Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Drone strike

Old 18th Apr 2016, 09:55
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 61
Obviously, ingesting anything other than air into an engine is not a good thing.
But the Guardian article cited earlier, claiming that bits of engine could go through the fuel tanks or the passenger cabin is nonsense - engine casings/housings are designed to contain any and all bits that might fly off the engine core?
It won't matter if it's a goose or a drone ingested, the engine will fail and the parts will be contained safely.
So, what about the chances of a bird strike versus a drone strike? I suggest that the ratio of birds in the sky to drones in the sky is way over 100,000 to 1 - maybe orders of magnitude greater. If an engine is destroyed, the smart money will go on "it's a bird".
That of course doesn't include the prospect of a deliberate 'attack' on an aircraft by drone(s).
2dPilot is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 09:58
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sussex
Age: 60
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by bloom View Post
Just a quick search online...........For $12000 (a fool and his money is soon partying) and you have a max gross of 29.9 lbs More than the average goose.

Feathers, meat and hollow bones vs metal motor, camera, and other parts?

The "no threat" argument doesn't hold up.

Quite.


A quick calculation shows that an aircraft approaching at 200mph will impact that UAV with in excess of 54kJ kinetic energy.


That is an equivalent 1 tonne car hitting the front of the aircraft at >25mph.


Now increase the energy expended if the same drone is ingested by the high speed compressor blades of the engines as well as the forward impact velocity.


It may be supposition on my part, but as an engineer with 35+ years of experience, it's really only a matter of time before a passenger plane is brought down.

Last edited by Uberteknik; 18th Apr 2016 at 10:17.
Uberteknik is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 10:05
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: The Loony Bin
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by 2dPilot View Post
Obviously, ingesting anything other than air into an engine is not a good thing.
But the Guardian article cited earlier, claiming that bits of engine could go through the fuel tanks or the passenger cabin is nonsense - engine casings/housings are designed to contain any and all bits that might fly off the engine core?
The uncontained failure on QF32 might suggest otherwise...


RHSandLovingIt is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 10:12
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 73
Posts: 2,052
Am not an engineer, but it seems reasonable to assume that containment requirements are based on predictable bird ingestion and spontaneous rotating-disc failure. Drones may not have been considered...
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 10:24
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: south wales
Age: 42
Posts: 45
As an almost NPPL(M) licence holder who also owns a drone, I really do hope the investigators / police recover the bits of the unit involved in the strike.

It'll likely have a memory card with recorded footage, and maybe even a GPS log so they'll have more clues as to who was operating the thing at the time.

The person responsible really needs to be caught and made an example of. A crippling fine & a custodial sentence might just dissuade other from similar idiocy.

Other drone hobbyists are equally outraged.

http://www.phantompilots.com/threads...t.75407/page-2

Last edited by cjm_2010; 18th Apr 2016 at 10:42.
cjm_2010 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 10:25
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 325
Bear in mind that it is not necessary to aim the drone precisely in front of the engine. The fans act as a massive suction device. Get the drone anywhere near the engine and it will do the rest.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 10:29
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 641
A quick calculation shows that an aircraft approaching at 200mph will impact that UAV with in excess of 54kJ kinetic energy.
BUT, the $12K 29lb UAV is extremely unlikely to be in the hands of a nutter at Heathrow... That kind of kit is used by the professionals...

The nutter will almost certainly have something like a DJI Phantom, which weighs 1400g - ie 3lb ish...
Nige321 is online now  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 10:35
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: australia
Age: 48
Posts: 26
The logic of some of the threat-deniers baffles me.

Because engine failures from bird strikes are usually contained, we don't need to worry about a drone with lithium batteries being ingested by an engine.
And the plane has another engine anyway...

So carry on playing with your "harmless" toys chaps
Your logic baffles me too. What's so bad about lithium (as opposed to nickel metal hydride etc)? The toys are not exactly harmless either, but those who use them know that fairly quickly. They also know how hard it is to land it within a few metres, let alone guide it into a landing airliners flight path from several nm away.........but you just keep crying that the world as we know will end.
Miles is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 10:37
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: EGMH
Posts: 207
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/file...-small-rpa.pdf


This seems relevant and is quite interesting.
susier is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 10:37
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 641
It's also worth pointing out that the sales of camera drones has dropped dramatically since Christmas. The market has saturated, those that wanted a 'drone' have bought one, and many of those are now parked in cupboards or dustbins...
Nige321 is online now  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 10:43
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: EGMH
Posts: 207
From page 19 of the above link:


5.5 Conclusions

 A mid-air collision between a commercial airliner and an UAV is most likely to result in the ingestion of the UAV into one of the engines (3 out of 4 events). Reduction or loss of engine thrust with potential debris throw must be assumed. From past experience, engine loss and uncontained engine failure can be regarded as non-catastrophic events.

 A mid-air collision at impact velocities above 200kts is predicted to result in airframe skin penetration, independent of the UAV size. The consequences of such penetration will depend on the impact location.

 During the landing approach (at or below VFE=160—180kts), a collision with a large UAV is likely to lead to skin and windshield penetration of a commercial airliner.

 A general aviation windscreen will be penetrated at cruise velocity. During approach (at or below VFE=87kts), a large UAV will penetrate the windscreen; a small UAV is likely to be deflected without penetration.

 No experimental data exist to validate the predictions of windscreen penetration by a solid object. It is recommended to commission an experimental study, impacting actual UAV parts into common windscreen materials. Until then, the results presented in this report should be treated as rough estimates.
susier is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 11:03
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
I work as an ATCO in the LTMA. We get reports of drones every week from professional pilots.

Nige321 (post 18) and rightstuffer (post 38).

You doubt the size of the UAV's encountered near major airports, or that they can reach a decent altitude...

3 separate pilots reported a lit drone, over a metre wide, at 17000' in the vicinity of Big just recently... There have been many more reported at several thousand feet.

Unlike Tourest who is blase about this; they do present a real risk. You can't have an attitude of 'the engine will be damaged but shut down safely'... we are talking about flights at a critical stage... there is a risk; it needs to be dealt with.
anotherthing is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 11:04
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 641
Quote:
Peekay4 - I think it's highley unlikley you'll find a UAV of that kind in the hands of a nutter on the approach to Heathrow...
Why not ?
Because a UAV of that size isn't really available off the shelf. It takes some knowledge and skill to assemble, set-up and fly.
It simply isn't the kind of vehicle flown by people like this.

Look on line - virtually every suspect video on YouTube is shot on a Phantom.
Take it out the box, switch it on, off you go...
Nige321 is online now  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 11:12
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,510
I would imagine the airlines, victims of this collateral damage by some negligent muppet, would wish to claim costs from them. Engine damage might not be fatal or catastrophic, but it will be cheap to fix in itself: and if there was a significant delay in px schedules etc. the cost could be significant. And there-in lies the rub; they can not identify these UFO operators because they are not registered.
Will those who are involved in model a/c flying tell us the regulations they operate under. I would assume they apply to drones as minimum.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 11:18
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 641
they can not identify these UFO operators because they are not registered.
How will registration make any difference. In this case the 'drone' doesn't appear to have been found.

Will those who are involved in model a/c flying tell us the regulations they operate under.
The vast majority of 'model a/c flying' in the UK is done under BMFA guidance, laid out in CAP 658.

Please don't confuse the law-abiding people who are BMFA members with our nutter at Heathrow. They really are two separate groups...
Nige321 is online now  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 11:30
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Originally Posted by RAT 5 View Post
I would imagine the airlines, victims of this collateral damage by some negligent muppet, would wish to claim costs from them. Engine damage might not be fatal or catastrophic, but it will be cheap to fix in itself: and if there was a significant delay in px schedules etc. the cost could be significant. And there-in lies the rub; they can not identify these UFO operators because they are not registered.
Will those who are involved in model a/c flying tell us the regulations they operate under. I would assume they apply to drones as minimum.
Drone regulations and guidance in the UK can be found here: https://www.caa.co.uk/drones/
msjh is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 11:42
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Nige321

Because a UAV of that size isn't really available off the shelf. It takes some knowledge and skill to assemble, set-up and fly.
It simply isn't the kind of vehicle flown by people like this.
I refer you to the post above that... 3 different pilots, 3 different aircraft from 2 airlines. Reported independently in quick succession. The first reckoned they missed it by about 30'. The other two saw it after the ATCO warned them of the initial encounter. All three agreed on the description of size and lights...
anotherthing is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 11:43
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by king surf View Post
What you fail to realise Tourist is that the dense Lithium battery hitting the horizontal stabiliser at 300+ knots could have disastrous consequences.
Why, exactly, is the airliner flying at 300+kts on approach?

p.s. utter tosh. The risks are to the cockpit or engines. The stabiliser will be structurally fine.

I am well aware of the risks of birdstrikes, having killed my fair share including birds that have got through the metal of my aircraft on occasion. Peril of military low level messing around.
What I don't do is get all hysterical about it.
What has this event shown us?

We all knew it would happen. It is a simple consequence of the number of drones being flown by idiots.
The only new bit of info is that in at least this case it caused no damage.
This does not in any way prove that all drone strikes will cause no damage, but it certainly does not prove that any will.....
Tourist is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 12:43
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,314
PDR
Most of them carry tiny little video cameras weighing a few tens of grammes with the structural properties of a deep-fried mars bar.
You mean the type of go-pro camera that penetrated Schumacher's helmet causing severe head injury?

You really believe that minor metallic items ingested into an engine cannot lead to FOD?

Remember an engine doesn't have to suffer a failure to lead to major risks; just engine vibration led to the Kegworth air crash due to several holes in the cheese lining up.
Ian W is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 13:41
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 63
Posts: 3
GoPro camera mounts are very rugged designed for extreme sports use amongst other things. GoPro cameras mounted on drones tend to use lightweight open frame fastenings to save weight.

The majority of drones use lightweight materials filled with expanded foam to provide rigidity where necessary.

Battery packs are not the hard metal cased variety you stick in a torch but multiple layers of plastic type materials wound into layers.

Neodymium magnets shatter into small pieces when exposed to severe shock. Motor cases are formed from relatively soft metals. Larger aircraft are preceded by a pressure shock wave that will probably break up smaller drones and spread the resulting debris over a fairly large area, if any of the debris actually manages to hit the aircraft.

A typical consumer grade drone being ingested and passing through the core of a jet engine is about as likely to cause damage as a duck of similar size and weight. So the risk is not negligible, but neither is it so high as to be a major cause of panic and poorly introduced legislation and restrictions.

Larger commercial drones fitted with high quality stabilised gimbals and expensive camera systems should only be flown and in the hands of professional operators who know the law and restrictions on flight. Anything weighing upwards of 5 Kg represents a severe hazard to any aircraft and also to people and property on the ground if things go wrong. There is certainly a case to be made for licensing and professional training of this category of UAVs.

The cheap sub 50 toys for kids are not the problem, the issue is with the 1500 upwards machines. These devices are not being flown by kids, they are being used by adults seeking an edgy video to post on YouTube without any consideration of the risks to others. These idiots need to be tracked down and dealt with using existing laws. A five year jail sentence ought to be an adequate deterrent if enforced properly.
G0ULI is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.