards. Light aircraft and helicopters are designed and built to different requirements and therefore the consequences of a small drone colliding with these forms of aircraft may be different from larger commercial aircraft. Further research is required by aircraft certification authorities and aircraft manufacturers to better understand the damage implications of a collision, and as data about usage becomes available, the probability of collision.

What happened - you simply didn't read those paragraphs, or you figured that no one would notice them?

 

[Chip]

..The pilot reported he SAW a drone at over 3000'.
Nobody gets to question that? Because he is a pilot he is incapable of error? we have to believe a total stranger? How many birds did he see?, How many other manned aircraft did he see? Did he see a blimp or balloon? I assume he has to report everything he see's. Or is it just drones?...

Just drones "in proximity."

 

[ac0j]

Yes - we can all play that game. For example:

• The windscreens of small helicopters and light aircraft are more susceptible to rupture if struck by a small drone, even when flying below normal cruising speed.
•  Helicopters face more particular risks because of the additional susceptibility of helicopter rotors to damage from a collision with a drone, and their operating patterns which typically involve lower-level flying and take-off and landing from a range of sites.

• Small drones can introduce severe damage to some aircraft structures, with greater damage at higher speeds (and therefore typically higher altitudes);
• Non-severe structural damage can create significant economic burden to aircraft operators; and
• Drone collisions cause greater structural damage than bird strikes for equivalent impact energy levels.

• In conclusion, CAA’s review of existing risk evidence indicates that drones do pose a potential safety risk to other airspace users, though commercial aircraft are designed and manufactured to high standards. Light aircraft and helicopters are designed and built to different requirements and therefore the consequences of a small drone colliding with these forms of aircraft may be different from larger commercial aircraft. Further research is required by aircraft certification authorities and aircraft manufacturers to better understand the damage implications of a collision, and as data about usage becomes available, the probability of collision.

What happened - you simply didn't read those paragraphs, or you figured that no one would notice them?

Those all look like perfect reasons to make aircraft stay above 500' except near airports and helipads, and keep drones 5 miles from airports and helipads, and under 500'. Perfect solution to a problem that has yet to manifest itself in any significant way.
OR we could just regulate drones and RC aircraft out of existence because real pilots cant follow rules like that.

 

[Chip]

Yes - we can all play that game...
What happened - you simply didn't read those paragraphs, or you figured that no one would notice them?

What game do you think I am playing? Was acOj not asking about the statistical probability of bird versus drone strike and did I not link to the latest study?

 

[ac0j]

What game do you think I am playing? Was acOj not asking about the statistical probability of bird versus drone strike and did I not link to the latest study?

He wont except that. A 1 in 10 million chance of a collision scares him I guess. If it could happen at all is reason to spend millions of dollars in studies, and millions more on regulation and enforcement.

 

[gnirtS]

787 vs drone at 3200ft........ They must have been terrified. (sarcasm, for the literal types)
The thud of impact probably would not even been noticed by a soul on board.

To be fair its a binliner so i'd be more concerned with the wings delaminating, the engines or batteries catching fire or half your electrical system taking a dump which are more normal issues.

But if a drone hits a static or pitot port its going to do damage. If it goes into an engine its likely to be noticed on gauges and that aircraft grounded pending inspection.

Im just very doubtful it was a drone at 3,200ft. Airprox by default blames *everything* on a drone without making any attempt to substantiate a report.

 

[sar104]

What game do you think I am playing? Was acOj not asking about the statistical probability of bird versus drone strike and did I not link to the latest study?

The game you played was to extract paragraphs that discussed which impacts are not likely to cause catastrophic failure, and just quote those, ignoring those parts of the report that discussed significant threats.

 

[Chip]

The game you played was to extract paragraphs that discussed which impacts are not likely to cause catastrophic failure, and just quote those, ignoring those parts of the report that discussed significant threats.

 

[BJR981S]

That was another good one. Of course it doesn't mean that this one was not a real event, and I don't mean to minimize that possibility.

Indeed, unfortunately there are still videos from drone pilots that significantly put the general public at risk. My favourite one is "Flying above the clouds."

 

[Porky]

Indeed, unfortunately there are still videos from drone pilots that significantly put the general public at risk. My favourite one is "Flying above the clouds."

Yep I’ve seen that YT vid, all that come to mind is “plonker”