Confirmed drone collision with aircraft
LAM B737 reported collision (radome) in Mozambique: (Av Herald) Incident: LAM B737 at Tete on Jan 5th 2017, collision with a drone
|
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.
|
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 ?
|
Confirmed drone collision with aircraft
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 |
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". |
It was just a matter of time. God damn multicopters(if it was one), I'm sorry for all the responsible RC aircraft hobbyists.
|
If that was a drone, it must have been going at some speed and was presumably the size of a fridge! |
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) |
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 what hit it has left some clues inside the cracks or against the pressure wall of the cockpit |
Originally Posted by KelvinD
(Post 9632244)
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 don't, but given the construction and material of the radome I think that it's plausible. |
Originally Posted by Herod
(Post 9632273)
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."
Though I suspect you might actually be thinking of ½mv². |
Originally Posted by KelvinD
(Post 9632244)
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". http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a2...ps17jcafix.jpg (Admittedly I was going a bit faster than a 737!) :E |
Originally Posted by Background Noise
(Post 9632387)
I'm not sure why you think it was going sideways [...]
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. |
Though I suspect you might actually be thinking of ½mv². |
Originally Posted by Herod
(Post 9632273)
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."
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/upload...-of-drones.pdf So now is the time for all concerned to air views on the subject. |
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. 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". 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. |
Originally Posted by PDR1
(Post 9632400)
... 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 they do strange things - like smash up one part but leave other areas directly behind untouched. |
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. |
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.
|
Originally Posted by Chronus
(Post 9632437)
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/upload...-of-drones.pdf So now is the time for all concerned to air views on the subject. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:52. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.