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 (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4a319157&opt=0)

[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 (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/06/african-airline-reports-drone-collision-passenger-jet/96237622/)

[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]

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]

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. :O

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

[Background Noise]

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:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a297/stickshaker/1_zps17jcafix.jpg

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

[PDR1]

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]

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/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579562/consultation-on-the-safe-use-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]

... 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]

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/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579562/consultation-on-the-safe-use-of-drones.pdf
So now is the time for all concerned to air views on the subject.
More likely F=MA than E=MC²

suniiico7z4

[Iron Bar]

Try

KE = 1/2 M x V2

[FlexibleResponse]

Hard-edged object impact damage marks on front of nosecone.

Major buckle damage on the right side of nose cone which has popped out again.

Looks consistent with a small drone strike to me...

[MarcK]

surely the sale of UAVs should be licensed and the owner/operator made traceable in Mozambique? Which government agency would you suggest to enforce this?

[FlexibleResponse]

1/2 x 2 kg x 72 m/s squared = 5184 J

[Chesty Morgan]

?..and there's no way the object would have "bounced around" them.
Isn't there?!

Pray tell what is your experience of bird or drone strikes to the nose...

[DaveReidUK]

It has yet to be established that this was a drone.

Quite so.

A LAM – Linhas Aéreas de Moçambique, S.A. comunica que a aeronave Boeing 737-700 que ontem, dia 05 de Janeiro de 2017, realizou o voo TM 136, tendo partido de Maputo às 15:35 horas e chegado em Tete às 17:15 horas, com 80 passageiros a bordo e 06 membros da tripulação, sofreu danos do lado direito da parte frontal da fuselagem.
A ocorrência foi confirmada no acto de vistoria rotineira que a tripulação faz à aeronave depois da aterragem. Contudo, os danos foram registados, sensivelmente, no momento em que se iniciou o processo de aproximação, já com a pista àvista para a aterragem no Aeroporto de Tete.
Nesse instante, a tripulação ouviu um estrondo, o que alertou sobre a possibilidade da aeronave ter tido contacto com um organismo externo que, mesmo assim, não perturbou a realização normal do voo até à aterragem.
Devido à ocorrência foi feita uma reengenharia para a realocação de uma outra aeronave que transportou os passageiros de Tete para Maputo.
Relativamente ao Boeing 737-700 decorrem ações de substituição da parte que sofreu danos, bem como procedimentos adequados para situações do género junto da entidade reguladora.
Enquanto se procede o processo de reintegração da aeronave na operação normal, poderãoocorrer reprogramaçõesde alguns voos da companhia.No reference anywhere to a drone.

[Hot and Hi]

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:But you have feathers to show for.

Problem here is that there are no apparent paint marks or gouges to support the drone theory. I also don't know what it is, but to start by speaking about "confirmed drone collision" is suspicious while all we have are pilots reporting impact from an unknown object that was not visually acquired or identified.

[ATC Watcher]

Hard-edged object impact damage marks on front of nosecone.
Major buckle damage on the right side of nose cone which has popped out again.Looks consistent with a small drone strike to me...

or a measurement kit from a small weather balloon.

[The Ancient Geek]

A bird strike always leaves evidence in the form of blood, guts and feathers.
If it was not a bird what else was flying around ?

Drone, model aircraft, chinese lantern ?

[El Grifo]

Trained and licenced Drone flyers have loads of restrictions placed on them and are required to log all flights.
An amateur flyer can buy one at 10.00 and fly it at 11.00 without even reading the manual.
A bit topsy turvey I reckon !

[jolihokistix]

If anything can be said at this juncture then "confirmed" in the title of this thread is highly misleading.

[ImageGear]

In Mocambique the authorities do not even know who owns the planes let alone any drones. Planes get "lost" in that part of the world. :E

[Nige321]

Drone my @rse...

Try this one. (http://avherald.com/h?article=45b9d9a8)

Bird. No blood. No feathers...

[Chesty Morgan]

I didnt suggest it would be otherwise. But I am refuting your definitive statement.

My personal experience would be in the region of 27 bird strikes, whilst flying the type in question and not an irrelevant type, on several occasions at least 3 of which were on the nose yet didn't include any pitot or alpha vane damage. So there is a way they would "bounce around them".

[lomapaseo]

There is little difficulty in determining what struck this aircraft if performed by trained investigators.

Such things as paint smudges, and embedded crap as fine as a pencil eraser on a piece of paper provide all the clues necessary.

At this time i have seen nothing to conclude what struck the aircraft and await a valid finding by those trained to examine the minute parts of the damage

[helimutt]

Fexibleresponse wrote “Hard-edged object impact damage marks on front of nosecone.

Major buckle damage on the right side of nose cone which has popped out again.

Looks consistent with a small drone strike to me...”

So you’ve seen other drone strikes on aircraft then and you're an expert on drone strikes ? Please provide evidence. I'd love to see it.


Why is everyone jumping on the bull%Hit wagon whenever something strikes a plane? There have been NO confirmed drone strikes against an aircraft as yet anywhere in the world.
In Mozambique, where I have flown many times, there are a number of exceptionally large birds which tend to come into contact with aircraft.

As for those idiots saying "oh we should ban all quadcopter and drones etc" please give a valid reason why? You have more of an argument saying ban all cars because thousands of people are killed by, and in them every year. But no. No-one ever says that. The media have a lot to answer for in cases like the above where its a definite drone strike before any evidence has been shown. I'd say its more likely a large bird of Prey knowing where it happened. Not many people in Mozambique can afford drones.

I'll believe any drone strike once I see actual physical proof. Until then, the papers, and News media should really lay off the whole drone thing. Scaremongering nd trying to make nonsense news from nothing. And the sorry thing is, too many people actually believe them.


I quote someone else from elsewhere :-
"It's a shame the drone haters jump on the bandwagon with so little evidence. "

[ShotOne]

Is it possible to edit the thread title? There seems little here to back up the word "confirmed"

[BigEndBob]

Looks more like a service truck has hit it.
Someone covering up?

[Council Van]

In the region there are frequently drones weighing around about 10kg/22lbs operated for mining survey. Ground witnesses describe those drones are being operated without regard for the aerodrome and aircraft traffic.

It was mentioned that the country is poor and not many people have money enough to buy a drone, however mining companied are often very wealthy and can afford to operate drones.

[helimutt]

Mining companies operating drones is all well and good but surely a company operated drone, colliding with an aircraft, would surely have someone leak the info? As I said, until I ever see real hard evidence, i'll ignore all of the media crap thats spouted to make the news. I'm sure one day there may well be a drone strike with an aircraft one day, sods law says so. ;)

[KelvinD]

helimutt: Well said. And others "well said" too.
My original post, for which I got a bit of stick was making the point that, while something has obviously hit this nose, one has to take into account the relative trajectories and speeds of the 2 colliding bodies. The aircraft is presumably making around 150kts in one direction while the object in collision was making an unknown speed and presumably perpendicular to the aircraft. So all ideas of an aircraft "smashing" into an object at 150kts are null and void. I suspect that, if the 2 tracks were not exactly 90 degrees to each other, then the damage to the aircraft would extend further aft of the impact point, sort of "smeared" along the fuselage.
So, if the angle of incidence was at right angles, the speed of the hit would be around 25mph, hence my remark about if the aircraft was flying at 150mph sideways.
And bird strikes are not the inevitable cause of serious damage etc that some may think.
I recently observed a Cessna Citation departing an airport in England and shortly after take off the pilot called the tower and said he thinks he had hit a kestrel as he lifted off. (I had to marvel at his ability to identify a kestrel flashing by at something in excess of 100mph. I don't remember seeing a kestrel there before but I have seen kites in great profusion). Anyway, an inspection discovered a dead bird at the side of the runway and when this was reported to the pilot, he said no harm seems to have been done so he would continue to his destination.
Finally, the radome is made of resilient stuff, either carbon fibre or GRP and I think a piece of plastic hitting a curved section of GRP at perhaps 25mph is not going to do much more than scratch it.

[FlightDetent]

For one object travelling at 150 kts, to collide into another with a relative speed of 25 kts, the other one would had to be moving in a very similar direction at 125 kts in the first place, no?

[czarnajama]

In the scenario presented by KelvinD, A/C moving forward at 150 knots, the drone on a path from the right at 90 degrees to it (heading relative to path of A/C), then the relative impact velocity would be sqrt(150**2+25**2) = 152 knots, and the apparent angle of impact as seen by the A/C would be 9.5 degrees to the right, where of course it would appear to be sitting for however long it was visible from the cockpit (assuming constant motions).

[FlightDetent]

Welcome, blackhole :) Thanks for the math. So, in order for a hit at 90 deg with relative 25 kts, (which the picture rules out with absolute certainty anyhow): The iterceptor would need to be moving at 152 knots converging from the right with 9,5 deg absolute track difference. Same triangle.

But why are we discussing this? :\

[Bankstown Boy]

This thread is mostly funny and demonstrates quite clearly that neither mathematics nor logical thought have remained on the curriculum.

For all of you still struggling with the basic concept of vectors, try this simple thought process.

If the drone (or ufo, for some of you, if you prefer) was stationary and the aircraft hit it whilst travelling at 150kts, what do you think the impact velocity is?

If the drone is flying, at 25kts, in the same direction as the aircraft, travelling at 150kts; same question?

Why do many of you think that the physics changes simply because the angle of collision changes?

In a similar vein, has anyone here ever played snooker/billiards? If said drone/ufo hits an angled surface, what direction does it move next? (Conserving what remains of its momentum)

[electrotor]

Quote from 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 ?

Please provide evidence that it was a UAV.
Licensing will not prevent those who do not want to bother with such trivia. Plenty of unlicensed and uninsured drivers going about.
ISIS doesn't need to bother with going to the expense & effort of UAV flying. They steal trucks and do much more damage.

[PDR1]

In a similar vein, has anyone here ever played snooker/billiards? If said drone/ufo hits an angled surface, what direction does it move next? (Conserving what remains of its momentum)

That depends on whether it was an elastic or inelastic collision. A snooker ball canoning off another ball is an almost totally elastic collision, so the angle of reflection will equal the angle of incidence (subject to the effects of spin and the friction available to transfer it, obviously).

Whatever hit the nose of the aeroplane in the OP experienced a decidedly INelastic collision with lost of energy dissipated in damaging structures, so the direction and magnitude of the rebound, if there was one, is a matter for conjecture (based only on the information in the photograph).

I'm not sure that simple mechanics can provide any definitive guidance here.

[lomapaseo]

Having seen numerous tests of said colisons, using high speed cameras. the soft structure tampolines inward and forms a ramp in the direction of the impacting vector. As the impacting object loses velocity (energy) it simply follows the ramp outward from the surface of the nose.

If the impacted structure begins to fracture as it deflects, them the object striking, it may not completely follow the ramp effect as some of the object may be injected through the fracture.

[AAKEE]

Now avherald says that a drone collision is ruled out and that the radome was wrinkled by air flow pressure. The radome was used and not correctly installed.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4a319157&opt=0

[electrotor]

Now the haters will have to find another incident to blame on drones.

This kind of unsubstantiated crap is what we are up against.
Blames a drone, then states that the company that made the drone will work with the investigation, then states he doesn't know what hit the airliner. The final twist is how World events relate to Biblical prophesy. I do not knock believers but I do have trouble with the link to alleged drones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3hZPVdOK5U