Some news stories must be made up...

[DirkGently]

BBC News - which is no fan of drones has this story:

Football-sized drone flown 20m from Heathrow-bound plane - BBC News

According to the story the drone was flying at 3,352M ( 11,000 feet ) above the ground when it passed rapidly a plane.

I can't even imagine with a standard consumer drone this is even possible. There's no hills much above 150m near Heathrow - so the drone has climbed 3202m! Its got to be a good 12 - 15 minutes to climb that even in low winds.

Does anyone else think this is pretty much impossible with a consumer drone?

 

[Kilrah]

Yep, completely. 90% of these news can only be BS.

 

[tchoupsley]

If it climbed to that height then ran out of battery and fell to the ground, it would pass the plane very quickly going straight into the ground. LOL

 

[DirkGently]

If it climbed to that height then ran out of battery and fell to the ground, it would pass the plane very quickly going straight into the ground. LOL

In a later news report the drone apparently fell at such speed it passed directly through London and out the other side of the earth killing 300 Australians.

 

[EasyV]

Lots of fretting about a 2lb drone......they test Aircraft and engines for collisions with small objects....

Chicken gun - Wikipedia

 

[ascension]

Lots of fretting about a 2lb drone......they test Aircraft and engines for collisions with small objects....

Chicken gun - Wikipedia

Don't underestimate what one of these things can do.

An airplane is travelling anywhere from 135-250 kts below 10,000 feet. That generates a tremendous amount of kinetic energy in a collision.
You are correct that engines are tested for foreign object damage, but that doesn't adequately address the issue.

A drone would do damage to the fan blades at a minimum, requiring taking the airplane out of service and bore scoping the engine. If any other damage was found it could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in a day, not including loss of revenue and cancellation costs.
If it hit the windshield it would damage it, another costly and time consuming repair. there is no tolerance in those things for nicks.
Hitting the fuselage could take the airplane out of service if it dented it and impacted the pitot static system.

The point is, if someone lets their little two pound missile hit an airplane, it could be well over a million dollars in very little time if the owner was identified.
It simply isn't something any sane person would want to get involved in. The costs and the criminal negligence isn't worth it.

 

[DirkGently]

Don't underestimate what one of these things can do.

An airplane is travelling anywhere from 135-250 kts below 10,000 feet. That generates a tremendous amount of kinetic energy in a collision.
You are correct that engines are tested for foreign object damage, but that doesn't adequately address the issue.

A drone would do damage to the fan blades at a minimum, requiring taking the airplane out of service and bore scoping the engine. If any other damage was found it could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in a day, not including loss of revenue and cancellation costs.
If it hit the windshield it would damage it, another costly and time consuming repair. there is no tolerance in those things for nicks.
Hitting the fuselage could take the airplane out of service if it dented it and impacted the pitot static system.

The point is, if someone lets their little two pound missile hit an airplane, it could be well over a million dollars in very little time if the owner was identified.
It simply isn't something any sane person would want to get involved in. The costs and the criminal negligence isn't worth it.

No one is yet sure what would happen - hence:

The UK government is crashing drones into airplanes to see what happens

I'm doubtful that a DJI Mavic Pro weighing just under 1kg could easily take out a plane - its probably not impossible but of all the events likely to take a plane down I doubt its the highest risk.

A mute swan weighs as much as 12kg with a wing span of up to 2.4m. Makes a Mavic look rather puny!

Still will be interesting to see the research.

 

[EasyV]

Don't underestimate what one of these things can do.

An airplane is travelling anywhere from 135-250 kts below 10,000 feet. That generates a tremendous amount of kinetic energy in a collision.
You are correct that engines are tested for foreign object damage, but that doesn't adequately address the issue.

A drone would do damage to the fan blades at a minimum, requiring taking the airplane out of service and bore scoping the engine. If any other damage was found it could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in a day, not including loss of revenue and cancellation costs.
If it hit the windshield it would damage it, another costly and time consuming repair. there is no tolerance in those things for nicks.
Hitting the fuselage could take the airplane out of service if it dented it and impacted the pitot static system.

The point is, if someone lets their little two pound missile hit an airplane, it could be well over a million dollars in very little time if the owner was identified.
It simply isn't something any sane person would want to get involved in. The costs and the criminal negligence isn't worth it.

I get that. Common sense. But all the airplanes in the sky, and the sky itself will not fall, due to a drone strike. To be clear, it is something everyone flying a drone should take any and all precautions to preclude it from occurring.

I will not be - and you don't want to be - "that guy" that has a collision with an A/C

The fines will be outrageous, and prison and bankruptcy will await you.

But the hysterionics in the media are way out of proportion to the risk (did you see the fictional BBC crap about a drone hitting the tail rotor of a helicopter? they used to land helicopters in jungles during the Vietnam war to clear hasty landing zones.) .

On the other hand, there are a lot of people on this planet with rocks for brains....

 

[ascension]

I'm not worried about a drone causing an airplane crash, but I guarantee you that a 1 kg drone impact would take the airplane out of service for a bit.
As a career airline pilot, I know what is involved when an airliner hits something.
Immense liability would ensue to include damage to the aircraft, lost revenue claims and fees for cancellations.
A negligent act would cause one to face all of those, and in the US at least, careless and reckless operation is a very serious issue.
Don't poke the bear.
Stay away.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Don't underestimate what one of these things can do.

An airplane is travelling anywhere from 135-250 kts below 10,000 feet. That generates a tremendous amount of kinetic energy in a collision.
You are correct that engines are tested for foreign object damage, but that doesn't adequately address the issue.

A drone would do damage to the fan blades at a minimum, requiring taking the airplane out of service and bore scoping the engine. If any other damage was found it could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in a day, not including loss of revenue and cancellation costs.
If it hit the windshield it would damage it, another costly and time consuming repair. there is no tolerance in those things for nicks.
Hitting the fuselage could take the airplane out of service if it dented it and impacted the pitot static system.

The point is, if someone lets their little two pound missile hit an airplane, it could be well over a million dollars in very little time if the owner was identified.
It simply isn't something any sane person would want to get involved in. The costs and the criminal negligence isn't worth it.

You are not quite correct.
A plane produces a vacuum of air around it much like the bubble the Enterprise has around it when travelling at warp speed.
There is very little chance of any drone striking a plane as the air around it would repel the drone away.
The only exception would be if the drone is heading forward into the plane where the suction from the engines would ingest it.

 

[ascension]

You are not quite correct.
A plane produces a vacuum of air around it much like the bubble the Enterprise has around it when travelling at warp speed.
There is very little chance of any drone striking a plane as the air around it would repel the drone away.
The only exception would be if the drone is heading forward into the plane where the suction from the engines would ingest it.

I am not incorrect.
I have never stated the likelihood of a drone striking an airplane, and it isn't a "vacuum" it is dynamic air pressure that would, in some instances, repel it.
If there was a vacuum around it, the airplane couldn't fly, because in a vacuum, there would be no lift.
.
I have had bird strikes (2), and I have had balloon strikes (1).
The "very little chance" didn't matter to the birds or the balloon and such an outcome would land the drone operator in bankruptcy and civil suits for the rest of one's life.

Want to take that risk? Go ahead.

 

[chippie]

This story was reported on Engadget a few weeks back!

Airliner's near miss with drone injures two crew members

However if you read the source I believe said incident was 20miles out over water and God knows at what height. This is simply impossible for it to be a drone (possibly military of course) yet this online tech magazine headlined it as such! This type of reporting does not help either! Buffoons!!

 

[DirkGently]

I am not incorrect.
I have never stated the likelihood of a drone striking an airplane, and it isn't a "vacuum" it is dynamic air pressure that would, in some instances, repel it.
If there was a vacuum around it, the airplane couldn't fly, because in a vacuum, there would be no lift.
.
I have had bird strikes (2), and I have had balloon strikes (1).
The "very little chance" didn't matter to the birds or the balloon and such an outcome would land the drone operator in bankruptcy and civil suits for the rest of one's life.

Want to take that risk? Go ahead.

I think the point is not that people should fly like idiots - far from it. Every time someone acts like an idiot while flying it increases the risk of further regulation and even the banning of drones. We all suffer.

The point is that there are many, many news reports which could leave a member of the public thinking drones are incredibly dangerous and its only a matter of time before many, many thousands die as a result of these deadly drones available easily to all.

How long will it be till we see a "I was abducted by a drone and they performed experiments on me inside their Mavic Pro drone ship" story?

The risk compared to say a car or a gun is actually very small. If someone pulled a standard consumer drone on me and threatened me I'd knock it out the sky if they tried to fly in to me. If they pulled a gun or tried to drive over me - now that is seriously scary and dangerous.

 

[Watty]

Not aware of many football sized drones which could make 11,000ft altitude. Sounds like absolute BS to me and yet another situation where an aeroplane has passed a Chinese lantern or polythene bag.

 

[thetech]

Pilots hate drones, so everything and anything they see is a drone.

Handy graphic

 

[Rick]

Pilots hate drones, so everything and anything they see is a drone.

Handy graphic
View attachment 2266

Having the seen the number of replies from Commercial airplane pilots post on many topics in this forum, I'd keep my head down with a statement like that.
There seem to be a lot of "experts" here that claim a drone striking an aircraft couldn't do it any significant life threatening damage, and even one that claimed that planes fly in a vacuum. Domestic drones haven't been available that long or in any great quantity in the scale of the history of aviation. I'm playing devils advocate here, but I wouldn't want to be the passenger on a plane when a sizeable drone gets ingested in the engine of the commercial jet airliner I'm flying in. I know there are and will continue to be sensationalist news editors that will jump on the story of a drone striking a plane with no real evidence to back that claim. Here in the UK we have a rag called the Daily Mail that thrives on such stories to keep the misguided middle classes chattering about nonsense.

To avoid these lies being repeated, legislation will tighten up on the use and ownership of drones if the few that break laws and guidelines continue to do so. Not recognising the potential problem from such idiots is only adding fuel to the fire if we make out there isn't a significant problem if a drone strikes a plane. It hasn't happened yet and I hope it never will, but if the potential for loss of life or limb is evidenced by testing carried out by the authorities, the media will have a field day.

The issue here isn't that drones are not a danger to civil or military aviation, of course they are, but how the general public respect the existing rules and regs. Individuals that act selfishly by getting the "shot" that pulls the trigger to further restrict or ban drones are the biggest danger to the vast majority of careful and sensible drone owners. Condoning such actions or claiming the consequential risk is insignificant is failing to understand that their actions will kill this hobby/profession for everyone.

 

[DirkGently]

Here in the UK we have a rag called the Daily Mail that thrives on such stories to keep the misguided middle classes chattering about nonsense.

Daily Mail is toilet paper fodder, heavy on sensationalism, light on facts. But the original news report is from the BBC. Guardian and Indy are no more honest in their reporting - just a different bias.

 

[Pluto88888]

Hahaha 11,000ft probably a weather balloon or UFO.
The comments on daily mail make you laugh.
Football-sized drone flies within yards of passenger jet bound for Heathrow | Daily Mail Online

 

[RaidPW]

I can't even imagine with a standard consumer drone this is even possible. There's no hills much above 150m near Heathrow - so the drone has climbed 3202m! Its got to be a good 12 - 15 minutes to climb that even in low winds.

Does anyone else think this is pretty much impossible with a consumer drone?

I would struggle to imagine it with the consumer drones from DJI and similar, however there are plenty of videos on Youtube of people flying drones well above the safe limits - here's one with a claimed 3000m altitude:

. I don't claim to know much about DIY models, but presumably there are "dumb" ones that don't adhere to any flight restrictions. There are many similar videos with claims of getting their Phantom to 1500m or so.

I'm not worried about a drone causing an airplane crash, but I guarantee you that a 1 kg drone impact would take the airplane out of service for a bit.
As a career airline pilot, I know what is involved when an airliner hits something.
Immense liability would ensue to include damage to the aircraft, lost revenue claims and fees for cancellations.
A negligent act would cause one to face all of those, and in the US at least, careless and reckless operation is a very serious issue.
Don't poke the bear.
Stay away.

Do you mind if I ask you a hypothetical question? What would happen if a 2-engined commercial jet lost power in one engine on takeoff? Can modern airliners gain altitude, or sustain a low altitude with just one engine? That's the scenario I can see happening when idiots fly drones around airports. I remember the horrendous videos of a Concorde crashing in 2000, which happened shortly after takeoff (under different circumstances, admittedly), and the prospect of a hobbyist causing similar scenes is terrifying.

 

[ascension]

I would struggle to imagine it with the consumer drones from DJI and similar, however there are plenty of videos on Youtube of people flying drones well above the safe limits - here's one with a claimed 3000m altitude:

. I don't claim to know much about DIY models, but presumably there are "dumb" ones that don't adhere to any flight restrictions. There are many similar videos with claims of getting their Phantom to 1500m or so.



Do you mind if I ask you a hypothetical question? What would happen if a 2-engined commercial jet lost power in one engine on takeoff? Can modern airliners gain altitude, or sustain a low altitude with just one engine? That's the scenario I can see happening when idiots fly drones around airports. I remember the horrendous videos of a Concorde crashing in 2000, which happened shortly after takeoff (under different circumstances, admittedly), and the prospect of a hobbyist causing similar scenes is terrifying.

No sir, I don't mind at all.
Any two engine aircraft can takeoff and fly on one engine once if reaches decision speed on the takeoff roll. That decision speed is calculated for each flight, based on runway length, weight, and atmospheric conditions that effect performance, and is called out by the pilot not flying when it is reached.

The issue with drones is damaging an engine or dinging a windscreen or the fuselage. Each of these would be extremely expensive and I have no doubt the airline and aviation authority of whatever country it happened in would go after the operator with everything.

I think a more likely event is hitting a general aviation airplane. Their windscreens are much less capable of sustaining an impact.

By the way, the Concord was in serious trouble well before it got airborne.