You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
This was only a matter of time but a BA flight from Geneva landing at Heathrow struck a drone. I wonder if we will have to have an aircraft brought down with inevitable fatalities before something get's done about this.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36067591 ]BBC[/url]
In the USA all drones over 250grams need to be registered. It came in at the end of last year..
Not that it will make any difference if a drone is ingested as there won't be enough left to identify...
What is it with people? Drones. Lasers. What do they have in their heads?
It is not quite the droneopolypse that we have been promised is it - plane hits drone, headline writers only mildy inconvenienced. We were told that a drone-strike would knock a plane out of the sky in a fiery ball of flames.
They shouldn't be allowed near airports and having a register of drones above a certain weight sounds like a good idea, but the danger of them has been over hyped.
I'd not like to see the damage a load of aluminium and carbon fibre makes when it goes through an engine.
Probably a similar amount of damage to a bird?
e danger of them has been over hyped.
How do you come to that conclusion?
A hit on a different part of an plane, or a different size drone or at a different moment could have very different consequences.
Dunno. Though i'm not sure there is that much carbon fibre or aluminium in a bird.Probably a similar amount of damage to a bird?
Sure someone will chuck a drone through an engine soon, so we can all find out.
but the danger of them has been over hyped.
Really ? One has just hit an aircraft. We can not control where birds fly, however we can stop d!k heads flying devices deliberately near aircraft.
What reason would anyone have for flying a drone on the flight path to an airport ? If they did have a legitimate reason they should have told the CAA and asked for the aircraft flights to be suspended while they carried out whatever highly important drone flying they needed to do.
IMO if found they should be done for attempted murder.
It was only a matter of time before it happened.
I'm no expert but I'd imagine that one of the drones going through an engine when an aircraft is taking off could have the potential to turn messy.
From reading something about it yesterday the bloke from the BA pilots union was saying that when they did some computer modelling for a drone hitting an aircraft windscreen it showed it penetrating the screen which isn't a good thing. They were also concerned about the potential for an uncontained engine failure.
They won't cause an uncontained engine failure. Engines are designed to ingest things and fail in a safe way (sometimes they don't fail at all) - i.e. without bits of engine flying through the passenger cabin taking out passengers. Birds are ingested into engines every week and nothing more than an engine inspection and replacement of a few fan blades is required. However though it might not cause a plane to crash it will probably cause a plane to have to turn around and land again (if taking off) and a bunch of people getting really P'd off for missing part of their holidays or important business meetings, who will probably claim £400 each off the airline due to some silly EU directive, and cost the airline a few million quid in engine and aircraft repairs.
The biggest risk is that they hit an aircraft, nobody notices, any damage caused propagates through the flight and causes a much more potentially serious situation further down the line at cruising altitude. I still don't think it is a big enough risk to cause a crash, but we don't want to be taking any risks.
Drones are small, lightweight and made of flimsy materials so the amount of damage they can make on their own is probably limited. However the terrorist risk is probably the greatest concern - a drone hovering in the or take off area with a bomb strapped to it could be more of a concern, turning the fuel tanks of the aircraft into the bomb with the drone being the detonator.
the danger of them has been over hyped.
Too right. I'd not bother doing anything about it until one actually takes down a plane.
Dunno. Though i'm not sure there is that much carbon fibre or aluminium in a bird.
Or as much easy to chop up lightweight plastic in a bird.
To be clear - people flying drones near an airport should have their thumbs confiscated, but given the size of most drones and the fact that planes are designed to survive hitting things like ducks and geese, I think that the dangers are being overstated at the moment.
Just said on radio 4 that no research has been done, however they did say it is the battery that can basically act like a bullet.
Are some people above offering to take part in the trials to see how little damage is caused? I'm sure they can get the aircraft to land on auto pilot and you just sit their and feed back 🙄
If they're able to block/jam phone signals are they able to block/jam the signals used for drones near airports? Combined with registered over a certain weight, and proper sentencing if caught as deterrents?
Tbh I wouldn't want a drone coming down on my head in a park etc. Hopefully drones are kept to a certain weight/dimensions? Then I could see issues with airports.
Firstly, can we stop calling them drones? They're radio-controlled toys - especially, I'm guessing, the ones used by idiots to fly near airports. It won't be a £6k Droidworks hexacopter that the aircraft hit, it'll have been a £200 thing from Argos.
And there's the irony - just as people start frothing about the dangers of them, they're getting much smaller and lighter. The Mikrokopter I've got in the shop is a 1hp monster capable of lifting a 2kg camera, and it's now outdated by much smaller lighter craft, because HD cameras have become much smaller.
Idiots will be idiots - there should, of course, be penalties for doing silly things near flight paths, but I don't know where you'd start trying to register all radio-controlled toys.
Tbh I wouldn't want a drone coming down on my head in a park etc. Hopefully drones are kept to a certain weight/dimensions?
There are already laws regarding commercial use (which is where most of the bigger ones are used anyway).
But dem rulz int being stuck too iz day, uvver wyze dis drone wouldn't av it a plane innit.
Now, I'm off to walk the Staffy and slug another Stella.
As above stupid people doing stupid things, who will spoil things for the rest of us.
I'd happily register mine with whoever needs to know.
I've been looking at getting a Phantom, and reading the forums / watching youtube videos the lack of common sense surrounding the use of these is 'toys' is scary. It actually puts me off buying one, partly as there must be a lot of people with negative attitudes to them, and partly as strict regulation is only a matter of time. I had no idea what people were doing with them....it is bonkers at the moment.
Why do you need a drone?
Now, I'm off to walk the Staffy and slug another Stella.
You've been to Feltham then...
They won't cause an uncontained engine failure. Engines are designed to ingest things and fail in a safe way
And sometimes they don't.
Why do you need a drone?
Because it's fun.
Not really. A bird is mostly squishy water and will 'disappear' when shoved through the intake fan - the worry is that damage is done to the [very expensive] fans.Probably a similar amount of damage to a bird?
Now if you shove something non-squishy, like a camera or a battery or bits of aluminium, etc through that fan they will not 'disappear' and will be shredded and accelerated to a very high speed as it moves through the various compressor fans deep within the engine. The likelyhood of damage is much higher when an engine ingests solid material.
Remember the SS Columbia? A piece of fairly soft foam punched a 16" hole in a carbon fibre wing.
If they are able to fly near airports & not get caught,then how long before some terrorist idiot flys one with a small explosive device on it into a plate?
How did the pilots know they hit a drone? Did they see it or just find damage later?I'm curious about how much you can see from the cockpit of a large passenger jet.
Though i'm not sure there is that much carbon fibre or aluminium in a bird.
Not unless that pesky Irish supervet has his own way
how long before some terrorist idiot flys one with a small explosive device on it into a plate?
Or worse still, how long before a midget taliban flies himself into an airplane in a drone? It'll be like an cut scene from Rocketeer.
The big fear about one of these things going through an aircraft engine, are the lithium batteries they contain. Nobody will do a "test strike" as the results would be a huge exploision in the engine, and then the loss of a very expensive piece of kit. These drones are at best a nuisance and worst a very dangerous piece of kit. They need quite simply need controlling in some form or another.
If they're able to block/jam phone signals are they able to block/jam the signals used for drones near airports?
It's just the 2.4GHz ISM band so yes, and no.
Would probably take out WiFi, Bluetooth etc. too.
Heck, many cheap toy ones ARE WiFi (and are very very easy to perform a denial of service on). But most of those toy ones, if you took off at the perimeter fence, you probably couldn't fly it beyond one runway light.
In the USA all drones over 250grams need to be registered.
If the USA did one thing right in this law, they made it so that the operator is registered, and not the craft, and the operator is obliged to put his personal registration number on all aircraft over 250g.
Remember this is not just "drones", but all model aircraft which have been used for years. And RC model makers don't buy an off the shelf "drone" (well many do), but buy kits and parts, and scratch build, and mix and match when they break.
If I really had to register, I would. But then the other good thing about that US law is it has driven innovation to make more and more efficient sub-250g "drones" suitable for FPV drone racing. But then those guys, and those of us that are BMFA (etc.) members aren't the problem. They're the ones having safety codes, laws (even being involved in that lawmaking), insurance,...
Oh and for my other hobby, flying rockets, we fly AT an airfield. An active one at that. Rockets going 10,000ft beside a gliding runway, and a separate runway and landing zone for parachute jumping.
They won't cause an uncontained engine failure. Engines are designed to ingest things and fail in a safe wayAnd sometimes they don't.
+1. BA2267 (Las Vegas fire) had the HP compressor breach the engine case. That is not supposed to happen!
It is illegal to fly close to airports, it just needs much better policing. There have been plenty of reports of drones near aircraft on take-off and approach - up to 4,000ft!
As Andy says, rules are fine, but if you really want to hit a plane with a drone you will always find a way.
However though it might not cause a plane to crash it will probably cause a plane to have to turn around and land again (if taking off) and a bunch of people getting really P'd off for missing part of their holidays or important business meetings, who will probably claim £400 each off the airline due to some silly EU directive, and cost the airline a few million quid in engine and aircraft repairs.
A case for registration and public liability insurance perhaps?
andy8442 - MemberThe big fear about one of these things going through an aircraft engine, are the lithium batteries they contain. Nobody will do a "test strike" as the results would be a huge exploision in the engine,
Probably not- the batteries in a drone are small, even in perfect conditions you wouldn't get much of an explosion. You'd not want to be holding it in your hand but if it blew up a couple of feet away, you'd just get a bit of a surprise. (and a small, hard to put out fire). But in a plane strike I'd expect the battery to be basically destroyed and knocked apart at first impact rather than exploding/burning up as one. In terms of forces the energy release from the battery's going to be way less than the collision forces.
But test strikes is exactly what they do, to test engines.
Not to say drones can't be dangerous, just on the specifics here.
Why do you need a drone?
This. Times a gazillion.
People are strange.
Real RC model flying guys will be BMFA members, and have several million GBP of insurance.
But, they won't be the ones flying near LHR.
Even if the Plane doesnt come down, bird strikes damage engines and engines aren't cheap.
> Why do you need a drone?This. Times a gazillion.
People are strange.
A very odd line of debate in a forum for grown-ups who like to ride expensive mechanical toys around muddy woods.
Drones are fun - no other justification is required.
[quote=SaxonRider spake unto the masses, saying]Why do you need a drone?
This. Times a gazillion.
People are strange.
You don't. Nor do you need a bike.
I want one of those little xwings tbh! But in years past it'd have been a toy remote controlled plane and nobody worried, now it's a drone...
In the past you'd have needed expertise to build and fly - now anybody can pick one up for £50 in cash converters and they fly themselves
True, in the past it was pretty difficult to fly model aircraft, whereas [i]some[/i] "drones" can auto-stabilise, auto-hover, auto-follow GPS routes and even land autonomously.
Even at the sub-£30 toy end of the market the technology is trickling down.
They won't cause an uncontained engine failure. Engines are designed to ingest things and fail in a safe way (sometimes they don't fail at all) - i.e. without bits of engine flying through the passenger cabin taking out passengers
A lot of it is down to chance to be honest. I've seen an uncontained failure on an engine caused by a bird stike, you wouldn't have believed a bird could have caused such damage, caused an uncontained failure (it was Air India IIRC)
However, I have also witnessed first hand a 14.4v Makita drill driver going through an engine and causing very little damage, which was because the thing was ingested through the fan blades only, and exited the by pass. Had it gone through the Compressor and into the turbine, would have been a different story indeed.
Konagirl - BA2267 was due to a manufacturing defect - not FOD. Similarly QF32 was. FOD ingestion will not cause engines to 'blow up'. The only instance I can think of where ingestion caused a passenger plane to come down was the Hudson River event and even then I don't understand why at least one engine did not survive - to pass certification engines have to demonstrate they can ingest multiple birds and continue to generate full thrust for 5 minutes, so I guess in that case there was just way too many birds for the engines to cope with - so a pretty freak incident, considering bird strikes and FOD is pretty much a daily occurance somewhere in the world.
I'm just trying to put things into context and not suggesting that we don't have to be vigilant and do what we can to prevent these things and stop people flying drones into airports. But aircraft and engines are pretty robust and by design have a certain inherent tolerance to things like this.
Birds can mess up aircraft.
I'm perfectly prepared to believe that "drones" can too.
A ban on flying them near airports seems perfectly reasonable.
A ban on flying them at all would be extremely disproportionate.
aracer - MemberIn the past you'd have needed expertise to build and fly
Not really, you've been able to buy rtf planes and helicopters for years and people have been crashing them and using them irresponsibly all that time. They're just getting cheap enough to be disposable/impulse buys for more people.
Birds, I imagine, have a natural survival instinct to keep away from an aircraft. Drones are being deliberately flown very near to aircraft. No doubt this is a major headache for police and CAA, there must be a huge area you can fly drones from along the take off and landing approach.
@Northwind I used to fly rc planes amd gliders and id say drones are mich more straightforward (somaccessible to idiots, cheaper too) and have gps inside so they can be accurately positioned on a flight path
wobbliscott I completely agree. The air industry is very good at testing thoroughly and learning from events by being completely transparent. I was just trying to make that point that, even with very thorough testing and design, things can and do still fail (i.e. we shouldn't be complacent).
you've been able to buy rtf planes and helicopters for years
Sure, I bought my first helicopter about 10 years ago, but that still required a lot of skill to fly - planes at the time not much less. It's only very recently the level of skills required has dropped significantly
I've thought about a drone but realised it would be boring
Birds, I imagine, have a natural survival instinct to keep away from an aircraft.
They probably do, but see the video above.
I imagine that, regardless of self-preservation instinct, it can still be tricky to avoid a massive jet approaching at 560mph+
gps inside so they can be accurately positioned on a flight path
main use of GPS is not to make it fly a predetermined course, although I'm sure you could do exactly that if you really wanted
GPS typically lets you either go hands-off, and it can hold itself in a fixed location, or as a return to home (that's how and where you can pwn the cheap wifi ones! 😈 ), or to define a GPS fence (so that if you try to fly an RC craft beyond a particular area, it will turn round, which is handy for fixed wing, where default hands-off would be to continue flying neutral).
I thought that DJI were beginning to put exclusion zones in their firmware so that airports are fenced off via GPS, but maybe that only covers US off the shelf models?
Race "drones" won't have GPS. Toys may or may not, but if they do, it's probably only for the hold and return home features.
No doubt a drone could cause some damage to a plane, but some of the birds in the vid above were biiiiig and solid!
Passenger planes only reach speeds of 500mph+ many miles above the surface of the earth - so not a big threat of a high speed impact. Military jets have a habit of flying very fast very low though - so there would be an opportunity for disaster.
Bottom line - given enough incidences, eventually all the holes in the cheese will line up and a "perfect storm" of aviation disaster will occur.
main use of GPS is not to make it fly a predetermined course, although I'm sure you could do exactly that if you really wanted
Yep - Phantom have the "Ground Control" app where you can plot a route using GPS waypoints and then just press a button for the drone to take off autonomously, follow that route, then return to base and land.
Watch this from about 22:25
Wonder what the effect of spraying a smashed lithium polymer battery all over the inside of a superheated jet engine are.
AFAIK the flame front is at about 2000 degrees and some of the surface temps of the metals are knocking on for 800-900 degrees.
You'd also have the combustion products of the CF and the molten aluminium/copper from the circuit boards to contend with.
I'd not fancy it, toy or otherwise.
how long before some terrorist idiot flys one with a small explosive device on it into a plate?
Registering drones won't prevent this, though, unless they're very law-abiding terrorists.
DJI have software in place that restricts where you can fly, but due to many owners complaining you can turn it off. I have a quadrotor and would fully support some form of registration.
I also think someone (CAA,police?) need to start looking on youtube a bit more. Many videos posted there are against the current safe practices as laid out by the CAA. There's always someone who's seen a video and tried to copy it. You can be sure someone, right now, is thinking how cool it would be to video a jet landing at Heathrow.
I don't understand how anyone can be taking the the viewpoint of "well a bird might hit a plane and we're ok with that, so why the issues with drones / quads (or whatever your preferred nomenclature is!)?
Personally if I'm in a plane I'd prefer if nothing hit it, especially something controlled by another human being. Simple point being that it might cause a plane to come down, even a 0.0000000000001% risk is too much, and frankly any idiot flying one close to an airport should be chucked into a padded cell. Same goes for the twunts with laser pens.
A guy I used to ride with used to throw the chickens (already dead, I hasten to add) at the engines for testing bird strikes at Rolls Royce.
If anyone has a drone that they no longer need, I could pass it on...
But dem rulz int being stuck too iz day, uvver wyze dis drone wouldn't av it a plane innit.
Now, I'm off to walk the Staffy and slug another Stella.
Idk why you need the mock poor person accent, there are plenty of wire-rimmed glasses-wearing RLJers and "progress makers" on here that think rules don't apply to them
turning the fuel tanks of the aircraft into the bomb with the drone being the detonator.
I think someone doesn't understand the concept of a bomb. Fuel tanks are full of fuel, which might burn but certainly won't explode unless mixed with lots of air (or other oxidising agent) - for instance after a large crash that might smash the plane to pieces and mix the fuel and air nicely.
Considering the number of MANPADs unaccounted for from various failed regimes across the world, the risk of drone use by terrorists doesn't upset me too much.
I suspect that (whilst anyone using a drone on the flight path is an idiot and should be prosecuted) the risk posed by drones is comparatively low.
So it might not have been a drone after all. The Telegraph reports that it might have been a plastic bag.....
What damage testing is done with airliners and engines for hitting plastic bags?
Should plastic bags be licensed?
Should plastic bags be banned near airports?
Bag or not, the difference between these 'drones' and a bird is the fact that birds don't carry a lithium battery onboard.
I wouldn't like to see one on my engines ingest a lithium battery on short final.
Although damage to the aircraft is a valid point, one of the major factors of these things is their effect on the ability of the pilot to manage the aircraft.
The altitude where these glory toys are usually found is round about the altitudes where the pilots are at their most busy ie, on approach or on departure. The bloody things are a distraction at the busiest time of any flight.
From an ATC perspective it also takes away time from us. The pilot reports it to us, we copy down the details and pass them on to the relevant police authority. In the time it takes to do this, I could have given umpteen instructions to aircraft to make their flights more safe and efficient.
I truly believe there is a need for these things (survey/surveillance etc) but there has to be a register and a licence requirement for anything over a specific weight.
Birds, I imagine, have a natural survival instinct to keep away from an aircraft.
They probably do, but see the video above.I imagine that, regardless of self-preservation instinct, it can still be tricky to avoid a massive jet approaching at 560mph+
Interesting one this one - it's less clear cut than you'd think. Birds have evolved over millions of years to assume that once they're above the tree line they don't need to look where they're going (other than to avoid hills and mountains) - this was a perfectly reasonable strategy until 100 years ago or so. This is why they put big orange things on power lines etc and why lots of birds hit buildings - the birds spend their time looking at the ground.
From an ATC perspective it also takes away time from us. The pilot reports it to us, we copy down the details and pass them on to the relevant police authority. In the time it takes to do this, I could have given umpteen instructions to aircraft to make their flights more safe and efficient.
Are you ATC at Heathrow by any chance?
Notter - MemberPersonally if I'm in a plane I'd prefer if nothing hit it, especially something controlled by another human being. Simple point being that it might cause a plane to come down, even a 0.0000000000001% risk is too much, and frankly any idiot flying one close to an airport should be chucked into a padded cell. Same goes for the twunts with laser pens.
True, but there is more chance of you having an injury in a park due to irresponsible drone use than in a plane. The perceived risk of the plane is higher as its more people injured from a single accident.
Its the same as how everyone is mortified by a bus crash but dont give 2 shits about hundreds of people dying each year in cars from drivers not paying attention.
Some people fit lithium batteries onto birds so the can be tracked by GPS when the migrate.
Aviation industry likes to think it's good at testing and safety, but had effectively done buggeral testing of Volcanic Ash ingestion into engines prior to Eyjafjalljokull
Was it fitted with disc brakes?
Aviation industry likes to think it's good at testing and safety, but had effectively done buggeral testing of Volcanic Ash ingestion into engines prior to Eyjafjalljokull
That may be true, but volcanic ash is easily detectable and you can fly around it. A drone thing is not
Are you ATC at Heathrow by any chance?
As an aside ATC for Heathrow is done from Swanwick between Southampton and Portsmouth
Plastic bag is an interesting theory, do they really fly around at 5000ft ? TBH this smacks of Government trying to "reassure" plublic as they have no credible polciy responce to drones.
What if the plastic bag had a drone in it?
Unexpected plane in bagging area.
I'm not ATC at Heathrow.
Shouldn't be too hard to come up with automated lasers to sit around airport perimeters.
lots of airports have automated lasers already - they aint much good at shooting down drones though.
Maybe they should have eagles instead. The bird scarer blokes often have a bird of prey with them to chase off geese...they can train em by strapping a sausage to a DJ11
I'm not ATC at Heathrow.
Thanks for that.
Been trying to sort out another nosey around the tower when I'm at work but not having much luck so far!
molgrips - MemberShouldn't be too hard to come up with automated lasers to sit around airport perimeters.
Well given the strike was reported over Richmond Park, they better have good targeting, hopefully enough to be able to hit a wobbling toy drone and not an air ambulance or little jonnys kite 😀
5000ft? above Richmond Park?
I'd love to know what drone that is.
When we fly (much larger) rockets that high you can barely see them at that altitude. No way in hell could one do line of sight control of a drone at that distance, and I'd be surprised if any even have sufficient RF range.
From the original Beeb story I'd assumed it was within the vicinity of the perimeter fence at LHR.
There was also a story about US being able to "take control" of drones. To which my answer would be "BS". Take control, at best would be to cause a denial of service on it, to which the usual reaction would be to either cut throttle to 0, or to initiate automatic fly home.
Is it on conveyor belt?