Lufthansa Close Call With Drone

kurtjeter · Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:43 am

The "other airline" site is reporting a Lufthansa RJ on approach into Warsaw, coming within 100 meters of a drone. Any details?
I fear nothing will be done about this until we're burying a few hundred someday . . . .

hOMSaR · Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:49 am

I don't have info on this incident, but I reD an article yesterday or the day before that several hobbyist drones actually prevented LA firefighters from tending to an incident by air. Fortunately, nobody died but several vehicles were destroyed because aerial firefighters weren't able to get close to the site.

IMissPiedmont · Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:54 am

Ain't was probably not a drone, more likely an R/C aircraft.

Aesma · Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:45 am

I don't see how such a drone could bring down an airliner, it should be pretty similar to a bird strike.

What will be done is that killer drones will be operated by airports and all kinds of facilities.

Web500sjc · Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:39 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 3):

A) birds have brought down planes, see the airbus in the Hudson.

B) Birds don't have metal wings or lithium ion batteries.

C) someone is controlling the drone and putting it into the position where an aircraft can hit it.

I wonder how so it will be before a certification board requires engines and windshields to go through "drone strike" tests.

Sasha · Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:52 am

Quoting Web500sjc (Reply 4):
I wonder how so it will be before a certification board requires engines and windshields to go through "drone strike" tests.

Exactly, or some countermeasures by the airliners themselves, like an EMP effect but not harmful to airliner. Instead with capability to drop down all drones within danger distance on approach.

32andBelow · Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:30 am

Quoting Web500sjc (Reply 4):
A) birds have brought down planes, see the airbus in the Hudson.

Correction a flock of birds did. Unless there is a flock of birds that are going to take out all of the engines the risk is less. Also the drone will probably just be crushed and discarded. I don't see how it's much different than an engine ingested a large piece of ice during cruise.

Mir · Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:33 am

Quoting Web500sjc (Reply 4):
I wonder how so it will be before a certification board requires engines and windshields to go through "drone strike" tests.

They already require bird strike testing. So current aircraft would pass, but that wouldn't mean that birds (and drones) couldn't do significant damage. It is impractical to make an aircraft that is absolutely impervious to damage from either of the two.

-Mir

flyDTW1992 · Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:55 am

It's not so much that the drone itself will be the sole cause of an accident...Anyone who's had formal education/training in aviation safety has likely heard of the "Swiss Cheese Model"--All it takes is a drone strike to coincide with some other vulnerability or hazard in the system for disastrous results to occur, and in my (subjective) opinion, it's only a matter of time before that happens.

Maybe there's a CRJ in low IFR conditions and a non stabilized approach, with a crew on their 4th leg of the day. A drone hits the windscreen and is ingested by an engine...That drone strike could undoubtedly become the deciding factor between a little extra stress and a note from the chief pilot or a charred wreck a quarter mile short of the runway.

A little overly dramatic? Perhaps. But I think it illustrates the point I'm trying to make.

flyDTW1992 · Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:01 am

Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 8):
t's not so much that the drone itself will be the sole cause of an accident...Anyone who's had formal education/training in aviation safety has likely heard of the "Swiss Cheese Model"

Slight correction, going back to my old notes the Swiss Cheese Model is more meant to describe human failures but is still tangentially applicable here. Not quite how I initially described it though.

RetiredWeasel · Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:28 am

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 6):
Also the drone will probably just be crushed and discarded. I don't see how it's much different than an engine ingested a large piece of ice during cruise.

Any one of these camera toting drones http://dronewarehouse.co/top-5-best-drones-with-camera would most likely inflict significant damage to the fan blades and if pieces made it to the compressor blades, even more damage.

And of course throw it at the windscreen at 250 knots tell me it they wouldn't make dent or worse. They are a danger!!

"ingesting a large piece of ice during cruise"?? I don't know where that would come from, but there is a precedence of a chunk of blue ice taking off the entire engine pod: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/05/us...nds-after-an-engine-drops-off.html

ua2162 · Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:56 am

I think this technology is great. However, it's time we regulate it.

Like HOMSaR said, this weekend they were at least partly responsible for destroyed property. It's only a matter of time before some jackass flies it into a plane under the circumstances flyDTW1992 describes. We have many other regulations that are way over the top (such as electronic devices and use of cell phones) yet something that is a true danger widely goes on ignored.

GCT64 · Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:09 am

Quoting kurtjeter (Thread starter):
I fear nothing will be done about this until we're burying a few hundred someday . . . .

My thoughts entirely, I fear you are correct.

tommy1808 · Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:23 am

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 6):
Correction a flock of birds did. Unless there is a flock of birds that are going to take out all of the engines the risk is less. Also the drone will probably just be crushed and discarded. I don't see how it's much different than an engine ingested a large piece of ice during cruise.

there maybe some high grade metal parts inside a drone that the engines are not made to handle. Debris from the rotors may also have sufficient energy to resist the centrifugal forces and actually go through the core.
There are also parts are much harder and denser that a bird, so even window and fuse impacts may be a lot more dangerous than against a, soft, bird.
As kids we build a little black powder gun that shot AA batteries as bullets, those went trough 22mm standard chipboard with easy (may not have been entirely dry, but I was like 10 and didn't consider structural integrity of the target medium). I think shooting a bird through it would be a lot harder.
Has anyone ever conducted any testing regarding hard, small impacts?

Best regards
Thomas

VapourTrails · Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:13 am

An article coming through - Lufthansa plane nearly collides with drone near Warsaw:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/21/the-a...llides-with-drone-near-warsaw.html

It states, the near-collison occured about 5 kilometres (3 miles) from the airport.

Quoting ua2162 (Reply 11):
I think this technology is great. However, it's time we regulate it.

It makes me think of the regulations surrounding laser pointers and approaching aircraft, over the years and these items being in the wrong hands.

Adipasquale · Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:30 am

I believe drones pose a greater danger to light aircraft than they do to airliners. A drone colliding with a C150 would be much more likely to cause a serious problem than if a drone collided with even a small airliner. Also, because light aircraft fly at lower altitudes than airliners, with the exception of climbout and approach, light aircraft spend much more time at altitudes where drones can reasonably operate.

r2rho · Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:26 pm

The problem are not the small little toy drones we see flying everywhere, but the ever bigger, more advanced ones that are starting to become more common, getting into the 10-15kg weight range, which is much more than any bird strike...

777X · Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:46 pm

One forward thinking drone company had an excellent idea by incorporating an update which does not allow the drone to take off within a certain radius of Washington, D.C. I think this should be broadened to include a radius around airports.

Anrigu · Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:32 pm

As I said before, maybe requiring that they be registered and traceable might discourage dangerous activities. I think the idea of anonymity lets people think they can cause mischief without consequences.

tommy1808 · Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:53 pm

Quoting 777X (Reply 17):
One forward thinking drone company had an excellent idea by incorporating an update which does not allow the drone to take off within a certain radius of Washington, D.C. I think this should be broadened to include a radius around airports

That will be patched out quite quickly by some hacker.
It's not like all drone owners are responsible folks .. http://youtu.be/xqHrTtvFFIs

best regards
Thomas

hOMSaR · Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:36 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/us...nia-firefighting-efforts.html?_r=0

Here's a link describing some of the issues firefighters in California have been facing when encountering drones. It makes reference to the incident on the highway that drones have interfered, but apparently that's only one of several occurrences in recent times.

Acheron · Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:44 pm

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 6):
I don't see how it's much different than an engine ingested a large piece of ice during cruise.

Icy conditions sometimes can't be avoided.

A mouthbreathing manchild flying his toy around an airport and endangering others certainly can.

spacecadet · Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:27 pm

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 6):
I don't see how it's much different than an engine ingested a large piece of ice during cruise.

Ice is frozen water. It's soft and brittle. Compared with building materials, it's *extremely* soft and brittle. Drones are made of metal. Some of it is very hard metal. It's not even comparable to a bird, much less a block of ice. You could break a square foot block of ice by hand with nothing more than a meat cleaver. You could not do the same with a square foot block of titanium. Not even many machines could. That's the difference.

rcair1 · Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:33 pm

Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 8):
Maybe there's a CRJ in low IFR conditions

IFR Drones? I don't think so....

txlbased · Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:30 pm

according to german aviation site aero.de the close call was at 2500ft. pilots seemed to be quite p***ed and radioed to ATC "you should better take care of your airspace" and "something like this is really dangerous".

After the incident, some 20 planes had to be taken on other approaches and police/military helicopters where looking after the drone without any result.

http://www.aero.de/news-22130/Luftha...t-Beinahekollision-mit-Drohne.html

[Edited 2015-07-21 09:31:06]

7673mech · Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:51 pm

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 6):
Correction a flock of birds did. Unless there is a flock of birds that are going to take out all of the engines the risk is less. Also the drone will probably just be crushed and discarded. I don't see how it's much different than an engine ingested a large piece of ice during cruise.

Even if it doesn't bring the airplane down - is damage acceptable?
Who shoulders the repair costs? And the cost of flight delays, etc.?

32andBelow · Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:58 pm

Quoting 7673mech (Reply 25):
Even if it doesn't bring the airplane down - is damage acceptable?
Who shoulders the repair costs? And the cost of flight delays, etc.?

That isn't the argument you see in these stories. Whenever this is brought up it is about the plane crashing and everyone is going to die. The fact is there have been no documented incidents where this has caused an issue to this point.

CplKlinger · Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:18 pm

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 26):
The fact is there have been no documented incidents where this has caused an issue to this point.

So we're going to fall back to the old aviation standard of not changing anything until we bury some folks? Way to be forward thinking.

Flaps · Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:14 pm

Just wait until some jackass decides to mount a laser pointer on a drone......

JetBuddy · Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:51 pm

Some drones are quite large, and some can carry SLR type of camera equipment. It's not unreasonable to think someone might use such drones in the vicinity of an airport for spotting.

A drone weighing in at a couple of kilos containing hard plastic, metal, lithium batteries, radio transmitters/receivers, several electrical motors, plus a very sturdy metal frame SLR-camera with half a kilo of glass lens on it - will do damage to a jet engine.

And if there's a drone strike on short final or during takeoff, the outcome could be catastrophic. If we're talking about smaller GA aircraft, the impact will be even greater on the plane. It could crack the window and kill someone. I really don't see why some people are trying to question the danger of this.

Ice has brought down airplanes. Birds have brought down airplanes, and drones will bring down airplanes.

[Edited 2015-07-21 13:53:34]

Aesma · Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:52 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 23):
IFR Drones? I don't think so....

Why not. They're commonly equipped with GPS and autopilot.

GCT64 · Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:56 pm

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 29):
Some drones are quite large, and some can carry SLR type of camera equipment. It's not unreasonable to think someone might use such drones in the vicinity of an airport for spotting.

Have you seen this from IST: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=50e_1421573155
Madness...

Anyway, the Californians have started to do something about it:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/07/21/c...refighters-to-ground-pesky-drones/

"Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Glendale) and Senator Ted Gaines (R-El Dorado) have introduced Senate Bill 168. The bill would grant "immunity to any emergency responder who damages an unmanned aircraft in the course of firefighting, air ambulance, or search-and-rescue operations." The bill will also levy stiff fines and potentially even jail time for people whose UAVs inhibit an emergency response."

Thunderboltdrgn · Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:10 pm

An article from the Guardian:

Quoting The Guardian:

Civil Aviation Authority issues ‘drone code’ after several near misses when drones buzzed
passenger jets using British airports

Drone pilots who “buzz” passenger jets as they take off and land at British airports have
been warned they face jail if caught as the number of companies and unlicensed
individuals making use of the relatively low cost flight technology continues to grow.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which issued the warning on Wednesday, has
recorded six serious incidents in the past year when drones came within 20ft of
airliners at airports around the country including Heathrow.

The CAA warning: http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx??catid=1995&pagetype=90&pageid=17054

n6238p · Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:14 pm

If your argument against restricting drones is that an impact with a plane just isn't that dangerous, you're insane. There's three panes of super strong windshield right infrint of me and guess what, they still break if the heat is malfunctioning or they hit something big/hard enough. I don't know what the strength of my windshield is but I don't want to find out if it can handle a collision with a 10lbs drone with batteries and dense metal materials in it. One drone will kill one engine. Two drones can kill two engines as well. You wanna see what the sky looks like from above? Get a pilot license or buy a ticket to sit in the back of my plane.

VapourTrails · Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:35 pm

I was listening to a conversation online a couple of months ago, about the need for public liability insurance on these devices. IMHO cannot see how these will be allowed to continue to operate without it.

Drones and public liability: where do we stand? from Utility Magazine
http://www.utilitymagazine.com.au/dr...ublic-liability-where-do-we-stand/

An excerpt from the article -

"As the popularity of drones continues to grow, these marvels of technology are now being purchased over the counter and through the mail for recreational and professional purposes across Australia.

This rapid proliferation of small drones has created a significant challenge for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the body responsible for enforcing current rules while developing future regulations that will enable the safe and sustainable growth of this emerging and important sector of the aviation industry.

“The rules and regulations for drones exist to provide a clear and safe operating framework, but many individuals, organisations, and government agencies, are still unaware of the basic rules and duty of care obligations to the wider community,” said Mark Xavier, CEO of V-TOL Aerospace.

“Stories of drones in near misses with passenger aircraft and injuries to bystanders are becoming a daily occurrence around the globe. Australia is seeing a rise in such incidents, of which 99 per cent can be attributed to untrained and unapproved operators flying small drones in an unsafe or hazardous manner,” he continued.

The majority of small drones being flown for any purpose are being launched and recovered from either private or public land..."

Let's just pray these drones do not cause a serious accident, while the law catches up with regulation to the operators and owners to try and minimise the risk these can cause.

flyDTW1992 · Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:04 am

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 23):
IFR Drones? I don't think so....

I've seen more than once on social media situations where some local "hobbyist" has sent their drone up in heavy fog to get a look at it from above. Don't think people won't do it.

flyDTW1992 · Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:05 am

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 29):
A drone weighing in at a couple of kilos containing hard plastic, metal, lithium batteries, radio transmitters/receivers, several electrical motors, plus a very sturdy metal frame SLR-camera with half a kilo of glass lens on it - will do damage to a jet engine.

And if there's a drone strike on short final or during takeoff, the outcome could be catastrophic. If we're talking about smaller GA aircraft, the impact will be even greater on the plane. It could crack the window and kill someone. I really don't see why some people are trying to question the danger of this.

Ice has brought down airplanes. Birds have brought down airplanes, and drones will bring down airplanes.

Oceanic · Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:10 am

I really can't even fathom anyone thinking a drone strike and a bird strike are anywhere near comparable in the amount of potential damage they could cause. For those unaware, this is one of the most popular drone's for sale right now, the DJI Phantom 2 Vision+

It weighs 2.7 pounds and carries a 2,000 mAh LiOn battery. One nice feature is that it has no-fly zones and height restrictions in certain areas. But a lot of drones do not, especially those from the DiY-side.

Now, watch this lovely video of a camera being blended from the folks on "Will it Blend?", and keep in mind, this is a blender which is designed to blend objects, not an aircraft-engine which is designed to blend air (and small birds), not to mention the fact that only the camera is being blended, not an entire drone made from plastic and metal.

https://youtu.be/3zcdoa0XCFo

And granted, the smoke and such is likely a little over the top in the part 1 video, But you can see the majority of the SLR camera body still in the blender after it shuts off. You can't tell me that wouldn't do some serious damage to an engine.

[Edited 2015-07-21 18:16:45]

Thunderboltdrgn · Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:44 am

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 32):
The CAA warning:

It seems I linked the wrong article, Here is the right one;
"Drones users must observe rules of the sky, or face prosecution"

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net