Drone crashed into plane in Netherlands today

[colorado kid]

English translation:
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.
Police logo on hood of police car
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 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 height has been set for drones. In addition, they must remain within sight of the pilot.

I have to wonder? While a hack of drone software is possible... the reported altitude is well above the altitude limit programmed into the drone.

My thoughts:

No one saw a drone and no evidence that it was a drone is in the article. So based on the article it’s just supposition.

Further developments will be interesting. @RuudF please keep us informed.

"No one saw a drone and no evidence that it was a drone is in the article. So based on the article it’s just supposition."

what else could it have been? i am pretty sure no one threw a rock up in the air at that height. and pretty sure it was not ufo.

 

[Dougcjohn]

The reference I quoted was directly from NASA’s own history department as was the footage used in the factual documentary.

Enjoy the read.

https://history.nasa.gov/columbia/Troxell/Columbia%20Web%20Site/CAIB/CAIB%20Website/news/FOAMIM%7E1.PDF

Thanks, that was a good read! Much appreciated!
Brings new data too, it was insulation foam but not a compound associated to common styrofoam which is "expanded polystyrene"; the NASA insulation foam is "compressed Polyurethane". The mention of styrofoam in the NASA's elucidation article is referencing a simplistic model of mass deceleration, it wasn't stating the material compound of the "foam" onboard the Shuttle hardware. The forces, temps, & velocity involved in Shuttle liftoff & flight would easily separate styrofoam; the molecular bonding of styrofoam is extremely light, and melting point extremely low... along with it's limited ease of pliable and light weight per volume.

Based on the results of the provided computational equations in the article for weight & size; it'd be more kin to latex rubber insulation, with even greater density and molecular bond able to endure extreme low & high temps... a trait that polyurethane can be compounded.

But it was insulation foam, I'd agree with that section... although not light weight foam as in polystyrene.
My apologies if drawn out, but the styrofoam caught me as simply unrealistic... and the article shed more light on your post and can understand.

The Shuttle's return day was a sad ordeal, we push the limits on our limited knowledge normally with great success and few failures... but it's the failures that improve our knowledge. I still recall that day, and wondered how many seconds the crew were aware of their fate... terrible.

Thanks for the article, I hadn't followed up on that ordeal, too busy with other business.

 

[Blakey01]

Definitely not bird damage. Many of the aircraft I fly have dents from birds and I have hit a few myself. Bird damage is not sharp and localised like that image and there is always feather marks, guts or both. From the TV image the impact was on the engine cowling just below the prop and to the right. We have people in my area regularly posting high altitude pictures from drones on Facebook. There is no certainty, but its most likely a drone impact.

 

[Thomas B]

As I said earlier...
English translation:
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.
Police logo on hood of police car
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 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 height has been set for drones. In addition, they must remain within sight of the pilot.

I have to wonder? While a hack of drone software is possible... the reported altitude is well above the altitude limit programmed into the drone.

My thoughts:

No one saw a drone and no evidence that it was a drone is in the article. So based on the article it’s just supposition.

Further developments will be interesting. @RuudF please keep us informed.

 

[Galeforce1]

It is not a question if any drone can reach this altitude: yes they can.
There is plenty of idiots on YT who post their vids of record high en far flights.

But any mini or mavic doesn't have enough mass to cause such a dent.

It has to be bigger and heavier according to me.

But what do you think?
I am aware that we are speculating and the truth probably will never come out.

Ruud

I agree, none of the Mavics have enough mass to cause this damage. The Cessna skin might be thin but it is quite tough - I have flown Cessnas and other light aircraft. Also, the angle is side on - so the forward speed of the plane would have minimised the impact a little. The first part of a drone to hit would be the plastic props, which would have reduced the impact of the harder drone body, and you would expect to see wider scratches as at least two of the props hit the plane, but there is just the deeper gash and a few minor scratches around it.

It looks as if a sharp edge hit first, making the narrow hole. From the photo, the hole appears to point slightly towards the front of the plane, suggesting some forward movement of the object. I can't imagine that a plastic prop would make that hole - but I could be wrong.

Perhaps a larger commercial drone?

 

[cloneme]

An Albatross could cause that damage, seems people are jumping to conclusions. I guess any port in a storm will do.

 

[BJR981S]

Were they flying at 600 metres above ground level, 600 metres above the takeoff point or 600 metres above sea level. What was their altimeter calibrated to?

 

[rehkram]

Looks like the damage the tip of a pallet fork might make. I've done it to a few objects around the farm. A drone coming in from the side, at that altitude, with the plane going that fast, seems highly improbable to me. I mean, when did you last see photos of a bird strike where the bird came in at 90 degrees?

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Formosa Straight]

A piece of Styrofoam can rip a shuttle wing open. So all bets are off as far as your guessing.

Just to clarify that and put things into perspective. That piece of Styrofoam was travelling at over 500 mph relative to the the shuttles speed at point of impact. It did not rip the wing open. It created a slit in the heat shield by jamming into the crevices between the tiles. The super heated gases on re-entry found their way to the interior of the wing via these crevices and that is what caused the integrity of the wing structure to fail with the loss of all hands onboard, god rest their souls. I would suggest that these are a significantly different set of circumstances and significantly different forces at work than something striking a Cessna 182 Skylane which has a maximum rated speed of 168mph. Remember your high school physics about kinetic energy. It doesn't help the discussion drawing such extraneous analogies. Something hit the plane, it is a wild and unsubstantiated guess by the police to say that it was a drone. I would like to see what the beak of a 5kg goose would do to the the skin of a Cessna at that speed. Unsubstantiated speculation is what has damaged the regard of our hobby in the eye of the general public, we should refrain from propagating it ourselves.

 

[rehkram]

My thesis is it may have happened on the ground, and not in the air at all. Speculation is, by definition, unsubstantiated. That doesn't mean we can't give our opinions.

I have to wonder what the insurance company's claim adjusters will find. If it were me I'd be looking for pallet fork loader movements on the ground. That's just unsubstantiated (by definition) speculation on my part. It's just what it looks like to me.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

Just to clarify that and put things into perspective. That piece of Styrofoam was travelling at over 500 mph relative to the the shuttles speed at point of impact. It did not rip the wing open. It created a slit in the heat shield by jamming into the crevices between the tiles. The super heated gases on re-entry found their way to the interior of the wing via these crevices and that is what caused the integrity of the wing structure to fail with the loss of all hands onboard, god rest their souls. I would suggest that these are a significantly different set of circumstances and significantly different forces at work than something striking a Cessna 182 Skylane which has a maximum rated speed of 168mph. Remember your high school physics about kinetic energy. It doesn't help the discussion drawing such extraneous analogies. Something hit the plane, it is a wild and unsubstantiated guess by the police to say that it was a drone. I would like to see what the beak of a 5kg goose would do to the the skin of a Cessna at that speed. Unsubstantiated speculation is what has damaged the regard of our hobby in the eye of the general public, we should refrain from propagating it ourselves.

You missed the point - so many people said that Styrofoam couldn’t do that.
Even those he should’ve known better.

 

[TM74]

I think drones are all too easy to blame and whilst it might be true that there are some idiots that get hold of them it's just unfair to just blame this accident on a drone with absolutely no evidence.

 

[Dougcjohn]

Just to clarify that and put things into perspective. That piece of Styrofoam was travelling at over 500 mph relative to the the shuttles speed at point of impact. It did not rip the wing open. It created a slit in the heat shield by jamming into the crevices between the tiles. The super heated gases on re-entry found their way to the interior of the wing via these crevices and that is what caused the integrity of the wing structure to fail with the loss of all hands onboard, god rest their souls. I would suggest that these are a significantly different set of circumstances and significantly different forces at work than something striking a Cessna 182 Skylane which has a maximum rated speed of 168mph. Remember your high school physics about kinetic energy. It doesn't help the discussion drawing such extraneous analogies. Something hit the plane, it is a wild and unsubstantiated guess by the police to say that it was a drone. I would like to see what the beak of a 5kg goose would do to the the skin of a Cessna at that speed. Unsubstantiated speculation is what has damaged the regard of our hobby in the eye of the general public, we should refrain from propagating it ourselves.

Just to add to the side Space Shuttle discussion... wasn't "expanded polystyrene" (styrofoam), was "compressed Polyurethane" (post #82).... much different properties. Previously, @Paulr had also mentioned he read it was ice.

After reading the above URL Link on NASA article, I explored a bit further and read more about the Lockhead Martin foam. In conclusion, it was combination of foam & ice as the cause... included previous knowledge & experience with the same condition on previous flights, just not as devastating.

They indicated cause was a combination of the two: insulation & ice. The large mass of fuel ice collects and builds at the bipod connection, pulling loose the insulation.

Grounding the Space Shuttle—NASA’s Foam Insulation Problem

It is now more than 2 years since the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated during re-entry to the earth’s atmosphere on February 1, 2003, killing all seven astronauts aboard and, in the process, putting a spotlight on foam insulation. In the years since the tragedy, the U.S. National Aeronautics...

insulation.org

 

[Dougcjohn]

My thesis is it may have happened on the ground, and not in the air at all. Speculation is, by definition, unsubstantiated. That doesn't mean we can't give our opinions.

I have to wonder what the insurance company's claim adjusters will find. If it were me I'd be looking for pallet fork loader movements on the ground. That's just unsubstantiated (by definition) speculation on my part. It's just what it looks like to me.

That's an interesting angle and possible.
Could have heard a thud with no damage resulting... bird or debris, or claim to hear a thud.

 

[rehkram]

That's an interesting angle and possible.
Could have heard a thud with no damage resulting... bird or debris, or claim to hear a thud.

Thanks Doug. I worked for an insurance company in IT for a while. It's all about examining all plausible possibilities beyond the claimants' statements. Sad but true, it's the nature of the business. I'm not saying fraud is involved here, it's just the normal workflow for an adjuster to consider all angles.

 

[Desert Sands]

A piece of Styrofoam can rip a shuttle wing open. So all bets are off as far as your guessing.

But, of course, the frozen foam piece to shuttle wing velocity was greater than 500 MPH at the time of that tragic event.