Confirmed drone collision with aircraft
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...
Major buckle damage on the right side of nose cone which has popped out again.
Looks consistent with a small drone strike to me...
Gender Faculty Specialist
What LAM actually said
Quite so.
No reference anywhere to a drone.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Major buckle damage on the right side of nose cone which has popped out again.Looks consistent with a small drone strike to me...
Drones
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 !
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 !
Last edited by El Grifo; 7th Jan 2017 at 08:43.
If anything can be said at this juncture then "confirmed" in the title of this thread is highly misleading.
Gender Faculty Specialist
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".
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".
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
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
Fexibleresponse wrote
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. "
“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...”
Major buckle damage on the right side of nose cone which has popped out again.
Looks consistent with a small drone strike to me...”
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. "
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Qwerty
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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. 