flying three miles high, catastrophic collision. ( NO COLLISION OCCURRED )dc

[johnnybflyguy]

Monday 17 September 2018
According to the Doncaster Free Press.
A passenger plane with 240 people on board narrowly avoided a catastrophic collision with a drone as it took off from Doncaster’s Robin Hood Airport.


The drone, which was flying three miles high, was just 100 feet away from the Airbus A321 which was climbing at 380mph after taking off from the airport.

The incident happened at the highest ever altitude recorded for a near-miss between a drone and an aircraft in UK airspace.

Packed passenger plane nearly hits drone at Doncaster Airport

 

[dirkclod]

Link please .

 

[AeroJ]

Packed passenger plane nearly hits drone at Doncaster Airport

Here's the original airprox page as well.

 

[Lon Denard]

3 miles high? Wow! It's serious if true but calling 100 feet near? Or catastrophic? It just goes to show that it doesn't matter what laws you put in place, criminals don't care.

Wait, isn't this kinda convenient with the drone laws being discussed in the UK? Hmmm....

 

[Meta4]

Monday 17 September 2018
According to the Doncaster Free Press.
A passenger plane with 240 people on board narrowly avoided a catastrophic collision with a drone as it took off from Doncaster’s Robin Hood Airport.

There's never any hint of skepticism in these Airprox reports.
They need someone to ask what proof was there that the pilot actually saw a drone and assess the probability of the report ed incident was real rather than assuming every one of them is.

 

[Lon Denard]

There's never any hint of skepticism in these Airprox reports.
They need someone to ask what proof was there that the pilot actually saw a drone?

Yea I gave up on that line of reasoning a long time ago. These days you're guilty unless proven innocent. Hopefully, it's described as orange in color....hahaha!

 

[AeroJ]

Yes I would hope there would be more rigorous investigation into these pilot reports. Several times pilots have asserted that they have seen a drone doing something highly dangerous, only for it later to transpire that they saw a plastic bag, or helium weather balloon or something else that wasn't a drone. If you look at the report above the linked one (the PA31 RAF Northolt incident) we see a pilot reporting with 'no doubt' that a drone was flown 'deliberately' at his craft with the intention of causing a crash, something he couldn't possibly have known for sure, yet Airprox believed him, and published his comments as if they were fact, after which they were reported by at least 2 major news services.

 

[AeroJ]

 

[ac0j]

If a drone made it to 15,000 feet plus, there is a good chance it didnt make it back down in one piece. Can a battery even do that and still get you home? There had to be high winds pushing it away up that high.

 

[genesimmons]

If a drone made it to 15,000 feet plus, there is a good chance it didnt make it back down in one piece. Can a battery even do that and still get you home? There had to be high winds pushing it away up that high.

ya the highest vids i have seen that safely made it back were about 8k ft, unless the drone piolot was on a "kamakaze" mission and only flew one way on porpose,,,,,

 

[johnnybflyguy]

Perhaps there needs to be cameras fitted to all commercial aircraft.

 

[MaviCam]

According to dji, it would take a Phantom 4 Pro 13.5 minutes to reach that altitude. That is assuming absolutely perfect conditions, and in sport mode. UAV Forecast won't tell me wind speed at 15,000 feet, but I would bet it is over 40mph. That pretty much tells me the drone didn't have ideal flying conditions. The only conclusion I can come to is, I don't want that AirBus pilot to be the pilot of any airliner I am in. I don't trust his judgement, or honesty.

 

[InvisibleName]

I understand why you posted this, but your thread title is a bit alarmist & inaccurate! There wasn’t a collision, it was a near miss

 

[johnnybflyguy]

Most people reading the article will think it is factual and it will give the government another excuse to ban them.

 

[AeroJ]

We should also mention what the airpox guys / news reports didn't - that in computer modelling and practical tests drones like the Phantom Class and smaller are NOT considered as serious a threat to full size airliners such as this one, as first thought, even if there IS contact ! Notice how the UK Government has heavily redacted this report.

Do read this report as well, about the US tests, where the results were 'somewhat different' to what the UK report found, leading the drone community to believe that the British study, which was not made available in its entirety for peer review, even when requested, was conducted in such a way as to give its sponsors the result they had paid for...

 

[gnirtS]

What used to be helium or weather balloons and such and no incident generated are now all called "drones".

Quite how an airprox starts is ludicrous. It requires no obvious evidence or knowledge of physics. This type of thing is killing drone acceptance and its complete garbage.

Yes there are countless imbeciles flying dangerously at low level and it IS a problem. But a consumer drone following planes at FL150 simply isnt happening.

 

[NHNative]

Monday 17 September 2018
According to the Doncaster Free Press.
A passenger plane with 240 people on board narrowly avoided a catastrophic collision with a drone as it took off from Doncaster’s Robin Hood Airport.


The drone, which was flying three miles high, was just 100 feet away from the Airbus A321 which was climbing at 380mph after taking off from the airport.

The incident happened at the highest ever altitude recorded for a near-miss between a drone and an aircraft in UK airspace.

Packed passenger plane nearly hits drone at Doncaster Airport

Just for giggles... The closure rate between the drone and the Airbus was at least 160mph. Even with great vision you really can't discern a MAVIC sized drone at more than 300 feet. At 160mph the airliner is traveling at nearly 235 fps. So this drone would be visible to the pilot for less than 2 seconds if he saw it immediately as it came into view. Also, if the pilot doesn't know the size of the drone to begin with, how does he rightly discern the distance from his aircraft?

All kinds of wrong associated with this article.

 

[sar104]

We should also mention what the airpox guys / news reports didn't - that in computer modelling and practical tests drones like the Phantom Class and smaller are NOT considered as serious a threat to full size airliners such as this one, as first thought, even if there IS contact ! Notice how the UK Government has heavily redacted this report.

Do read this report as well, about the US tests, where the results were 'somewhat different' to what the UK report found, leading the drone community to believe that the British study, which was not made available in its entirety for peer review, even when requested, was conducted in such a way as to give its sponsors the result they had paid for...

You probably should read the actual ASSURE UAS collision studies on structural component damage and engine ingestion, rather than news articles about them. The results are not at all reassuring (no pun intended).

 

[gnirtS]

Just for giggles... The closure rate between the drone and the Airbus was at least 160mph. Even with great vision you really can't discern a MAVIC sized drone at more than 300 feet. At 160mph the airliner is traveling at nearly 235 fps. So this drone would be visible to the pilot for less than 2 seconds if he saw it immediately as it came into view. Also, if the pilot doesn't know the size of the drone to begin with, how does he rightly discern the distance from his aircraft?

All kinds of wrong associated with this article.

Its actually far less time than that.

The A321 was passing FL150 at the time so likely on (roughly) a 320kt IAS climb at that point. Very rough conversion to true airspeed gives 420kts. Or 700 feet per second.

So well under 3/4 of a second to see, process, identify and learn it. Didn't happen. If he did see something it was much larger than a drone. Most commonly a balloon.

What is depressing is the official airprox list ( Monthly Meeting July 2018 | UK Airprox Board ). Over half the "drone" incidents there are physically impossible for any type of consumer operated drone yet every single time the board is agreeing with the report and calling it a "drone".
There isn't a single one where they question the physics or the ID.
That seems to be the new default now - anything at all even suspect a drone did it. No questions asked.

For an official board thats a terrible position to take.

15500ft, 6000ft, 4000ft, 3500ft, 3300ft etc all listed. All very unlikely and sometimes completely impossible for consumer drones to be at.

 

[sar104]

Its actually far less time than that.

The A321 was passing FL150 at the time so likely on (roughly) a 320kt IAS climb at that point. Very rough conversion to true airspeed gives 420kts. Or 700 feet per second.

So well under 3/4 of a second to see, process, identify and learn it. Didn't happen. If he did see something it was much larger than a drone. Most commonly a balloon.

What is depressing is the official airprox list ( Monthly Meeting July 2018 | UK Airprox Board ). Over half the "drone" incidents there are physically impossible for any type of consumer operated drone yet every single time the board is agreeing with the report and calling it a "drone".
There isn't a single one where they question the physics or the ID.
That seems to be the new default now - anything at all even suspect a drone did it. No questions asked.

For an official board thats a terrible position to take.

15500ft, 6000ft, 4000ft, 3500ft, 3300ft etc all listed. All very unlikely and sometimes completely impossible for consumer drones to be at.

I agree with your comments about the issues with drones at the altitudes reported, but not about the theoretical visibility of a drone at aircraft speeds. 0.75 seconds is ample time to notice and identify an object moving with parallax against a distant background.

As a simple direct comparison, since speed and length scale linearly, consider a white, one-inch object flying past (or into) your car windshield at 50 mph. I'm pretty sure that you have easily noticed and identified insects as small as that - I certainly have.