Drone hits British Airways plane near Heathrow [Archive]

MSOCS

17th Apr 2016, 21:55

I'd be surprised if the drone operator intended for the incident to happen but perhaps it's prudent to assume the worst until you're sure. There are LOTS of motivations that could be behind this one, perhaps some not so innocent. Thankfully, nobody appears to have been hurt so some good will come of it by giving the wider issue the publicity it so desperately needs.

Legislation exists but isn't always followed by the masses. Education is the key; i.e. getting the message out to Drone operators on the consequences of not following the CAA's rules, especially those who buy and fly without doing their homework first.

Pontius Navigator

18th Apr 2016, 07:38

I see there is call for investigation on the effect of a drone impact. Stupid knee jerk, so many variables - size, speed, accidentally or deliberate, point of impact etc etc.

Obviously large enough drone though a particular engine on a twin engine aircraft could be critical. Small drone might even be blown off before impact.

I liked the film, Dutch I think, with falcons trained to take drones down, and anti-drone missiles to catch them.

melmothtw

18th Apr 2016, 08:33

I see there is call for investigation on the effect of a drone impact. Stupid knee jerk, so many variables - size, speed, accidentally or deliberate, point of impact etc etc.

Surely that's the point - to investigate the effects of those variables. Seems prudent to me.

thunderbird7

18th Apr 2016, 09:09

Bit like the difference between frozen chickens and sparrows.... ;)

Pontius Navigator

18th Apr 2016, 09:43

Mel, in theory. In practice I suggest too many variables. May be model and select most probable and greatest risk. Narrow it down to largest common engine and select a high mass drone.

melmothtw

18th Apr 2016, 09:55

In practice I suggest too many variables.

But surely you can say that about any hazard facing commercial aviation today. For example, why test for birdstrike, given that all the variables that you highlighted for drones are just as applicable for birds (save for the deliberate collision perhaps, though not sure it will make much a difference to the ultimate outcome whether the object meant to hit the aircraft or not)?

Courtney Mil

18th Apr 2016, 11:25

AAIB are investigating the incident...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-aaib-investigating-heathrow-event

The main news outlets kept using an unusual phrase yesterday. "The polit claimed..." rather than just stating it as a certainty. IIRC, one of the reports said the aircraft was cleared for flight again, but they didn't mention any apparent damage.

GlobalNav

18th Apr 2016, 22:03

"AAIB are investigating the incident..."

So after this, drone flying shows will be tightly regulated?

Courtney Mil

18th Apr 2016, 23:04

I have no idea about that. But I suspect recommendations will be forthcoming. There have been some interesting prosecutions here in France.

West Coast

19th Apr 2016, 02:23

Small drone might even be blown off before impact.

Do you have any experience to arrive at this conclusion?

Simulation of 8 lb drone being ingested by a jet engine - DIY Drones (http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/simulation-of-8-lb-drone-being-ingested-by-a-jet-engine)

8 pounds isn't all that big.

ShotOne

19th Apr 2016, 05:50

It's still quite big compared to the ebay specials most likely to be flown by idiots. The U.S. seem to be on right lines insisting on registration which means the owner can be traced if it's involved in an accident

FantomZorbin

19th Apr 2016, 07:41

A good Matt cartoon today :E

Brian 48nav

19th Apr 2016, 08:54

PN your post no5. Birdwatching pedant here!

The bird was an Eagle, even the biggest falcons wouldn't dare take on a drone.

A neighbour of mine was gardening and someone on the adjacent common flew a drone very close to his head, 'Fair enough, perhaps he's learning to operate it ' thought he. Then it happened again, obviously deliberately, and William smashed it to pieces with his spade.The owner beat a hasty retreat when he realised from his accent that my friend is a very tough Glaswegian!

Junglydaz

19th Apr 2016, 11:09

I agree with the Americans. In my opinion, registered drones, licensed operators and restricted areas of operation are essential. If the laws are not followed, hang 'em from the yard arm.

Basil

19th Apr 2016, 13:33

flew a drone very close to his head . . William smashed it to pieces with his spade
Seems fair to me:

Toddler's eyeball sliced in half by drone propeller - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-34936739)

Tourist

19th Apr 2016, 17:54

Funny that the US insists on registered drones etc but not registered guns....

They have not really thought this through logically.

KenV

19th Apr 2016, 18:12

Drone hits British Airways plane near HeathrowSomehow, does seems extremely unlikely. More likely is "British Airways plane hits drone near Heathrow."

KenV

19th Apr 2016, 18:15

Funny that the US insists on registered drones etc but not registered guns....
They have not really thought this through logically. Speaking of logic......how is the topic of drones remotely related to guns? Some people seem to have some deep seated fixations/obsessions.

GlobalNav

19th Apr 2016, 18:22

Funny that the US insists on registered drones etc but not registered guns....
They have not really thought this through logically.

Seriously? The right to bear arms was written into our national Constitution (2nd Amendment) before most of us were born, and before most of us foresaw the emergence of aircraft, let alone drones. Too bad we didn't think that through, but you know. In any case, many jurisdictions within the US do require gun registration, just not all.

Back to drones....

Pontius Navigator

19th Apr 2016, 19:26

Do you have any experience to arrive at this conclusion?

Simulation of 8 lb drone being ingested by a jet engine - DIY Drones (http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/simulation-of-8-lb-drone-being-ingested-by-a-jet-engine)

8 pounds isn't all that big.
Fair enough, you qualified weight and impact point.

While engines suck air in a larger target is wings and fuselage.
While 8 lbs may qualify as small, many small affordable drones weigh far less. One I looked at weighs around 14 ounces

Another UK site sells large drones weighing in the order of 6 lbs. This suggests the more numerous drone will be lighter than 6 lbs. So do you test 6-8 lbs for engine ingestion or one pound drones that might be blown off.

Flap62

19th Apr 2016, 19:36

Seriously? The right to bear arms was written into our national Constitution (2nd Amendment) before most of us were born, and before most of us foresaw the emergence of aircraft, let alone drones. Too bad we didn't think that through, but you know. In any case, many jurisdictions within the US do require gun registration, just not all.

Back to drones....

Can't apologise enough for drifting off topic but once again the selctive quoting of the Constitution is not a defence. It says
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The key part being "well regulated Militia". A blanket "right to bear arms" does not exist and is not a defence for any of the numerous Sandy Points that occured and continue to occur.

Tourist

19th Apr 2016, 19:37

Speaking of logic......how is the topic of drones remotely related to guns? Some people seem to have some deep seated fixations/obsessions.
If you honestly can't see the link between regulation of drones and guns, then I worry for you.

Both involve objects flying through the air.
Both have the potential in the wrong hands to cause damage to aircraft.

Only one has any semblance of regulation in the US

GlobalNav

19th Apr 2016, 20:09

Can't apologise enough for drifting off topic but once again the selctive quoting of the Constitution is not a defence. It says

The key part being "well regulated Militia". A blanket "right to bear arms" does not exist and is not a defence for any of the numerous Sandy Points that occured and continue to occur.

Look, I won't apologize for our Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I'm sure you have a great legal mind and could settle that matter, but we already happen to have a long legal history, including many court decisions, probably right up to our Supreme Court, that have upheld the constitutional right to bear arms, regardless of militia membership. Won't do much good to debate it here, but feel free to appeal it to the Supreme Court.

Back to drones....

One connection between guns and drones in recent media accounts is that it is illegal in the US, per the FAA, to take your lawfully owned gun and use it to shoot down someone else's drone, no matter what it's doing. A few people have done it, more probably will and many more than that tempted.

Could be the last?

19th Apr 2016, 21:31

I would argue that the registration of 'drones' will not stop those that wish to use the platform maliciously, neither will it stop those that are just stupid and fly them where they shouldn't. It will, however, if any parts remain after the impact or ingestion allow a subsequent prosecution of the individual and act as a deterrent to others. With regards to the weight and impact effects, I would have thought it is the density of key parts that will do the damage to either the ac structure or engine?

Wander00

19th Apr 2016, 21:56

Just I guess more people have been killed in the US by gun accidents than drone accidents, and as to malicious shootings..............

GlobalNav

19th Apr 2016, 22:07

Just I guess more people have been killed in the US by gun accidents than drone accidents, and as to malicious shootings..............

Sure - guns have been around a lot longer than drones, so have knives, crossbows, cars and numerable diseases. And in spite of regulations and medications, they still take lives.

So what do we do, wait until 50,000 deaths can be attributed to drones? I don't think drone registration or regulation of any sort will completely stop accidents nor deliberate acts of malice. They can help control and manage it though, and help enforcement, too, if necessary, but there are no silver bullets (so to speak). For thousands of years mankind has outlawed murder, yet somehow murders still occur. So, should we just repeal all laws? A question I dare not ask Donald Trump.

David Bass

20th Apr 2016, 09:13

Tedious that this discussion could be easily hijacked by irrelevance.

The CAA notes two weight breaks in terms of the way that drone operations are regulated. They are 7kg and 20kg. At 7kg, the drone may not be flown in A, C, D or E airspace without ATC permission. (It's all here, by the way https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Aircraft/Unmanned-aircraft/Small-unmanned-aircraft/ )

Whilst illegal operators will do whatever they want to do, it might be prudent to set the lower weight limit to one that is unlikely to cause an engine shutdown, so that a legally operated drone (in the hands of someone with less-than the required amount of common sense, obviously) is much less likely to cause an IFSD through negligence.

PDR1

20th Apr 2016, 09:31

These weight breaks are the same as those for all model aeroplanes - they date back to when the ANO defined anything over 7kg (itself an update from the original "11lbs") as an aeroplane which needed to comply with BCAR23 (etc) unless it had an "exemption certificate". Essentially the current rules have no design requirements or operating limitations (other than remaining in direct visual contact and the general requirement to not endanger stuff) for the under 7kg category, requirements for failsafe devices and a 400 foot height limit for those between 7 and 20kg, and above 20kg each individual item requires design approval, construction surveillance, an agreed test-programme and a defined set of operating limits & procedures which are agreed for the particular "model" AND ITS PILOT.

NATS keep issuing incorrect information on this subject for the under 7kg category - they keep saying that this category are limited to 400 feet altitude and 500m distance, with a separation from people and stuff of 150m (I think). Most of this is just utterly wrong, because it's clear they haven't actually READ the regulation. Some of it is confusing the alternative regulations that only kickj in where the model has a camera or other electronic surveillance device - well over 99% of RC models have no cameras or surveillance devices.

it might be prudent to set the lower weight limit to one that is unlikely to cause an engine shutdown, so that a legally operated drone (in the hands of someone with less-than the required amount of common sense, obviously) is much less likely to cause an IFSD through negligence.

That might be problematic given that there are plenty of historical examples of engine shutdowns being caused by a single nut, bolt or washer weighing only a few grammes!

PDR

PDR1

20th Apr 2016, 09:42

Of course it can be difficult for a busy pilot to identify the drone they flew into, but an accurate identification will help the police track down its operator. So the CAA have produced this hand identification chart to help pilots:

http://i925.photobucket.com/albums/ad93/sir_pdr/Drone%20identification%20chart.jpg

:)

PDR

Pontius Navigator

20th Apr 2016, 12:49

PDR, the one I found, weighing less than one pound could stream live video. I would say given the money anything . . . but these can be bought at bicycle money prices, scary really.

My AD safe firing arc is 165-S-230 up to 80 deg elevation. Should I have the danger area notamed? My neighbour has a similar safety arc extended to 250 deg if mine is closed :)

PDR1

20th Apr 2016, 13:04

I have a quadcopter that can record (not stream) video. It is 40mm across, has 12mm props and weighs under 20g. Cost me £11 on the interwebs. It has lighting to allow night-VFR operation.

To date it has has a serious mid-air with the bedroom ceiling fan (requiring depot-level maintenance), air-misses with both of my dogs (turns out it CAN do a flat-out vertical climb faster than they can jump) and a threatened ASBO from my neighbour's wife (well if she WILL sunbathe nude that's her problem...).

The genie is out of the bottle.

PDR

Pontius Navigator

20th Apr 2016, 16:29

PDR, my son in law also had a potentially reportable accident caused, I think, by a rotor failure and a vertical descent into one of the crowd.

His 4 year old was unimpressed being hit on the nose.

KenV

20th Apr 2016, 16:37

The key part being "well regulated Militia". A blanket "right to bear arms" does not exist... Please allow me to repost your quote with some emphasis added:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Besides the clear wording which you conveniently ignored, the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right which has NOTHING to do with belonging to a militia.

Why do folks across an ocean who are utterly ignorant of US law persistently and obsessively try to tell us what our laws state? What is the source of your unhealthy obsession that it crops up even on a thread about drones??!!

If you honestly can't see the link between regulation of drones and guns, then I worry for you.
Both involve objects flying through the air.
Both have the potential in the wrong hands to cause damage to aircraft.OH. MY. GOODNESS. Arrows fly through the air. Baseballs fly through the air. RC aircraft fly through the air. Slingshots make rocks and lots of other "objects" fly through the air. Potato/spud guns make potatoes, small pumpkins, and other "objects" fly through the air. 2 liter bottle rockets fly through the air. Lasers make pilot blinding photons fly through the air. ALL "have the potential in the wrong hands to cause damage to aircraft." There is no more a "link" to these items and guns than there is a link to drones and guns. Please get medical attention for your unhealthy obsession with guns in America.

PDR1

20th Apr 2016, 17:20

PDR, my son in law also had a potentially reportable accident caused, I think, by a rotor failure and a vertical descent into one of the crowd.

His 4 year old was unimpressed being hit on the nose.

My larger, long-range hexcopter* suffered a low-fuel emergency whilst on a ferry flight over rough terrain due to unexpected headwinds. My better third had left the outside conservatory doors open, and while flying a positioning flight from the bedroom base to a temporary operating site in the conservatory it had to tip to nearly Vne to get past the kids playroom (where there was no viable emergency landing areas due to the amount of ground debris) to the safety of the conservatory touchdown area. Even with a priority straight-in approach to the touchdown area the low fuel lights were flashing, and a complete engine shutdown occurred about an inch from the deck.

I got called to the office for a "friendly chat" with the CP over that one...

PDR

* We're talking big-iron here - this leviathan has a ramp weight of nearly 60g, and a max VTO weight of over 80g

PDR1

20th Apr 2016, 17:27

Why do folks across an ocean who are utterly ignorant of US law persistently and obsessively try to tell us what our laws state?

Well I guess we're just anxious to avoid all the bother of revoking your independence* (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/revocation.asp) to protect your children from the increasing risk of death by gun-nut. We've really got other things we need to be doing right now, you know!

PDR

* You might notice a certain coincidental familiarity in the initials of one of the people mentioned in this history...

Tourist

20th Apr 2016, 18:16

Who cares what the law says?

It's a law.

Change it.

The British laws used to have various insane things too. (Still have a few)

We changed most of them when we grew up.

p.s. unhealthy obsessions are the ones which kill huge numbers of school children.

5aday

20th Apr 2016, 21:22

I did post a reply in this thread and it has now disappeared again.
Any ideas?

Pontius Navigator

21st Apr 2016, 18:04

I did post a reply in this thread and it has now disappeared again.
Any ideas?
Was it over 7kg?

GlobalNav

21st Apr 2016, 18:11

Who cares what the law says?

It's a law.

Change it.

No thanks, it's not a "law", actually, for us it's at a higher level than the law, its the Constitution, to which laws must conform. Actually we don't want to change it, nor do we need to.

Now, back to drones....

Nige321

21st Apr 2016, 19:20

Or back to plastic bags (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/drone-believed-to-have-hit-british-airways-flight-may-have-been/)

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfl1/v/t1.0-9/13007148_10154150935111212_5842594100169357089_n.jpg?oh=c3eb 16be35fa7de5d1473381b0057a4a&oe=57753551

Mr Goodwill said: "The reported drone strike on Sunday has not been confirmed it was actually a drone. It was the local police force that tweeted that they had a report of a drone striking an aircraft.

"And indeed the early reports of a dent in the front of the plane were not confirmed - there was no actual damage to the plane and there's indeed some speculation that it may have even been a plastic bag or something.