Drone crashed into plane in Netherlands today

[ICHOTT]

I was going to comment on this thread but it’s pointless!
Pure supposition, lots of couldbes and maybes, nothing to learn.

 

[Mr Shamrok]

Are there any proofs that it was a drone? These are only speculations, but not a single confirmation. I do not exclude that it could of course be a drone, since it is possible to remove the height limitation on older Mavic Pro and Phantom models. But on new drones it is not possible.

 

[minoe]

Scientists estimate that about 48.5 tons (44,000 kilograms) of meteoritic material falls on Earth each day.

The above info is from NASA.

Sooner or later something is going to strike a plane..

 

[Old Timer]

It was a UFO

 

[Captain....Kirk]

Here's what can happen...

https://m.youtube.com/watch/QH0V7kp-xg0

 

[Rana Jehanzeb]

Could this be done by a bullet ?

 

[RuudF]

Sorry Done,

You're only partly correct.
The styrofoam disappeared and days later upon re-entry the heat melted the wing with the known consequences.

 

[RockyMtns]

If the possible drone is traveling at 32 mph perpenticular to the plane flight direction (at somewhere around 135mph), can the combined approach angles/vectors allow for avoiding the prop itself? It seems unlikely that the drone could have avoided the prop......the prop would likely show damage.
Even with different convergence angles, how does the drone avoid the prop?

 

[15PSI]

And let’s not forget the laminar effects of prop wash at speed.

 

[RuudF]

According to the news report the prop was damaged too

 

[SkyeHigh]

Scientists estimate that about 48.5 tons (44,000 kilograms) of meteoritic material falls on Earth each day.

The above info is from NASA.

Sooner or later something is going to strike a plane..

Not from underneath!!

 

[RuudF]

Well Rana,
That is exactly what my question was.
A bullet can leave damage like shown in the photo, but I am not sure if shots fired at a plane flying at 600m (1800 ft) can reach this high altitude and still have enough kinetic energy to make a gash like this.
I refuse to believe a drone is the cause.

Ruud

 

[julius13]

Sorry Thomas, no translation available but you can use google translate of course.

And how do they now it had to be a drone.....well they jump to to conclusions don't they?

Police concluded damage couldn't be caused by a bird.

Ruud

Just click the link and a translator should pop up. Did for me anyway.

 

[midnav]

The dent in the photograph is located on the front of the engine cowling just below and to the left of the prop. I would expect more damage from a drone strike. Whatever made this dent passed through the propeller arc.
I am familiar with these aircraft as I am the owner of an aircraft maintenance facility and see these types of aircraft weekly.

 

[RuudF]

Hello Midnav,

According to you experience: is it possible to pass a drone through a spinning prop which shows damage or traces of contact and still have a piece left with enough mass and velocity to have the force to create a gash as shown on the photo?
Or is it more likely this is a result of a bullet hit?

Ruud

 

[Vapor069]

I just saw this in a news item on the national news on the RTL4 network in the Netherlands.
2 people flew in a Cessna plane at 600 M high.
They reported a loud bang and a Apache helicopter from a nearby base flew by the plane to check for damage. All 3 wheels were still oke and the plane landed.
After the landing a large dent was found in the fuselage on the side of the plane just behind the engine (prop not jet). The dent was a narrow gash about 5 cm long and about 1 cm wide and the paint was gone.

What I find very strange and even suspicious that this damage can be done by a drone hitting the plan from the side when the speed can't be that fast to cause this amount of damage.

My question is to you: what is your instinct about this?

Ruud

Enclosed a report by the dutch police about this.
Snellinks
Ga naar contentGa naar hoofdmenu

Bij spoed: 112 Geen spoed: 0900-8844
Ga naar hoofdmenuHoofdnavigatie

• 
  
• 

Sportvliegtuig botst vermoedelijk met drone​

Laatste update:07-11-2020 | 13:16Woordvoering:Landelijke Eenheid
Eindhoven - Op vrijdagmiddag 6 november moest een sportvliegtuig halsoverkop terugkeren naar Eindhoven Airport na een botsing met hoogstwaarschijnlijk een drone. Niemand raakte gewond, maar er ontstond wel schade aan het vliegtuig.

Omstreeks 14.45 uur vlogen twee personen op ongeveer 600 meter hoogte in het sportvliegtuig. Ter hoogte van de plaatsen Aalst en Veen, in de buurt van het recreatiegebied de Neswaarden, hoorden de vliegers een harde klap en voelden dat iets tegen het vliegtuig was gebotst. De vliegers besloten direct terug te keren naar de Eindhoven Airport. Daar vroeg de piloot aan de luchtverkeersleiding om het landingsgestel op schade te inspecteren door langs de toren te vliegen. Hierop heeft de luchtverkeersleiding een in de buurt vliegende Apache helikopter van de Koninklijke Luchtmacht gevraagd om de inspectie vanuit de lucht uit te voeren. Er zijn geen beschadigingen aan het landingsgestel waargenomen en is een voorzorgslanding gemaakt die verder goed verliep. Er is een deuk geconstateerd aan de neus van het toestel en schade aan de propeller, waarschijnlijk veroorzaakt door een drone. Sporenonderzoek door het team Luchtvaarttoezicht van de Landelijke Eenheid sluit uit dat de schade is veroorzaakt door een botsing met een vogel.

Gevaar​

De politie zoekt getuigen en wil de dronebestuurder graag spreken. Verder wijst de politie op de gevaren die kunnen ontstaan als dronevliegers zich niet aan de regels houden. Er is een limiet ingesteld van 120 meter hoogte voor drones. Daarnaast moeten ze in het zicht van de vlieger blijven.

​

Sports plane probably collides with drone
Last update: 07-11-2020 | 13:16 Speech: National Unity
Eindhoven - On Friday afternoon, November 6, a sports plane had to return headlong to Eindhoven Airport after a collision with a drone. No one was injured, but damage did occur to the aircraft.

At around 2.45 pm, two people flew in the sports plane at an altitude of approximately 600 meters. Near the places Aalst and Veen, near the Neswaarden recreational area, the pilots heard a loud bang and felt that something had collided with the aircraft. The pilots decided to return to Eindhoven Airport immediately. There, the pilot asked air traffic control to inspect the landing gear for damage by flying past the tower. Air traffic control then asked a nearby flying Apache helicopter of the Royal Netherlands Air Force to carry out the inspection from the air. No damage to the landing gear was observed and a precautionary landing was made, which went well. There was a dent in the nose of the aircraft and damage to the propeller, probably caused by a drone. Trace investigation by the Aviation Supervision team of the National Unit rules out that the damage was caused by a collision with a bird.

Danger
The police are looking for witnesses and would like to speak to the drone driver. The police also points out the dangers that can arise if drone pilots do not comply with the rules. A limit of 120 meters has been set for drones. They must also remain within sight of the pilot.

 

[passedpawn]

I was going to comment on this thread but it’s pointless! And then I did anyway

Fixed that for you. Such irony is not lost on me, friend

 

[Ukung]

I just saw this in a news item on the national news on the RTL4 network in the Netherlands.
2 people flew in a Cessna plane at 600 M high.
They reported a loud bang and a Apache helicopter from a nearby base flew by the plane to check for damage. All 3 wheels were still oke and the plane landed.
After the landing a large dent was found in the fuselage on the side of the plane just behind the engine (prop not jet). The dent was a narrow gash about 5 cm long and about 1 cm wide and the paint was gone.

What I find very strange and even suspicious that this damage can be done by a drone hitting the plan from the side when the speed can't be that fast to cause this amount of damage.

My question is to you: what is your instinct about this?

Ruud

Enclosed a report by the dutch police about this.
Snellinks
Ga naar contentGa naar hoofdmenu

Bij spoed: 112 Geen spoed: 0900-8844
Ga naar hoofdmenuHoofdnavigatie

• 
  
• 

Sportvliegtuig botst vermoedelijk met drone​

Laatste update:07-11-2020 | 13:16Woordvoering:Landelijke Eenheid
Eindhoven - Op vrijdagmiddag 6 november moest een sportvliegtuig halsoverkop terugkeren naar Eindhoven Airport na een botsing met hoogstwaarschijnlijk een drone. Niemand raakte gewond, maar er ontstond wel schade aan het vliegtuig.

Omstreeks 14.45 uur vlogen twee personen op ongeveer 600 meter hoogte in het sportvliegtuig. Ter hoogte van de plaatsen Aalst en Veen, in de buurt van het recreatiegebied de Neswaarden, hoorden de vliegers een harde klap en voelden dat iets tegen het vliegtuig was gebotst. De vliegers besloten direct terug te keren naar de Eindhoven Airport. Daar vroeg de piloot aan de luchtverkeersleiding om het landingsgestel op schade te inspecteren door langs de toren te vliegen. Hierop heeft de luchtverkeersleiding een in de buurt vliegende Apache helikopter van de Koninklijke Luchtmacht gevraagd om de inspectie vanuit de lucht uit te voeren. Er zijn geen beschadigingen aan het landingsgestel waargenomen en is een voorzorgslanding gemaakt die verder goed verliep. Er is een deuk geconstateerd aan de neus van het toestel en schade aan de propeller, waarschijnlijk veroorzaakt door een drone. Sporenonderzoek door het team Luchtvaarttoezicht van de Landelijke Eenheid sluit uit dat de schade is veroorzaakt door een botsing met een vogel.

Gevaar​

De politie zoekt getuigen en wil de dronebestuurder graag spreken. Verder wijst de politie op de gevaren die kunnen ontstaan als dronevliegers zich niet aan de regels houden. Er is een limiet ingesteld van 120 meter hoogte voor drones. Daarnaast moeten ze in het zicht van de vlieger blijven.

​

Thats how news are made today. The Dutch report says "It was most likely a drone" and they are looking for eyewitnesses. And what is written here " A Drone crashed into an Aeroplane in the Netherlands !!!

 

[15PSI]

Looking for eye witnesses? Maybe the guy with the Jet Pack at LAX, but eye witnesses will be difficult to find at 600 meters. Just saying...

 

[bcfd29]

I look at aircraft damage on a daily basis, (every contact leaves a trace) and typically a bird will leave biologicals behind and the impact damage is more rounded based on the shape, size, and mass of what was struck (more rounded than angular or linear deformation). Parts of the bird (blood, bone, feathers, organs) are typically left behind after impact.

The photos are not very conclusive and only show a limited view and there is no scale to judge depth or directionality of the striking object. When mapping aircraft damage for analysis it is critical to very carefully and accurately document the markings, deformation, dents, scratches etc. including their depth as well as any material or paint transfer from the striking object.

Also needed to be excluded here is the departure of any of this airframes components while in flight: I often see damage consisting of dents, and other deformation caused by parts of the same aircraft coming loose during flight (or sometimes even debris from the departing runway) and deflecting off of or striking a part of the hull or a control surface. A recent mishap this week in commercial aviation involved parts of the runway paving separating and striking the aircraft on departure.

This limited information leads to more questions than answers, much more needs to be understood re: the damage and when during the phase of flight it was detected/heard.

When evaluating the likelihood of the damage being caused by a small UAV, consider that the part of a small UAV with the greatest mass is likely the battery, and the question to prove/disprove would be whether or not that component (battery) based on size and weight is capable of causing this type of damage.