Originally Posted by
wiggy
If there was impact it wasn't a non accident. The AAIB will find out soon enough.
I believe the correct definition is an "incident". ICAO Annex 13 refers:
Accident
An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which:
a) a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of
- being in the aircraft, or
- direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from the aircraft, or
- direct exposure to jet blast,
except when the injuries are from natural causes, self inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew: or
b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:
- adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and
- would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component,
except for engine failure or damage. when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories: or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tires, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin: or
c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.
Incident.
An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation.
So I repeat - this was a non-accident. It's a "knowing what you're talking about" thing. Do you do appreciate that sort of hysterical ignorance doesn't help anyone or anything one bit?
Can I ask - are you prepared to admit there's a potential problem and danger associated with a drone colliding with an aircraft in flight?
No, I'm not prepared to "admit" anything (because that has connotations of grudging disclosure). I am prepared to STATE that there is such a potential problem. But being a grown-up I also STATE that it is one of a large number of such potential problems, each of which has an associated probability of resulting in "death, serious injury and/or significant property damage" (hereto-under refereed to as "bad ****" in the interests of brevity).
I then observe than of this set of risks the risk of drone-collision has a lower probability of "bad ****" than many other risks which have no been subject to extreme regulatory controls (pilot fatigue and pilot mental stability being the obvious examples). Ergo society has ALREADY determined that further regulations or enforcement actions are not warranted to mitigate the drone-collision threat.
QED
PDR