• Lufthansa flight nearly collides with drone at 5000 feet
    35 replies, posted
[url]http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-california-drone-lufthansa-idUKKCN0WL01B[/url] [quote] The pilot of a Lufthansa passenger jumbo jet reported a drone aircraft nearly collided with the airliner on Friday on its landing approach to Los Angeles International Airport, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. The close encounter between the wide-body, four-engine Airbus A380 and the drone occurred at about 1:30 p.m. at an altitude of 5,000 feet (152 meters) [B]as the unmanned aircraft passed about 200 feet (61 meters) over the Lufthansa flight[/B] 14 miles (22.5 km) east of the airport, the FAA said. No evasive action was taken by the airline crew, and the plane, Lufthansa Flight 456, safely made its landing minutes later without further incident, according to FAA spokesman Ian Gregor. [/quote] Im not too familiar with drones and RC quad/hex/octo copters, but it must have been a pretty high end drone to be nearly a mile up I assume?
5000 feet is nuts. That indeed will not be your storebought model.
anyone know how big this drone was likely to be? Don't know much about the subject but curious what the potential damage was.
[QUOTE=meek;49962987]anyone know how big this drone was likely to be? Don't know much about the subject but curious what the potential damage was.[/QUOTE] I believe the commercial airliner would just plow through it.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;49963000]I believe the commercial airliner would just plow through it.[/QUOTE] If it went into the engine though it could be much worse. The article doesn't say whether they were taking off or landing, but if they were taking off and had a bird(drone)strike they could easily have crashed.
[quote]The article doesn't say whether they were taking off or landing[/quote] At an altitude of 5000 feet with an engine strike they would of still had plenty of altitude to make an emergency landing.
I don't care how small the drone is if the plane hit it than it'd do some damage. Especially if hit the cockpit or an engine. But we're not talking about a quad-copter or anything like this. If it was flying at that height it had to be a military drone. Nothing else it could be and they can be as big as regular planes. [t]http://defense-update.com/images/predator050506-F-0000S-002.jpg[/t] [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/RQ-4_Global_Hawk.jpg/1280px-RQ-4_Global_Hawk.jpg[/t] Collision with one of these could take down an airliner for sure.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;49963178]I don't care how small the drone is if the plane hit it than it'd do some damage. Especially if hit the cockpit or an engine. But we're not talking about a quad-copter or anything like this. If it was flying at that height it had to be a military drone. Nothing else it could be and they can be as big as regular planes. [t]http://defense-update.com/images/predator050506-F-0000S-002.jpg[/t] [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/RQ-4_Global_Hawk.jpg/1280px-RQ-4_Global_Hawk.jpg[/t] Collision with one of these could take down an airliner for sure.[/QUOTE] I didn't know that's how big military drones were. I thought there 25% the size of that.
what? a phantom 3 has a range of a few miles [editline]19th March 2016[/editline] it was definitely not a big predator drone that almost hit the plane lol
5000 feet is still feasible for high end or custom quad copters
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;49963178]I don't care how small the drone is if the plane hit it than it'd do some damage. Especially if hit the cockpit or an engine. But we're not talking about a quad-copter or anything like this. If it was flying at that height it had to be a military drone. Nothing else it could be and they can be as big as regular planes. [t]http://defense-update.com/images/predator050506-F-0000S-002.jpg[/t] [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/RQ-4_Global_Hawk.jpg/1280px-RQ-4_Global_Hawk.jpg[/t] Collision with one of these could take down an airliner for sure.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure the implication in the article was that it was a civilian drome though
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;49963206]I didn't know that's how big military drones were. I thought there 25% the size of that.[/QUOTE] I can only imagine what you thought the size of the missiles they carry were :v:
how long before the jet engine manufacturers start testing for drone strike alongside bird strike.
[QUOTE=pentium;49963123]At an altitude of 5000 feet with an engine strike they would of still had plenty of altitude to make an emergency landing.[/QUOTE] 5000 feet is extremely low for a plane. That's final approach/early climb. 5000 feet is only slightly higher than the altitude US Airways 1549 was at when they had their birdstrike and if they didn't have the Hudson River to ditch in, a lot of people would have died. And that was a significantly lighter plane. The A380 is hard to take off on a perfect day, a birdstrike on takeoff at that low an altitude would have been a disaster.
This could have easily caused millions of dollars in damage to the plane. Even the slightest dent to the outside skin of a plane necessitates a complete removal and re addition of the aeroplane skin. If it hit the engine, the cost would be $12.85 million dollars to replace the engine, excluding additional damage.
its obnoxious how defensive people get about drones.
This is why drones need regulation, some hobbyists clearly aren't responsible enough to govern themselves.
[del]But as said in previous posts we do not know if it is a military or a civilian drone, considering its height? The article is a bit vague, nowhere does it say what kind of drone specifically it was which the flight nearly collided with.[/del] Wow I did not think that through. Okay, it must be a civilian drone but to be that high that is one unusual drone, why would anybody even want it that high in the first place. But yes some more enforcement regarding these drones would be great, I would not be surprised at all if a big accident came out of this any time soon.
Pretty sure some idiot flew their phantom way over 5000ft before. It was all on the news. The motor+prop combo on the phantom are very very efficient. I won't be surprised if one flew that high.
[QUOTE=daigennki;49963981]But as said in previous posts we do not know if it is a military or a civilian drone, considering its height? The article is a bit vague, nowhere does it say what kind of drone specifically it was which the flight nearly collided with.[/QUOTE] The military isn't dumb enough to fly unmanned aircraft near an airport. And if they did do so, then they would've notified Air Traffic Control of their flightpath.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;49963178]I don't care how small the drone is if the plane hit it than it'd do some damage. Especially if hit the cockpit or an engine. But we're not talking about a quad-copter or anything like this. If it was flying at that height it had to be a military drone. Nothing else it could be and they can be as big as regular planes. [url]http://defense-update.com/images/predator050506-F-0000S-002.jpg[/url] [url]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/RQ-4_Global_Hawk.jpg/1280px-RQ-4_Global_Hawk.jpg[/url] Collision with one of these could take down an airliner for sure.[/QUOTE] Hobbyist Quadrocopters can easily fly much higher than 5000 feet. It will be hard to control them without FPV gear at some point though.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49963036]If it went into the engine though it could be much worse. The article doesn't say whether they were taking off or landing, but if they were taking off and had a bird(drone)strike they could easily have crashed.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549[/url] This is a plane that hit birds while taking off. As a result, they would have most definitely crashed. They were unable to redirect to any other airports, as they were too far, and they couldn't turn around to land back at the airport from which they took off. It was only because of the pilots quick thinking that they survived. I'd imagine that this scenario would be very possible with drones, as well. Granted, that was multiple engines out, not just one. That probably would have a pretty big difference. Which leads me to think: why don't they put metal grates around the engines to prevent it sucking up large objects? Surely there's a reason, but I'm not smart like that.
[QUOTE=BazzBerry;49964805] Which leads me to think: why don't they put metal grates around the engines to prevent it sucking up large objects? Surely there's a reason, but I'm not smart like that.[/QUOTE] Would not the thing that hit just get shredded and go into the engine anyway. I doubt a bird or quadracopter would be in one piece after hitting the plane at speed combine with the suction from the engine intake
[QUOTE=BreenIsALie;49964840]Would not the thing that hit just get shredded and go into the engine anyway. I doubt a bird or quadracopter would be in one piece after hitting the plane at speed combine with the suction from the engine intake[/QUOTE] That's true. I actually just found an article that discusses this very topic, in case anybody is interested. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/nyregion/22engines.html?_r=0[/url]
They test for bird strikes by firing frozen turkeys and chickens out of a pneumatic cannon at a spinning engine.
[QUOTE=ViralHatred;49965181]They test for bird strikes by firing frozen turkeys and chickens out of a pneumatic cannon at a spinning engine.[/QUOTE] That is entirely true but I can't get over how ridiculous and hilarious the thought of that is.
[QUOTE=AtomicSans;49963642]This is why drones need regulation, some hobbyists clearly aren't responsible enough to govern themselves.[/QUOTE] Drone hobbyists want to fly in the NAS, they're going to have to align with FAA regulation. There needs to be accountability among drone users, especially when you are sharing an already crowded airspace in metropolitan areas. [editline]19th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ViralHatred;49965181]They test for bird strikes by firing frozen turkeys and chickens out of a pneumatic cannon at a spinning engine.[/QUOTE] They test that for blade containment as required by regulation - it still destroys the engine.
[QUOTE=BazzBerry;49964805]Which leads me to think: why don't they put metal grates around the engines to prevent it sucking up large objects? Surely there's a reason, but I'm not smart like that.[/QUOTE] Although I don't know for sure in this case, this second year air eng student says the grates would be likely to disrupt airflow into the nacelle, causing it to become more turbulent. This would reduce the performance of the fan (which produces 80-90% of the thrust) and leave the engine vulnerable to stalling and surging. This is one of the disadvantages of a turbofan; large frontal area (necessitated by the fan moving a rather large mass of air, much like a propeller, increasing efficiency over moving a small mass very fast) leaves it vulnerable to FOD ingestion, which is why turbofans have by far the highest number of incidences of FOD and aircraft are sometimes specifically designed to compensate for it, for example the A380 which has no thrust reversers on #1 and #4 engines because they often overhang the unprepared grass around runways during landing.
[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;49965240]That is entirely true but I can't get over how ridiculous and hilarious the thought of that is.[/QUOTE] they do the same for windshields as well [video=youtube;lp7uLTNiGrQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp7uLTNiGrQ[/video]
This is pretty much what an engine look like if you want to put a metal grate on it and still maintain efficiency. [img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32814946/WILKES_20091116_GE_Peebles_0418.jpg[/img] That's a turbulence control structure, used to regulate the conditions of the engine intake during testing so there aren't any outlying variables during engine testing. That huge orb shape is the only way they could maintain uniform airflow into the engine.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.