Confirmed drone collision with aircraft

[Flugplatz]

LAM B737 reported collision (radome) in Mozambique: (Av Herald) Incident: LAM B737 at Tete on Jan 5th 2017, collision with a drone

[electrotor]

It has yet to be established that this was a drone. Although unlikely to be the type of drone (ie plastic bag) which hit an airliner last year going into Heathrow, the exact cause is not yet known.

[scotneil]

Another potential menace to aviation- as shown by yesterday's LAM B737 collision; surely the sale of UAVs should be licensed and the owner/operator made traceable ? How long before some ISIS nutter tries to do some real harm with one of these ?

[ph-sbe]

USA Today is reporting that an LAM 737 collided with a drone on approach to Maputo.

The pictures show significant damage to the nose cone:

African airline reports drone collision with passenger jet

[KelvinD]

Was the 737 flying at 150mph sideways? If that was a drone, it must have been going at some speed and was presumably the size of a fridge!
No doubt something hit the aircraft but I don't believe it was a "drone".

[Mora34]

It was just a matter of time. God damn multicopters(if it was one), I'm sorry for all the responsible RC aircraft hobbyists.

[Herod]

If that was a drone, it must have been going at some speed and was presumably the size of a fridge!

I recall an old flight safety poster along the lines of: "E=Mc2, or one pound of bird can do an awful lot of damage."

[guadaMB]

Well, it's not CERTAIN it was a drone...
BTW, it could be useful a lot to install digital cameras somewhere at windshield area, so it could be easy to say the real reason of impacts (or the presence of other AC too)

[lomapaseo]

Was the 737 flying at 150mph sideways? If that was a drone, it must have been going at some speed and was presumably the size of a fridge!

Nose domes are typically fiber layups and behave like a trampoline when struck at those speeds. Along the way on the inbound dent local separations of layers occur and partial fractures then on the rebound more damage propagates.

No doubt what hit it has left some clues inside the cracks or against the pressure wall of the cockpit

[Fly753]

Originally Posted by KelvinD

Was the 737 flying at 150mph sideways? If that was a drone, it must have been going at some speed and was presumably the size of a fridge!
No doubt something hit the aircraft but I don't believe it was a "drone".

How can you say that? Do you know the exact damage pattern a drone strike makes?
I don't, but given the construction and material of the radome I think that it's plausible.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Herod

I recall an old flight safety poster along the lines of: "E=Mc2, or one pound of bird can do an awful lot of damage."

Well, relatively speaking.

Though I suspect you might actually be thinking of ½mv².

[Background Noise]

Originally Posted by KelvinD

Was the 737 flying at 150mph sideways? If that was a drone, it must have been going at some speed and was presumably the size of a fridge!
No doubt something hit the aircraft but I don't believe it was a "drone".

I'm not sure why you think it was going sideways - that looks like a perfectly feasible place for an object strike. And they don't have to be fridge-sized either - this is the damage caused by a small bird to a significantly thicker bit of nose section than that radome:



(Admittedly I was going a bit faster than a 737!)

[PDR1]

Originally Posted by Background Noise

I'm not sure why you think it was going sideways [...]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me - I'd be asking why there is a large area impact on the radome but no damage at all to the pitot probes or what I assume is an AoA probe immediately behind the damage. The holes on the radome aren't big enough for the offending impact object to have passed inside, and there's no way the object would have "bounced around" them. There are what appear to be slashes from a prop at the upper part of the impact zone, but that would need a metal prop to achieve (the nylon props of a multicopter wouldn't even scratch the paint) so that rules out a "drone".

I have to say that if I was just shown the photo and asked to guess the story I'd have assumed the aeroplane taxied into, or was hit by, something on the apron.

[Herod]

Though I suspect you might actually be thinking of ½mv².

I think you may be right, but I was merely quoting the poster. Either way, small objects moving quickly can do a lot of damage.

[Chronus]

Originally Posted by Herod

I recall an old flight safety poster along the lines of: "E=Mc2, or one pound of bird can do an awful lot of damage."

If E= mc2 applies to drones, why bother with expensive stuff like enriched uranium for thermonuclear war heads, an old fridge or a frozen chicken from the local supermarket will do the job just as well.

For those who are becoming dronophobic the Dept of Transport have recently published a consultation paper titled "Unlocking the UK's High Tech Economy:Consultation on the Safe Use of drones in the UK". It may be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-of-drones.pdf
So now is the time for all concerned to air views on the subject.

[aerobelly]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me - I'd be asking why there is a large area impact on the radome but no damage at all to the pitot probes or what I assume is an AoA probe immediately behind the damage.

My first thought too.

There are what appear to be slashes from a prop at the upper part of the impact zone, but that would need a metal prop to achieve (the nylon props of a multicopter wouldn't even scratch the paint) so that rules out a "drone".

And for the props to make the slashes the motors would all have to have been twisted 90degree (*exactly*) by the first impact on the nose. Otherwise there should be circular marks along each track.

Not all multirotors have plastic props, one in which I have a half share has carbon-fibre -- spinning at 7000rpm. I believe that one of those could get through a relatively thin glass-fibre radome, but three cannot touch it simultanously and leave just a straight slash. This is all in the wrong plane.

[Background Noise]

Originally Posted by PDR1

... but that would need a metal prop to achieve (the nylon props of a multicopter wouldn't even scratch the paint) so that rules out a "drone".

You might be right about alternative explanations but as for the apparent damage you don't need metal anywhere - the damage in my post was caused a small feathery thing.

And they do strange things - like smash up one part but leave other areas directly behind untouched.

[Council Van]

I have to say that if I was just shown the photo and asked to guess the story I'd have assumed the aeroplane taxied into, or was hit by, something on the apron.

Case solved, obviously the pilots lied about hitting something in the air. They actually collided with something on the ground and paid off some one with a big bribe to make the item they hit on the ground disappear.

[PDR1]

You can draw that conclusion if you wish - it's not what I said. All *I* am saying is that the damage in the photo doesn't seem consistent with the claimed cause.

[Mudman]

Originally Posted by Chronus

If E= mc2 applies to drones, why bother with expensive stuff like enriched uranium for thermonuclear war heads, an old fridge or a frozen chicken from the local supermarket will do the job just as well.

For those who are becoming dronophobic the Dept of Transport have recently published a consultation paper titled "Unlocking the UK's High Tech Economy:Consultation on the Safe Use of drones in the UK". It may be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-of-drones.pdf
So now is the time for all concerned to air views on the subject.

More likely F=MA than E=MC²