Drone strike
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: australia
Age: 52
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So far there is no proof that this even was a "drone", unless you can take the word of the stressed and fatigued pilot (going by all the lovely fatigue complaints recently). Even they only said it might have been a "drone". Still, if you want to disregard the obvious difficulties of identifying something of that size and at those speeds correctly, keep overreacting. I am reminded of that recent incident involving the light twin whose pilot had "definitely" hit a drone, parading the photographs as absolute proof- only to be proven wrong. Anyhow, gives you something else to whinge about.......
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
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 09:17.
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?
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?
engine casings/housings are designed to contain any and all bits that might fly off the engine core?
A Delta jet engine blew apart and ripped into the cabin packed with holiday travelers as the plane sped down a runway Saturday, killing a mother and son and forcing the pilot to abort takeoff.
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...
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: south wales
Age: 46
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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 09:42.
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.
A quick calculation shows that an aircraft approaching at 200mph will impact that UAV with in excess of 54kJ kinetic energy.
The nutter will almost certainly have something like a DJI Phantom, which weighs 1400g - ie 3lb ish...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: australia
Age: 52
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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...
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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 ?
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 ?
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...
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Please don't confuse the law-abiding people who are BMFA members with our nutter at Heathrow. They really are two separate groups...
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige321
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...
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.
It simply isn't the kind of vehicle flown by people like this.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....