Drone hits passenger jet

itchy said:
Drones are very lightweight and small, a plane tearing down the tarmac at 150mph is going to throw up stones, rubber debris etc the engines just eat it up.
.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a reason why any commercial airport takes any reports of anything on the runway seriously.

It doesn't take that much to damage an aircraft (they even have the lovely term "foreign object damage" to describe it), and something getting ingested by the engine at take off or landing (which is where drones are likely to be an issue) is the absolute worst time for anything to happen to the aircraft, because it's at that point that they tend to need the most power from the engines and there is the most already going on in the cockpit with the least time for the crew to react to anything.

Small bits of metal on the runway have caused all sorts of problems in the past when they've been sucked up into the engine, which is one of the reasons virtually every airport in the world has a regular routine to clear stuff off the runway, and will shut the runway down if there are reports of anything on it.


Anyone found operating a drone inside the limits of the airports airspace without permission, or in a manner that endangers aircraft should have the drones destroyed, themselves be banned from owning or operating drones and have the book thrown at them.
 
itchy said:
.
Click to expand...

Im sorry itchy but you are talking complete rubbish.

If an engine ingests a drone, even a relatively small phantom, it will cause enough damage that the engine will be shut down. It happens regularly with bird strikes. Birds like crows and pigeons, not necessarily much larger birds. You're then flying one as little as one engine. Not dangerous in itself, but what happens then if the other engine suffers a failure? Of course its unlikely, but most of the tragedies that occur are the result of a sequence of unlikely events. Also runways are kept meticulously clear of any debris. Entire teams of people are employed to do this.

I don't know why you have it in your head that turbines can just "eat it up".


At the end of the day, there is no need for it. People shouldn't be flying drones anywhere near controlled airspace.
 
Last edited:
Jokester said:
Yeah just like that Concorde...
Click to expand...

That was my thought as one of the most obvious cases, IIRC it was a small strip of titanium from a previous aircraft.

IIRC the FAA has some really quite strict rules on keeping the runways clear, including mandatory daily checks, with additional checks by staff during the day/start of shift recommended, and there are also recommendations for things like all airside vehicles be fitted with magnetic bars to pick up metal materials (and precautions to stop any stones or whatever on the underside of the vehicles reaching the airside), all staff working airside having suitable clothing or bags to pick up stuff and being trained to keep an eye open for anything (with the ability to inform the tower), and special waste bins at regular intervals.

Or to put it another way, the whole area is meant to be cleaned properly daily and virtually everyone no matter what their job might be is also meant to double as spotters and/or cleaners.
 
itchy said:
Drones are very lightweight and small, a plane tearing down the tarmac at 150mph is going to throw up stones, rubber debris etc the engines just eat it up.

Its just a scare story as usual.

Drones are not made of iron, even the batteries weigh nothing so the is no density to any part of a drone.

Now if it was a big drone as in the £1000+ ones yes, but a drone from argos is not going to bring down a plane.

I agree they should not be flown around airports and the retard that done it needs arresting. But to say a cheap drone can bring a plane down is ridiculous.

Same with the laser pointer thing and planes its just scare, scare.


A chicken has a higher density then a cheap drone.
Click to expand...

Rubber debris does bring down planes, look at the Concorde disaster in Paris in 2000

edit: should've refreshed the thread before I hit submit on my 20 minute old response
 
Ok I digress I did say it was stupid and wrong to fly a drone around an airport.

But the scare stories you get everyday make me sceptical. I just cannot see how a 90% plastic 10% metal drone can bring a plane down.

The cockpit windows are thick as hell you cannot smash them with a hammer and the blades of the engine are made from a crystal metal that is super hard and tough.

Like a bird strike one will do sod all but a few will damage the plane.

I just cannot see how a single cheap drone would do damage, just like a single bird does no damage.

On the concord note that was an old plane and not made from the same tech we have now.

I used to be into me planes but with a child and family I lost my passion. :(
 
You would be surprised the damage FOD can do to an engine, Yeah the rotors are made of metal, but they actually dent/chip quite often from injesting small stones etc.

The problem is that since these things spin at crazy RPM and are perfectly balanced, damaging the fan blades could throw things out of balance and it could rapidly destroy itself.
 
Pretty easy for drones to take out passenger jets by flying into the engines on the takeoff roll I imagine, I'm surprised that it hasn't been done before actually considering how long we've had RC aeroplanes. It's hard to see what can be done about it though other than some kind of radio jamming around airports.
 
Energize said:
Pretty easy for drones to take out passenger jets by flying into the engines on the takeoff roll I imagine, I'm surprised that it hasn't been done before actually considering how long we've had RC aeroplanes. It's hard to see what can be done about it though other than some kind of radio jamming around airports.
Click to expand...

RC airplanes tended to be operated by people with a lot more common sense and experience with the safety aspect.
Partly because they were far harder to fly than drones (little or no assistance with stability), tended to need more room to get off the ground, and were usually far more expensive.
So you tended to end up learning how to fly them at a club where safety would have been a high priorit and drilled into you.

I remember when I was younger and I wanted one, the RC alone cost something like £150 for a basic set, the engine £50-100+, then the actual airframe and that was 20+ years ago
 
The problem with drones is they are too damn easy to fly.
Takes all the skill out of model flying and means even idiots can fly dangerous little models anywhere they please :(
This is coming from a long tme RC fixed wing pilot (also dabbled in heli).

Sure it's brought new life into the hobby, but unfortunately it's not always the kind of people we want :(
 
Its not just about the engines tho, maybe the drone hits the wheels and jams it mid way, or startles the captain or ruptures the fuel tank, or smashes the tail or....


They need some sort of radio frequency blocker 2 miles around the airport to stop the drones
 
Last edited:
itchy said:
....[/youtube]

See what am getting at, they hard as hell. ;)
Click to expand...

Not exactly.

The force of the impact on an aircraft depends on the weight of the animal and the speed difference and direction at the impact. The energy of the impact increases with the square of the speed difference. Hence a low-speed impact of a small bird on a car windshield causes relatively little damage. High speed impacts, as with jet aircraft, can cause considerable damage and even catastrophic failure to the vehicle. The energy of a 5 kg (11 lb) bird moving at a relative velocity of 275 km/h (171 mph) approximately equals the energy of a 100 kg (220 lb) weight dropped from a height of 15 metres (49 ft).[9] However, according to the FAA only 15% of strikes (ICAO 11%) actually result in damage to the aircraft.[citation needed]

Bird strikes can damage vehicle components, or injure passengers. Flocks of birds are especially dangerous, and can lead to multiple strikes, and damage. Depending on the damage, aircraft at low altitudes or during take off and landing often cannot recover in time, and thus crash, as in the case of US Airways Flight 1549.

Remains of the bird, termed snarge,[10] are sent to identification centers where forensic techniques may be used to identify the species involved. These samples need to be taken carefully by trained personnel to ensure proper analysis[11] and reduce the risks of zoonoses.[12]

The Israeli Air Force has a larger than usual birdstrike risk as Israel is on a major spring and autumn long-distance bird migration route.[citation needed]

Sacramento International Airport has had more bird strikes (1,300 collisions between birds and jets between 1990 and 2007, causing an estimated $1.6 million in damage) than any other California airport. Sacramento International Airport has the most bird strikes of any airport in the west and sixth among airports in the US, according to the FAA, as it is located along the Pacific Flyway, a major bird migration path.[13][14]
Click to expand...

Wiki
 
Sorry itchy but I've over 20 years as an aeronautical engineer and I can hand on heart tell you bit's of metal from a drone will kill an engine. Now the failure will be contained (i.e. no blades flying about) but the aircraft will declare an emergency and return ASAP.

Then you've got the impact on the skin surfaces, which is like a birdstrike, only a bird is soft and squishy so it tends to splatter where as a drone is hard so there's a much bigger chance it'll punch through the thin aircraft skin no problem, which is obviously bad.

I'd say a drone hitting an aircraft it pretty much worse than hitting a single bird.

This is what happens when blade snaps, which is what a metal impact does.

 
Last edited:
itchy said:
See what am getting at, they hard as hell. ;)
Click to expand...

I just knew that was the old video you had in mind.

Do you get the point that they are designed to contain an engine failure, not to keep running afterwards? Nobody is suggesting that a bird/drone will cause an aircraft to suddenly blow up. The engine will be shut down following a strike regardless.

Refer to the video I posted above. Just imagine that the 757 had suffered a drone strike with the remaining engine, on its climb out or approach. You've then got a lot of people in a very grave situation.

Whether you personally think it is a risk or not doesn't really matter. A drone going through an aircraft engine will undoubtedly make that aircraft a much less safe place to be.
 
I call it here, a flying bomb drone will blow up a passenger plane, in or around of uk
I also think they tried it before, scary ****

couple of pounds of c4 on the drone that could shred the side of a 747

It is a really scary thought.

Also im drunk , and thunking<cia take note
 
Last edited:
Flying drones should be nowhere near airfields . full stop.


They need some sort of radio frequency blocker 5 miles around the airport to stop the drones tm
 
Last edited:
We have a guy who has the sole job of going out and shooting birds because they are a threat to the aircraft. A drone could cause serious threat to a jet.

ianh said:
Sorry itchy but I've over 20 years as an aeronautical engineer
Click to expand...

This will be completely lost on him.

There's a certain inability of some people to realise that often other people actually do know better.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom