Can a UAV bring down a plane?

[AnzacJack]

You you can state your opinion, but to dismiss the opinions of others as scaremongering and baseless, lead me to pointing out that in my opinion, you seem to be a fool.

If our opinions are baseless, what is it that makes your opinion based on absolute fact.

 

[BigEegit]

There is really no difference ...just that one is a bird and the other a drone... end result is the same

Incorrect. There is a difference. The body water of a bird is approximately 60%. The same cannot be said of a drone.

 

[dirkclod]

Guy's I have just looked at the last few pages in this and am scared to read the rest . So lets Please try not to be argumentative and Do stop calling each other names . It is not nessary .
Thank you .

 

[AnzacJack]

Fair call dirkclod.

BigEegit reminds me of all the “experts” that claimed a block of foam could not damage the leading edge of columbia.
But I shall leave hi to his opinions and finish again with an answer to the posts question

Yes ( maybe not a commercial airline, but possibly a light general aviation craft in the right (wrong) circumstances

 

[AnzacJack]

As you can see, it doesn’t take much to do the damage to light aircraft windows and light structures.i wonder if anyone would volunteer to sit behind a Cessna windscreen, have a fan blowing at 120kts onto it excreting pressure across its surface, and then have a phantom shot into it at the same speed. I certainly wouldnt

ive been flying these drone things since we experimented with the sensors in a Nintendo Wii controller and im in no way against them. I love them. But that doesnt mean im going in blind as to what damage they can cause

there is a massive difference in aircraft structures, from airlines down to an ultralight, so to suggest they are all safe because a 747 can withstand the impact on a non pressurized windscreen does not make all aircraft invulnerable.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

This is from Chinese drone/aircraft collision testing.

While we want members to have discussions here we will not allow members to berate or call other members names. Keep it on topic and helpful.

 

[787steve]

Right. Very strange. I really don't know what to think in that case.

If the student screws up bad enough, and low enough, in an unexpected situation, the instructor may not have enough time to salvage the situation. Imagine teaching someone to drive in a car with two sets of controls. The stud is driving nicely down your lane. As a car approaches in the other lane, he panics and jerks the car wildly off the road. You would take control. Depending on how erratically he screwed up, you may not have time to be able to keep the car from impacting something before you can get it back on the road.

 

[Cymruflyer]

This is from Chinese drone/aircraft collision testing.

While we want members to have discussions here we will not allow members to berate or call other members names. Keep it on topic and helpful.

This is a drone hitting a commercial airliner's windshield which is made of an incredibly tough material to offer protection during an impact/incident with an object. If all drone strikes were only going to be hitting commercial airliners right in the windshield while hovering, no one would be having any discussions anywhere, regarding "what ifs" about drones and flying machines.

However, the OP asked about the potential of a drone strike bringing down an airplane. To be fair to such a question, we should then take that to mean any type of flying machine, in order to offer a complete and proper answer to such a question. This video looks good for the airplane involved but unfortunately, may make an uninformed observer think that any drone strike with an airplane/flying machine will have the same outcome as they are viewing here in this video. Sadly, that is not the case in the real world of flying.

I am no aeronautical structural engineer, just an old pilot and flight instructor with several thousand hours of flight time. However, I am 99.9999999% sure that the outcome of an impact with a drone during flight, would be progressively worse for the aircraft and occupants involved, as you scale down the aircraft from this airliner to an ultralight, which would fairly well cover all scenarios of a drone hitting (and potentially bringing down) an aircraft, or better stated, any aircraft, which would have been a better question to have originally asked.

To close, this is a very interesting video, though does not really help others, especially those innocently ignorant to aviation, in general, to fully comprehend or understand what could potentially happen to an airplane in flight coming into contact with a drone. When I say airplane, I am including anything that carries a person(s) through the air. And let us not forget that a number of flying machines you see in the sky, such as old Piper Cubs, have fabric covered airframes.

 

[Classic flyer]

This is a drone hitting a commercial airliner's windshield which is made of an incredibly tough material to offer protection during an impact/incident with an object. If all drone strikes were only going to be hitting commercial airliners right in the windshield while hovering, no one would be having any discussions anywhere, regarding "what ifs" about drones and flying machines.

However, the OP asked about the potential of a drone strike bringing down an airplane. To be fair to such a question, we should then take that to mean any type of flying machine, in order to offer a complete and proper answer to such a question. This video looks good for the airplane involved but unfortunately, may make an uninformed observer think that any drone strike with an airplane/flying machine will have the same outcome as they are viewing here in this video. Sadly, that is not the case in the real world of flying.

I am no aeronautical structural engineer, just an old pilot and flight instructor with several thousand hours of flight time. However, I am 99.9999999% sure that the outcome of an impact with a drone during flight, would be progressively worse for the aircraft and occupants involved, as you scale down the aircraft from this airliner to an ultralight, which would fairly well cover all scenarios of a drone hitting (and potentially bringing down) an aircraft, or better stated, any aircraft, which would have been a better question to have originally asked.

To close, this is a very interesting video, though does not really help others, especially those innocently ignorant to aviation, in general, to fully comprehend or understand what could potentially happen to an airplane in flight coming into contact with a drone. When I say airplane, I am including anything that carries a person(s) through the air. And let us not forget that a number of flying machines you see in the sky, such as old Piper Cubs, have fabric covered airframes.

Tell it like it is daddy

 

[Letac]

Just a curious question, as I live directly over a flight path but very far from an airport.

How much damage can drones cause planes?

At what stage can plane pilots see the drone?

Do they have any special sensors for detecting birds or drones?

The results could be catastrophic so please do not put this theory to the test. Just a discussion for people to spread their knowledge on this subject.

Without reading all that’s been said, unless you have a waiver or an authorization granted directly by the FAA, you are not allowed to fly in any B, C, D and surface E airspace, and most airports fall under one of these. As for the damage, I just hope we never have to find out.

 

[Mike06]

Just a curious question, as I live directly over a flight path but very far from an airport.

How much damage can drones cause planes?

At what stage can plane pilots see the drone?

Do they have any special sensors for detecting birds or drones?

The results could be catastrophic so please do not put this theory to the test. Just a discussion for people to spread their knowledge on this subject.

There have already been accidents caused by Remote Piloted Aircraft (Drones). ALL were in violation of either FAR Part 107 or some other Rule/Regulation. While fun, these are really not toys and after 31 years of flying actual aircraft and recently getting involved in RPA flight, it seems we’ve taken a step backwards in the aviation safety realm. Sad!

 

[Classic flyer]

There have already been accidents caused by Remote Piloted Aircraft (Drones). ALL were in violation of either FAR Part 107 or some other Rule/Regulation. While fun, these are really not toys and after 31 years of flying actual aircraft and recently getting involved in RPA flight, it seems we’ve taken a step backwards in the aviation safety realm. Sad!

I agree 100%...SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT

 

[lisadoc]

The question is not about probability, it’s about possible outcomes

I've tried to avoid weighing in on this thread, as I've previously detailed this same topic in other posts... but throughout the course of this entire post, I haven't really seen it addressed. With this comment pointing out the fallacy of the conversation thus far, I feel it necessary to put things in a bit of perspective.

The above comment is the antithesis of the real issue, though it is technically correct with respect to the OP's question. If you wish to be pedantic, the answer to the original question of "Could a UAV bring down a plane?" - the answer is clearly "yes". As some posters have pointed out, if such-and-such drone hit such-and-such aircraft at such-and-such speed during this situation, the following chain of events could ultimately cause a plane to crash. But that's not really the relevant question here. In fact, one could easily ask a similar question with the identical answer: "Could an umbrella cause a plane to crash?" Again, the answer is clearly "yes".

The relevant (and important) multi-part question is really this: "How likely is it for a drone to strike an operating aircraft, what will the likely outcome be, and does it justify the actions taken to mitigate that risk?"

Again, I will point out (as a person that works in this exact field), that "Risk = probability x severity". In aviation risk mitigation, we are truly concerned with mitigating risk to a point which we call the ALARP ("As Low As Reasonably Possible" - or for our UK friends, "SFAIRP"). This concept means that we attempt to lower the risk of an event to the extent possible without compromising performance and/or excessive costs. Not to get too much into the weeds, one can just think about it in a cost/benefit analysis. Is it worth doing more vs. the costs to society (or to a participant) in doing more?

Can anything bring down a plane? Of course. But we do not mitigate risks based on vanishingly small risks that would grind the industry (or other industries) to a halt. You can avoid a plane crash 100% by never taking off. Is that safer? Sure. But the productivity loss is not worth the safety risk gained. So the bottom line is that the quote above has it exactly backwards - the question is precisely what is the probability of a UAV causing a plane to crash, not what is the possible outcome. We all know the possible outcomes. What is important is how likely are those outcomes and what risk mitigation steps should we take to prevent them from occurring?

I already covered the answer to this question in detail in this thread:
Here: Professional investigator concludes - "what's the fuss about?"

and here: Professional investigator concludes - "what's the fuss about?"

(and all the subsequent pages).

So ultimately, yes, the true question concerns the risk of this happening and the steps taken to mitigate such risks, not what is "possible". Anything is "possible". Those of us in the aviation risk management business however are typically concerned with "what is the lowest acceptable risk we are willing to live with?" (i.e. spend money on).

 

[AnzacJack]

I've tried to avoid weighing in on this thread, as I've previously detailed this same topic in other posts... but throughout the course of this entire post, I haven't really seen it addressed. With this comment pointing out the fallacy of the conversation thus far, I feel it necessary to put things in a bit of perspective.

The above comment is the antithesis of the real issue, though it is technically correct with respect to the OP's question. If you wish to be pedantic, the answer to the original question of "Could a UAV bring down a plane?" - the answer is clearly "yes". As some posters have pointed out, if such-and-such drone hit such-and-such aircraft at such-and-such speed during this situation, the following chain of events could ultimately cause a plane to crash. But that's not really the relevant question here. In fact, one could easily ask a similar question with the identical answer: "Could an umbrella cause a plane to crash?" Again, the answer is clearly "yes".

The relevant (and important) multi-part question is really this: "How likely is it for a drone to strike an operating aircraft, what will the likely outcome be, and does it justify the actions taken to mitigate that risk?"

Again, I will point out (as a person that works in this exact field), that "Risk = probability x severity". In aviation risk mitigation, we are truly concerned with mitigating risk to a point which we call the ALARP ("As Low As Reasonably Possible" - or for our UK friends, "SFAIRP"). This concept means that we attempt to lower the risk of an event to the extent possible without compromising performance and/or excessive costs. Not to get too much into the weeds, one can just think about it in a cost/benefit analysis. Is it worth doing more vs. the costs to society (or to a participant) in doing more?

Can anything bring down a plane? Of course. But we do not mitigate risks based on vanishingly small risks that would grind the industry (or other industries) to a halt. You can avoid a plane crash 100% by never taking off. Is that safer? Sure. But the productivity loss is not worth the safety risk gained. So the bottom line is that the quote above has it exactly backwards - the question is precisely what is the probability of a UAV causing a plane to crash, not what is the possible outcome. We all know the possible outcomes. What is important is how likely are those outcomes and what risk mitigation steps should we take to prevent them from occurring?

I already covered the answer to this question in detail in this thread:
Here: Professional investigator concludes - "what's the fuss about?"

and here: Professional investigator concludes - "what's the fuss about?"

(and all the subsequent pages).

So ultimately, yes, the true question concerns the risk of this happening and the steps taken to mitigate such risks, not what is "possible". Anything is "possible". Those of us in the aviation risk management business however are typically concerned with "what is the lowest acceptable risk we are willing to live with?" (i.e. spend money on).

I agree with what you are saying in reguards to probability. But I read the question as, if a UAV hits a plane, is it possible it could bring it down. He specifically asks how much damage can a drone do to an aircraft. Some people are saying it will cause no damage what so ever, others that it can cause catstrophic failure. To many variables and aircraft types to apply the same answer to all cases.

Your extended response is valid but addressing another question alltogether and concerns risk mitigation and includes links to a discussion concerning commercial aircraft where you have already expressed your point

 

[Classic flyer]

I agree with what you are saying in reguards to probability. But I read the question as, if a UAV hits a plane, is it possible it could bring it down. Some people are saying it will cause no damage what so ever, others that it can cause catstrophic failure. To many variables and aircraft types to apply the same answer to all cases.

Your extended response is valid but addressing another question alltogether and concerns risk mitigation and includes links to a discussion concerning commercial aircraft.

Okay, hear what you're saying