Drone hits British Airways plane approaching Heathrow Airport - Polidicks

[quote]The British Airways flight from Geneva was hit as it approached the London airport at about 12:50 BST with 132 passengers and five crew on board. After landing, the pilot reported an object - believed to be a drone - had struck the front of the Airbus A320. Aviation police based at Heathrow have launched an investigation. Police said no arrests have been made. If confirmed, it is believed to be the first incident of its kind in the UK.[/quote] source: [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36067591[/url]

Like a robotic fly being struck by a bus. This is the future

It was only a matter of time before an event of this nature occurred. Short of regulating specific frequency bands that quad-copters and other RC aircraft operate at and jamming that specific band, there is very little (logistically) to stop this from happening again.

Why do people feel the need to be stupid? Is it really that hard to just not fly your fucking drone near an airport?

[QUOTE=Bradyns;50150209]It was only a matter of time before an event of this nature occurred. Short of regulating specific frequency bands that quad-copters and other RC aircraft operate at and jamming that specific band, there is very little (logistically) to stop this from happening again.[/QUOTE] No you can also [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/drone-hunting-eagles-can-snatch-the-devices-out-of-the-sky/]train birds to hunt them down[/url].

Oh, one of those small consumer ones hit the airplane. I was originally thinking of those big metallic drones the US uses :v:

[QUOTE=Bradyns;50150209]It was only a matter of time before an event of this nature occurred. Short of regulating specific frequency bands that quad-copters and other RC aircraft operate at and jamming that specific band, there is very little (logistically) to stop this from happening again.[/QUOTE] It isn't that big of a deal unless we reach the point where the sky is covered in drones. Just about any well engineered plane from the Cessna to the 747 is rated to handle bird strikes, it would take a really shitty pilot or a bad plane for a Phantom III to take it out.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;50150209]It was only a matter of time before an event of this nature occurred. Short of regulating specific frequency bands that quad-copters and other RC aircraft operate at and jamming that specific band, there is very little (logistically) to stop this from happening again.[/QUOTE] This is one of those limited times where I wish the government would make examples out of the people, be it ridiculously long sentences or fines costing tens of thousands of pounds. They're shitting it up for everyone else and band regulation or licensing isn't going to prevent it happening again. That and how many times have the beeb and the local media gone off about people flying around Heathrow? They've had their warning.

[QUOTE=Saxon;50150272]It isn't that big of a deal unless we reach the point where the sky is covered in drones. Just about any well engineered plane from the Cessna to the 747 is rated to handle bird strikes, it would take a really shitty pilot or a bad plane for a Phantom III to take it out.[/QUOTE] I dunno it could easily go into the turbines and do a fair bit of damage.

[QUOTE=Saxon;50150272]It isn't that big of a deal unless we reach the point where the sky is covered in drones. Just about any well engineered plane from the Cessna to the 747 is rated to handle bird strikes, it would take a really shitty pilot or a bad plane for a Phantom III to take it out.[/QUOTE] A plane can handle a birdstrike but nobody wants to have to replace a ten million dollar engine because some bloke was flying his chunk of metal where he shouldn't. Seriously, if a drone gets sucked into an engine that engine is coming off the plane when it lands I do like DJI's approach in that they've implemented geofencing but they also have an app that lets people find safe places to fly as well

Oh yeah its gonna get some time in the shop not gonna deny that But fear mongering by the BBC and people that a drone is gonna cause the next major civil aviation disaster is pretty old

[QUOTE=Saxon;50150272]It isn't that big of a deal unless we reach the point where the sky is covered in drones. Just about any well engineered plane from the Cessna to the 747 is rated to handle bird strikes, it would take a really shitty pilot or a bad plane for a Phantom III to take it out.[/QUOTE] Drones aren't birds. There's plenty of mechanical and physical differences between the two.

[QUOTE=Saxon;50150272]It isn't that big of a deal unless we reach the point where the sky is covered in drones. Just about any well engineered plane from the Cessna to the 747 is rated to handle bird strikes, it would take a really shitty pilot or a bad plane for a Phantom III to take it out.[/QUOTE] Handle is a relative term. Bird strikes will easily fuck up an engine, and depending on the size of the bird, do a decent amount of damage to the skin of the aircraft. Sure the planes not gonna spiral out of the sky(well, unless you fly into a flock of geese and burn out all the engines), but it's never a cheap repair. Now change that relatively squishy bird into a large hunk of medal, the costs will probably rocket

[QUOTE=Saxon;50150272]Just about any well engineered plane from the Cessna to the 747 is rated to handle bird strikes, it would take a really shitty pilot or a bad plane for a Phantom III to take it out.[/QUOTE] Coincidentially, since you've mentioned the Cessna. [url=http://www.elperiodico.com/es/noticias/sucesos-y-tribunales/tres-muertos-caer-madrid-una-avioneta-que-habia-salido-sabadell-5013958]Three people died in one when a bird strike literally just ripped the wing off.[/url] Large passenger jets can withstand regular bird strikes, maybe but that's because planes can generally fly even with extensive damage to the control surfaces and not because of bird proof design. The only parts tested with a chicken gun is the engine and sometimes windshields. Now this is a bird, squishy chunk of meat, covered in feathery fluff. If one hits the engine then chances are either it just bounces around and goes out the back or the passenger starts smelling burnt dinner. Lets say it hits something else, like the windshield. [url=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32814946/o-BIRD-PLANE-facebook.jpg]Not pretty[/url]. We don't have thick ass windshield on unpressurized planes either so a bird hitting a cessna at 120kts is going to fuck things up real bad. Now we're talking about drones, hard plastic, big metal bits and sometimes really tough carbon fibre. Not to mention the chances for a lithium fire or even explosions from the li-po batteries. Birds don't do that. And its not our job to avoid drones, bird's maybe, but that because they're unpredictive fuckers who fly anywhere they like. Drones are flown by humans who can think and should know they're not supposed to be flying there to begin with. We're not going to initiate a go around just because some idiot's drone is there, fuck, you'd be too consumed on the landing the plane to even notice the drone to begin with.

The negligence required for this is astounding. The people flying these drones probably have absolutely no clue what they could or could not do to an aircraft; they just don't care. It's disgusting.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;50150209]It was only a matter of time before an event of this nature occurred. Short of regulating specific frequency bands that quad-copters and other RC aircraft operate at and jamming that specific band, there is very little (logistically) to stop this from happening again.[/QUOTE] That would only disrupt new commands from the remote controller. If the drone has smart software that can be told to move to and hover at a certain place in the sky then an RF jammer wont do anything to it. I can see drones with bombs or grenades on them causing problems soon

Worth noting in UK law that under the Aviation Security Act 1982 s.2 the maximum sentence that can be given out is Life. Not to say it's likely you'll see anyone receiving a sentence like that unless it turns out that they'd wired the drone to explode or something, but it's worth remembering that endangering the wellbeing of aircraft is treated very seriously. Wouldn't be surprised if I see any prison sentences being given would be pretty hefty.

[QUOTE=Demolitions2;50150204]Like a robotic fly being struck by a bus. This is the future[/QUOTE] More serious than that. If a drone strikes an engine you're going to have a bad day.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;50150209]It was only a matter of time before an event of this nature occurred. Short of regulating specific frequency bands that quad-copters and other RC aircraft operate at and jamming that specific band, there is very little (logistically) to stop this from happening again.[/QUOTE] Problem with jamming the bands they are flown at is that its 2.4GHz for control and 5.0GHz for video So you'd also be jamming wifi and bluetooth and a whole bunch of other things that run in the unregulated bands [editline]17th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Saxon;50150272]It isn't that big of a deal unless we reach the point where the sky is covered in drones. Just about any well engineered plane from the Cessna to the 747 is rated to handle bird strikes, it would take a really shitty pilot or a bad plane for a Phantom III to take it out.[/QUOTE] Unless it gets sucked into a motor, a bird would get minced, and you'd have a flameout, a drone, well, it would break apart the primary and secondary compressor, throwing the balance off, and then explosion. Whoever was flying thing thing was an absolute moron, you NEVER fly near airports, and you keep under 500 AGL everywhere else

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50152079]More serious than that. If a drone strikes an engine you're going to have a bad day.[/QUOTE] no, modern engines are built to handle sucking up gravel and rocks, the problem is that if they did have a drone getting sucked in, they are going to ground that plane and take that engine apart to make sure its safe, which will put the airline out tens of thousands a day, possibly millions if they have to take the engine off the plane

[QUOTE=Sableye;50152830]no, modern engines are built to handle sucking up gravel and rocks, the problem is that if they did have a drone getting sucked in, they are going to ground that plane and take that engine apart to make sure its safe, which will put the airline out tens of thousands a day, possibly millions if they have to take the engine off the plane[/QUOTE] Gravel and rocks are smaller then the spaces between the compressor blades. A 250 sized quad, not so much, it would destroy that engine

[QUOTE=Sableye;50152830]no, modern engines are built to handle sucking up gravel and rocks, the problem is that if they did have a drone getting sucked in, they are going to ground that plane and take that engine apart to make sure its safe, which will put the airline out tens of thousands a day, possibly millions if they have to take the engine off the plane[/QUOTE] They're built to handle runway debris, yes. But that's because they're tiny and it just bounces around the engine before going out the back. But we're talking about 1'x1' (or more) drones here, not to mention on them you'd have at least 4 metal motors, a camera and a li-po battery. Best case scenario, its a Phantom, blades hit the plastic bits, drone gets smashed up, camera and motors bounce out to the back and plane lands happy. Worst case scenario, [video=vimeo;144401420]https://vimeo.com/144401420[/video] catastrophic failure. Engines are designed to handle blade detachment yes, but you're still shutting down that engine, and when that thing gets on the ground the whole plane's going in the hangar. Mind you this simulation is done by VirginiaTech and the drone tested is 3 times larger than the phantom. But you know, not everyone flies the phantom like how the media generalises.

[QUOTE=adam1172;50153004]They're built to handle runway debris, yes. But that's because they're tiny and it just bounces around the engine before going out the back. But we're talking about 1'x1' (or more) drones here, not to mention on them you'd have at least 4 metal motors, a camera and a li-po battery. Best case scenario, its a Phantom, blades hit the plastic bits, drone gets smashed up, camera and motors bounce out to the back and plane lands happy. Worst case scenario, [video=vimeo;144401420]https://vimeo.com/144401420[/video] catastrophic failure. Engines are designed to handle blade detachment yes, but you're still shutting down that engine, and when that thing gets on the ground the whole plane's going in the hangar. Mind you this simulation is done by VirginiaTech and the drone tested is 3 times larger than the phantom. But you know, not everyone flies the phantom like how the media generalises.[/QUOTE] It would be even worse if it managed to get into high pressure areas instead of just the low bypass

[QUOTE=pentium;50150279]This is one of those limited times where I wish the government would make examples out of the people, be it ridiculously long sentences or fines costing tens of thousands of pounds. They're shitting it up for everyone else and band regulation or licensing isn't going to prevent it happening again. That and how many times have the beeb and the local media gone off about people flying around Heathrow? They've had their warning.[/QUOTE] "making an example" is effectively admitting that you are not treating an individual fairly. You are punishing them for the actions of others. Any judge that makes an example of anyone needs to be fired immediately. It is an unacceptable abuse of the legal system.

[QUOTE=Sableye;50152830]no, modern engines are built to handle sucking up gravel and rocks, the problem is that if they did have a drone getting sucked in, they are going to ground that plane and take that engine apart to make sure its safe, which will put the airline out tens of thousands a day, possibly millions if they have to take the engine off the plane[/QUOTE] No, engines are not built to withstand a drone. This is not gravel and rocks. This is 5-10, 20 pounds of plastic and metal being sucked into the engine in one piece. They are not rated for that. The only thing they're built for with those type objects is blade containment, but that still completely destroys the engine.

Why can't they just put some sort of mesh grille in front of the engine intake? I'm sure there's some kind of engineering that can be done that could prevent large things from being sucked into the turbine.

[QUOTE=SashaWolf;50154563]Why can't they just put some sort of mesh grille in front of the engine intake? I'm sure there's some kind of engineering that can be done that could prevent large things from being sucked into the turbine.[/QUOTE] That would be a restriction on the airflow to the engine, which is mildly important to keeping a flying metal tube with 300 people in the air. Not to mention, it would be prone to blockages, thus amplifying my first point.

[QUOTE=SashaWolf;50154563]Why can't they just put some sort of mesh grille in front of the engine intake? I'm sure there's some kind of engineering that can be done that could prevent large things from being sucked into the turbine.[/QUOTE] We can't make grills thick enough to stop things from coming in without it being unnecessarily heavy, any grill would just rip apart upon impact and get sucked into the engine causing more damage. Then there's also airflow restriction, the engine doesn't suck air directly in front of it, there is a [url=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32814946/figure4-5.gif]conical area of effect[/url] in front that must be kept clear at all times. Basically to put a grill in front and still keep the engine optimal is if the grills look like this, [t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32814946/WILKES_20091116_GE_Peebles_0418.jpg[/t] IIRC the Germans tested these pods on their jet engines in WW2 but eventually dumped it because its completely useless.

Well I guess that answers that :v

[QUOTE=GunFox;50154141]"making an example" is effectively admitting that you are not treating an individual fairly. You are punishing them for the actions of others. Any judge that makes an example of anyone needs to be fired immediately. It is an unacceptable abuse of the legal system.[/QUOTE] The current system is not working. People are simply not listening or caring enough to be compliant. At that point you can either go full-nazi and make the regulations so bullshit it's just not worth the effort anymore or publically fuck a few people over to demonstrate that while you are given a large amount of freedom on where you can fly, do not think that it gives you the right to ignore whatever rules are currently in place.