Who is more familiar in the environment...certificated airplane pilots with years of training and hundreds to thousands of hours of flight time, or some hobbyist who thinks a drone makes them an aviator?
Yet another bad news story for our hobby
- Thread starter Davidwh
- Start date
Who is more familiar in the environment...certificated airplane pilots with years of training and hundreds to thousands of hours of flight time, or some hobbyist who thinks a drone makes them an aviator?
If a Captain (UK) of a commercial operator decides to file an air miss report you have fill out many items (such as such as heading of the intruder, altitude) for the report, including a brief narrative.
It would be interesting to see if a report was filed, other than a call to ATC.
Lastly, I believe that a drone could cause extensive damage to an aircraft if the relative speeds were added at the collision point or where the collision may occur.. Drones can be ingested down the engine intake or could damage leading edge slats/flaps or cause fuselage damage. Don't forget there are several pitot probes and static ports used to measure airspeed and barometric altitude. The sensed static pressure and airspeed are fed to ADC's (Air data computers) for the distribution of this information to autopilots and other sources used by the aircraft. If these tubes were damaged,then incorrect data would be fed to the appropriate systems (bent pitot tubes for example).
The media at best has no clue on what goes on in the aviation world considering the amount of training, checking and knowledge required to hold aircraft type ratings!
It would be interesting to see if a report was filed, other than a call to ATC.
Lastly, I believe that a drone could cause extensive damage to an aircraft if the relative speeds were added at the collision point or where the collision may occur.. Drones can be ingested down the engine intake or could damage leading edge slats/flaps or cause fuselage damage. Don't forget there are several pitot probes and static ports used to measure airspeed and barometric altitude. The sensed static pressure and airspeed are fed to ADC's (Air data computers) for the distribution of this information to autopilots and other sources used by the aircraft. If these tubes were damaged,then incorrect data would be fed to the appropriate systems (bent pitot tubes for example).
The media at best has no clue on what goes on in the aviation world considering the amount of training, checking and knowledge required to hold aircraft type ratings!
Stated that stupid or illegal behaviours must be be avoided, if a big airplane is seriously damaged each time is hit by an object whose weight is 0.7Kg (a duck weights double), there should be a documented (and long time story) of plane accidents, caused by "single" birds... and not only by bird flocks.
Rick
Well-Known Member
Why?
A bird isn't made out of metal parts and it doesn't run off a battery. I would imagine a 0.7kg bird is going to do me a lot less damage at speed than a lump of metal, plastic and lithium of a similar weight and combined collision speed. I don't understand why people can't/don't want to understand that any relatively small metal object striking an aircraft poses little or no risk when that closing speed could be anything between 200 and 400mph.
Making comparisons of flesh and feathers with mineral objects doesn't equate.
In the UK it is a MOR (mandatory occurrence report) for certain types of incidents/accidents.
Bird strikes are indeed tracked (if a report is filed) such that London Heathrow will bag, tag and identify the bird(s) in question. Of course there are also "bird scaring" activity at the ground level.
To date, I cant think of a documented accident due to a bird strike but having had many strikes in my career I have seen first hand the damage birds can do to a aircraft.
Are you a professional pilot?
I get so tired of these really silly opinions that have absolutely no factual background.
It doesn't take "serious damage," to take an airplane out of service, incurring huge time consuming and expensive repairs, and massive passenger inconvenience and expense. Any dent must be fixed.
Second, this nonsense about birds/ducks/whatever is just that.
Birds and others that share the airspace have pretty good avoidance skills. In over 40 years of flying everything from fighters to the 777, I have had exactly three bird strikes.
The single greatest threat to increased drone regulations is people stating that they can't hurt anything or their illegal intrusions don't matter, and thus alienating all of the other manned aircraft, certified folks that occupy airspace.
Let'say that I've been professional in aerospace industry... and this, ends my comments here and forever.
I' have a bigger one than you, it's not exactly my favourite game. Moreover, I've seen enough "springs" to know when a conversation it's a waste of time and efforts.
I' have a bigger one than you, it's not exactly my favourite game. Moreover, I've seen enough "springs" to know when a conversation it's a waste of time and efforts.
rydfree
Well-Known Member
Welcome to the world of Fake news when the media has an agenda to promote . Gun owners have had to endure this for decades as everything is a fully automatic assault rifle that can fire 3000 rds per second . The average person that is not well versed in your hobby has no idea otherwise and eats it up . With that being said , a drone is metal and battery , and "soft" birds certainly do lots of damage and have even decapitated pilots when they broke through the windscreens. Not all incidents are due to being injested into the engine .Anyone that discounts that a Mavic can bring down a airliner has no clue or is just an arrogant idiot . Be safe and fight back with the truth .
plane bird strike - Google Search
helicopter bird strike - Google Search
Engine test on the ground are nice and all but real life experiences in flight don't always match up to the results .
Last edited:
Stuart Wood
Well-Known Member
Only three bird strikes in 40 years, and there are a lot more birds than drones! Would seem probability very low and then given engine performance tests lowers risk even more. I am not advocating unrestricted UAV operation but context is important.
Stuart Wood
Well-Known Member
Context is important, and so is knowledge.
Birds don't want to die and have centuries of evolution that have enabled them to avoid large, noisy, easy to see airplanes.
I mentioned three strikes, I have had hundreds of near misses where the bird(s) extricated themselves rather than dying.
Drones have none of those skills or senses, but have heavy metal parts that would cause damage to the point of an out of service borescope, or possibly much worse.
Johnmcl7
Well-Known Member
Where are the proof and pictures? The only pictures I've seen from this recent incident are those taking by passengers of a delayed plane but they're just a shot out the window, it's not of the offending drone.
Stuart Wood
Well-Known Member
Don't get me wrong, I am not doubting damage , just looking at the likelihood of it happening and then the safety measures built into the a/c that could then result in a loss. Quick web search shows that airframes are designed to take a 4lb impact while tail sections 8lbs. See this link https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...an.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHyTM5Cl9CYF52pWCeQkNybEXyAiQ
I give up.
Clearly there is no understanding on this site of what would happen if one of these things hits an airplane.
Ignorance is bliss, but it doesn't address the down time and schedule disruption and expense when one of these things is taken out of service, which it would be on any impact.
Stuart Wood
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone denies that there would be damage and disruption. I thought the discussion was around the ability of a UAV strike to bring a large commercial aircraft down? The attached is fact based (NTSB), not just an opinion, backed up by a bunch of other data point points. As of yet (thankfully) we do not have any evidence of a UAV strike to compare it to so I believe you are as "ignorant" as the rest of us on the subject.
Rick
Well-Known Member
The discussion Stuart is in the title "Another bad news story for our hobby", irrespective of whether this incident was a drone incursion that caused the disruption at Gatwick. It's been reported as a drone striking an aircraft: this has a greater potential to damage an aircraft than a bird strike. You asked which is heavier, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers? That is a meaningless question. Had you asked which is denser, then it would have more relevance.
... a Turbo prop airliner reported sighting and passing close by a drone at 5,500' on downwind for 34R at Sydney a couple days ago. As I understand it, it was sighted 3 or 4 m offshore in a strong offshore westerly breeze.
Could not help wondering if some clown was trying his new found freedoms. Good thing is it was highly likely to have blown away.
Could not help wondering if some clown was trying his new found freedoms. Good thing is it was highly likely to have blown away.
Stuart Wood
Well-Known Member
The premise of the thread changed about post #19. The question about the weight was moot, depends on the strength (resistance) of the surface area it impacts on. Airframes are tested to withstand certain impacts at cruising speeds, see link in earlier post.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
Forum statistics
