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.

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, 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)

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

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.

Well, relatively speaking. :O

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

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/a2...ps17jcafix.jpg

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

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.

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.

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.

My first thought too.

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.

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.

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.

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.

More likely F=MA than E=MC²

Try

KE = 1/2 M x V2

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...

in Mozambique? Which government agency would you suggest to enforce this?

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

Isn't there?!

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

What LAM actually said
 

Quite so.

No reference anywhere to a drone.

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.

or a measurement kit from a small weather balloon.

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 ?

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 !

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

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

Drone my @rse...

Try this one.

Bird. No blood. No feathers...

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".

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

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. "

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

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

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.

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. ;)