Drone Strikes Plane On Finals To LHR

Gazdon121 · Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:18 pm

sky news are reporting a plane landing at LHR was struck by a drone

Does not report what part of the plane was struck. If this got sucked into the engine the outcome could of been catastrophic

Link below

http://news.sky.com/story/1680304/dr...-strikes-plane-at-heathrow-airport

[Edited 2016-04-17 10:20:29]

32andBelow · Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:25 pm

Quoting Gazdon121 (Thread starter):
Does not report what part of the plane was struck. If this got sucked into the engine the outcome could of been catastrophic

1 engine our should never be catastrophic and large birds get sucked in every day.

MPadhi · Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:31 pm

BBC News also just reporting it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36067591

Gazdon121 · Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:36 pm

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 1):

A bird and drone are different, i am not aware of any drone been sucked into an engine so yes as I said "the outcome COULD of been catastrophic"

Regards

DocLightning · Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:38 pm

Quoting Gazdon121 (Thread starter):

Does not report what part of the plane was struck. If this got sucked into the engine the outcome could of been catastrophic

Unlikely. But very expensive and certainly erodes a layer of safety that we don't want eroded.

Q · Sun Apr 17, 2016 6:59 pm

Maybe one day new technology if drone fly on near airport and mini missile will shot drone down immediately within 5 miles area. Too bad owner drone will be lost! They should know better do not fly drone zone 5 miles within airport area!

Q

Armodeen · Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:23 pm

This was always going to happen sooner or later, I'm glad it didn't damage the aircraft seriously.

Let's hope the police catch up with the owner, although that seems unlikely.

rlwynn · Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:33 pm

Birds do not have multiple metal electric motors or batteries in them.

F9Animal · Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:38 pm

I enjoy flying my drone. But!! Idiots like the one who hit the plane need to be made an example of. Someone will always defy rules, and ruin it for others. I wouldn't be surprised if the governments start banning drones for public use. When that happens, the abusers will be the loudest cry babies. What makes matters worse, the media only gives terrorists ideas.

hhslax2 · Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:42 pm

With drones becoming more plentiful and people recklessly operating them near airports, has the FAA (or other equivalent agency) required engine manufacturers to do testing for drone ingestion?

Gazdon121 · Sun Apr 17, 2016 8:08 pm

Quoting rlwynn (Reply 7):

Exacly my thoughts

ArmitageShanks · Sun Apr 17, 2016 8:14 pm

Millions of drones have been sold and there has been ONE collision so far.

I truly believe this "drone danger" is being blown out of proportion as I'm sure we will see later on in this thread. This reactionary fear by just about everyone just seems a bit over the top to me. Are there some idiots out there? Sure, but to ban or severely curtail the hobby is just rediculous.

Has there been one other collision of any sort of remote controlled flying machine hitting an airliner in the history of aviation? I certainly can't find any.

kiwiandrew · Sun Apr 17, 2016 8:34 pm

Quoting Gazdon121 (Reply 3):
"the outcome COULD of been catastrophic"

I am guessing you meant to type 'could've' since 'could of' doesn't mean anything. Assuming that was what you meant to type, I fully agree... birds do not generally contain metal parts and batteries, so the comparison with bird ingestion is not valid.

Motorhussy · Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:00 pm

Sheesh, I read that initially as a drone-strike on a plane on finals into Heathrow!

Strike implies a deliberate action, I'm sure the drone pilot wasn't flying the drone at the A320; perhaps collision would be more accurate? But yes, Sky News.

bluejuice · Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:04 pm

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 13):
Strike implies a deliberate action, I'm sure the drone pilot wasn't flying the drone at the A320; perhaps collision would be more accurate? But yes, Sky News.

So birds are deliberately flying into planes when a bird strike occurs?

notaxonrotax · Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:15 pm

Quoting bluejuice (Reply 14):
So birds are deliberately flying into planes when a bird strike occurs?

My strikes in the bowling alley are NEVER intentional.......always purely accidental.

No Tax On Rotax

BasilFawlty · Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:17 pm

Drones should be banned from private use, only for professionals, like they did with firearms a long time ago (in most parts of the world).

FlyHossD · Sun Apr 17, 2016 10:47 pm

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 1):
1 engine our should never be catastrophic and large birds get sucked in every day.

True enough, but birds aren't doing so deliberately. Plus, they're mostly soft tissue.

Quoting rlwynn (Reply 7):
Birds do not have multiple metal electric motors or batteries in them.

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 8):
Idiots like the one who hit the plane need to be made an example of. S

Yes. A BIG example of - this situation will only get worse otherwise.

Quoting ArmitageShanks (Reply 11):

Millions of drones have been sold and there has been ONE collision so far.

See above. Given the huge sales of drones, this situation is about to get worse, much worse.

ferminbrif · Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:12 pm

to fly a drone near an airport should be considered a terrorist attack because it´s fully intentional and could be catastrofic.

Motorhussy · Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:20 pm

Quoting ferminbrif (Reply 18):
to fly a drone near an airport should be considered a terrorist attack because it´s fully intentional and could be catastrofic.

To be an act of terror, it has to be both deliberate and terrifying. The misuse of drones by civilians is surely not but I think I agree with your sentiment to a degree so perhaps there is room within anti-terrorism legislation to restrict their use in these areas punishable under such laws. That'd be a strong deterrent but still no guard against morons.

copter808 · Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:28 pm

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 8):
I wouldn't be surprised if the governments start banning drones for public use.

I very much doubt that is going to happen. Integration yes, but not an outright ban.

Meanwhile, the FAA is going to continue tripping over themselves in an attempt to deal with the issue.

ArmitageShanks · Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:29 pm

Quoting ferminbrif (Reply 18):
to fly a drone near an airport should be considered a terrorist attack because it´s fully intentional and could be catastrofic.

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 16):
Drones should be banned from private use, only for professionals, like they did with firearms a long time ago (in most parts of the world).

This is what I'm talking about. Complete overreaction to an issue.

frmrCapCadet · Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:38 pm

Drones are capable to doing damage, invading privacy, compromising security as well as being of enormous benefit to legitimate users. Regulations will be coming.

caoimhin · Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:45 pm

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 13):
Strike implies a deliberate action, I'm sure the drone pilot wasn't flying the drone at the A320; perhaps collision would be more accurate? But yes, Sky News.

Take this a step further. "Drone strike" as a phrase implies something entirely different. I expected this thread to involve an MQ-9 Reaper.

alyusuph · Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:20 am

There is a need to devise killer drones, managed by airport authorities which will intelligently trace "wild"drones and disable them. On another note, I was watching Al-Jazeera yesterday showing a programme on people flying on jet propelled jackets, or equipment as a sport. That is definitely another risk area to watch closely.

Another option is for drones to be uniquely numbered, just like in mobile phones. There ought to be a system of "ÏMEI" numbers for drones which will help trace misuse of drones.

Gazdon121 · Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:44 am

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 12):

One must sincerely apologise if you did not understand my words. That possibly is we are in different country's and have different spellings/meanings if I said "this had the potential to be a catastrophic event " would that be better

Aesma · Mon Apr 18, 2016 8:47 am

Killer drones are being developed in France at least. In part to respond to the overflying of drones over several nuclear powerplants. Also, plenty of rules apply to them (lifted from the rules applying to ultralights), but most people don't know and don't care.

For example there is no need for a specific law making it illegal to fly the thing over your neighbour's house.

DXTraveler · Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:03 pm

"I truly believe this "drone danger" is being blown out of proportion as I'm sure we will see later on in this thread. This reactionary fear by just about everyone just seems a bit over the top to me."

Speaking of over the top. Wanting to keep drones out of the flight path of aircraft, especially one I am on, doesn't seem to be too much to ask.

bhill · Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:50 pm

I am not surprised that drones are not banned in the US under the Patriot Act. If some people can take the time and learn how to fly airliners into buildings, it's a small step to weaponize a drone......

Flighty · Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:16 pm

Quoting Q (Reply 5):
Maybe one day new technology if drone fly on near airport and mini missile will shot drone down immediately within 5 miles area. Too bad owner drone will be lost! They should know better do not fly drone zone 5 miles within airport area!

In my opinion a strike force should locate and eliminate the drone operator. This isn't just a "legal infraction" it is a quasi terrorist event. The correct response is not arrest; it stop the threat and send the family a bill for the visit. IMO.

Quoting alyusuph (Reply 24):

There is a need to devise killer drones, managed by airport authorities which will intelligently trace "wild"drones and disable them. On another note, I was watching Al-Jazeera yesterday showing a programme on people flying on jet propelled jackets, or equipment as a sport. That is definitely another risk area to watch closely.

Another option is for drones to be uniquely numbered, just like in mobile phones. There ought to be a system of "ÏMEI" numbers for drones which will help trace misuse of drones

Good post and I agree this is more realistic than my idea. Right now, if drones are unregulated then issues of privacy, danger to aircraft, etc can only be resolved by more drastic means, including neutralize the drone, its operator, or both.

[Edited 2016-04-18 08:18:59]

tp1040 · Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:54 pm

The whole conversation about drones and airports should be unnecessary.

It is just idiotic for drone owners to fly anywhere near an airport. The fact that these reports keep happening indicates that there is problem and discussion is not overblown. The same thing with lasers. They are BOTH problems.

They have taken technology to the masses and that creates a problem because a lot of people are uncaring, stupid and selfish.

I am sure it has happened, but there is not any discussion on radio controlled airplane hobbyist flying near controlled airspace. Maybe it is because the RC owners are more intelligent.

Thunderboltdrgn · Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:02 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 29):
This isn't just a "legal infraction" it is a quasi terrorist event.

I wouldn't call it a quasi terrorist event if there isn't any kind of political/religious motives behind it.

I would guess most of these drone operators that are operating near airports are just being reckless
because they don't know better or they somehow try to capture video/photos of aircrafts despite
that they know better / are aware of the consequences.

[Edited 2016-04-18 10:05:13]

United787 · Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:13 pm

What was the extent of the damage? Are they able to confirm that it was a drone? Did they find the remains of the drone on the ground?

F9Animal · Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:39 pm

Quoting DXTraveler (Reply 27):
"I truly believe this "drone danger" is being blown out of proportion as I'm sure we will see later on in this thread. This reactionary fear by just about everyone just seems a bit over the top to me."

Speaking of over the top. Wanting to keep drones out of the flight path of aircraft, especially one I am on, doesn't seem to be too much to ask.

It is actually becoming a serious problem, and not with aircraft. I witnessed a drone moron at a train station platform. The train operates using high voltage power off of lines that connect to a pantograph on top of the train. This idiot was flying the drone at eye level of the train operator, about 6 feet from the operators cab as the train approached the platform. The drone nearly missed the power lines, and could have caused a major problem to the train line.

I love my drone, and enjoy it. However, I play by the rules and I don't jeopardize anyone's safety while flying it.

Thunderboltdrgn · Mon Apr 18, 2016 6:10 pm

Quoting United787 (Reply 32):
What was the extent of the damage? Are they able to confirm
that it was a drone? Did they find the remains of the drone on the ground?

AAIB phrasing:

Quoting AAIB:

The AAIB is investigating an occurrence involving an unmanned air vehicle and a passenger
aircraft approaching London Heathrow Airport.

BBC reports it as "believed to be a drone". http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36067591

Gazdon121 · Mon Apr 18, 2016 6:26 pm

It baffles me why someone would be so stupid and fly a drone close to a runway in the first place

peterjohns · Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:25 pm

Quoting Gazdon121 (Reply 35):

Oh really!? Then check this one out!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGMDQ-vaV9Y

Originally, when it came out , the name of the guy who made it was on Youtube. I wonder if he got a visit from the police?

On the other hand, radio controlled aeroplanes have been around since ages, and haven´t really been a bother at major airports.

I hope the drones will be operated to do what they are supposed to do, so everyone will have their fun. But realistcally
there are a lot of nuts about...

Zkpilot · Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:30 am

Wouldn't take much to put some explosives on a drone that would cause significant and probably catastrophic damage to an aircraft (and whatever city is below it - think QF32 aircraft damage but worse and then the affect if an aircraft came down). Problem is that it is hard to police since someone could literally have one in the back of a vehicle drive under the approach path and have it up in a matter of seconds.

spudsmac · Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:47 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 37):

Wouldn't take much to put some explosives on a drone that would cause significant and probably catastrophic damage to an aircraft (and whatever city is below it - think QF32 aircraft damage but worse and then the affect if an aircraft came down). Problem is that it is hard to police since someone could literally have one in the back of a vehicle drive under the approach path and have it up in a matter of seconds.

Don't be paranoid. It would be so hard to time it right and position it exactly to be able to cause damage. You'd be better off finding another way and there's much better, easier ways to accomplish what you're saying.

The plane ate the RC aircraft and didn't even notice. The only time they would damage a plane is going in an engine(expensive, but won't bring the plane down) and damaging the radome (won't EVER bring a plane down).

GEO fencing and education are they key to solving this issue. More rules are not needed.

vv701 · Tue Apr 19, 2016 11:23 am

Quoting United787 (Reply 32):
What was the extent of the damage? Are they able to confirm that it was a drone? Did they find the remains of the drone on the ground?

Little to zero damage to the 320. It departed from LHR 1 hr 45 mins after its arrival and a safety inspection.

The incident took place while the aircraft was at 1,700 feet. At the time it was over Richmond Park several miles short of the runway threshold. The park is the largest enclosed space in London. Its area is 955 hectares (2,360 acres).

The Metropolitan Police have unsuccessfully searched the park for debris. They have asked the public to report any finds they may make in that area.

aerolimani · Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:13 pm

I'm thinking now about the recent situation between Apple and the FBI. The FBI wanted Apple to create an operating system for the iPhone with a backdoor, enabling the FBI to easily hack any iOS device. Given that drones aren't storing anyone's personal information, I don't see any moral issue with requiring drone manufacturers to create a backdoor, allowing airports and other secure locations to take control of a drone flying somewhere it is not allowed.

Geo-fencing is a simper approach, I realize, but it is also something that the drone owner could more easily override. Hacking or jamming the drone would be more difficult for the drone owner to avoid.

Gazdon121 · Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:16 pm

this is the first reported incident with contact it will not be the last

Viscount724 · Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:03 am

It's a rare day when there aren't at least one or two drone-related reports in the Transport Canada daily occurrence reports. These examples are all since April 1:

An Air Canada Boeing 777-333ER (C-FITU/ACA088) from Shanghai, China (ZSPD) to Toronto, ON (CYYZ) was in the downwind for Runway 05 over Halton Hills Village near SELAP at 4500 feet and reported observing a white drone in the area at approximately 3000 feet ASL.

An Air Canada Rouge Boeing 767-300 (ROU1626) from Toronto, ON (CYYZ) to Fort Lauderdale, FL (KFLL) reported encountering a drone 3 SW of Toronto/ Billy Bishop, ON (CYTZ) at 7200 feet.

A Porter Airlines DHC-8-402 (C-GKQC/POE536) from Sudbury, ON (CYSB) to Toronto/ Billy Bishop, ON (CYTZ) on approach to Runway 26 (was approximately 10 miles east of CYTZ) at 3000 feet and reported observing a drone at approx. 1000 feet ASL. The local police were notified.

A Jazz DHC-8-102 (JZA8282) from Timmins, ON (CYTS) to Toronto, ON (CYYZ) on approach to Runway 23 reported a large drone at approximately 2500 feet, 8 NM east and just north of the centre line.

A white unmanned air vehicle (UAV) drone was observed by the Vancouver Harbour Tower (CYHC) operating at about 300' AGL north of the Pan Pacific Hotel, approximately one city block north of the control tower. The UAV was approximately 1 to 1 1/2 feet in diameter and appeared to be a recreational model. At one point it appeared to be offshore almost directly above a Harbour Air de Havilland DHC-2 MK.I Beaver (C-GTBQ/HR5216) who was taxiing out for a city tour flight from Vancouver Harbour, BC (Water) (CYHC). A West Coast Air de Havilland DHC-6 series 200 Twin Otter (C-FGQH/CZ604) from Victoria Harbour, BC (Water) (CYWH) to Vancouver Harbour, BC (Water) (CYHC) was on approach for an eastbound landing and was cautioned about the UAV. A Helijet International Inc. Sikorsky S-76C (C-GHHJ) medevac was running on the Vancouver/Harbour, BC Heliport (CBC7) awaiting departure clearance for a deadhead flight back to base at Vancouver, BC (CYVR) as a non-medevac. CZ604 landed safely, and the Tower held the two departing aircraft until it appeared safe to issue take-off clearances. The UAV descended north of the hotel and out of sight of the Tower at 0038Z. ECOMM 911 was contacted by the Tower as per procedures and a police vehicle was dispatched to attempt to locate the UAV operator. The Tower did not observe the UAV again after 0038Z. The operational impact was that two departures were delayed until it was determined that the UAV would not conflict with their departure paths.

copter808 · Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:24 am

Quoting alyusuph (Reply 24):
There is a need to devise killer drones, managed by airport authorities which will intelligently trace "wild"drones and disable them. On another note, I was watching Al-Jazeera yesterday showing a programme on people flying on jet propelled jackets, or equipment as a sport. That is definitely another risk area to watch closely.

Oh great!!! Then we have TWO drones in the same airspace where we shouldn't have even ONE. Much easier to just find a way to disable them.

Quoting bhill (Reply 28):
I am not surprised that drones are not banned in the US under the Patriot Act. If some people can take the time and learn how to fly airliners into buildings, it's a small step to weaponize a drone......

So first we ban drones, then guns, then airplanes, helicopters, automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians... Where does it all stop? All of them can become weapons!

Quoting Flighty (Reply 29):
In my opinion a strike force should locate and eliminate the drone operator. This isn't just a "legal infraction" it is a quasi terrorist event. The correct response is not arrest; it stop the threat and send the family a bill for the visit. IMO.

So now a kid operating a drone 5 feet above the ground, 4.5 miles from the airport is a terrorist?

Gazdon121 · Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:55 pm

The Met police have banned drones in London ahead of POTUS arrival but I not sure if this is just certain part of london. Why can this not be done with airports parimiter/ airspace

PanAm1971 · Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:34 pm

When a planeload of innocent people goes down this will be a very different conversation. And much of the defensive griping will be swatted away. Sadly, it will probably take a terrible incident to make everyone realize exactly what the stakes are.

vv701 · Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:38 pm

Quoting Gazdon121 (Reply 44):
The Met police have banned drones in London ahead of POTUS arrival but I not sure if this is just certain part of london. Why can this not be done with airports parimiter/ airspace

The three areas impacted are shown on the map that can be seen if you scroll down on this link:

http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/19/uk-drone-ban-obama-london/

Note that the ban is like many earlier bans and covers a wide range of unmanned aerial vehicles flying below 2,500 feet. These UAVs include drones. They are making the headlines because of the recent incident.

However note that that incident was over Richmond Park miles short of the LHR runway threshold. So a ban specifically on flying drones within an airport perimeter which already effectively exists would not have stopped the recent BA 320 incident. Neverteless it appears that the flyer of that drone if discovered is liable to prosecution and possible imprisonment if found guilty.

This from the CAA web site:

'Anyone operating a drone must do so responsibly and observe all relevant rules and regulations. The rules for flying drones are designed to keep all airspace users safe. It is totally unacceptable to fly drones close to airports and anyone flouting the rules can face severe penalties including imprisonment.'

TWA772LR · Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:27 am

Quoting alyusuph (Reply 24):
There is a need to devise killer drones, managed by airport authorities which will intelligently trace "wild"drones and disable them

Or have some cops with buckshot...

ArmitageShanks · Thu Apr 21, 2016 7:20 pm

It looks like it was a plastic bag or some similarly innocuous item.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...tish-airways-flight-may-have-been/

inflightVideo · Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:41 am

Quoting ArmitageShanks (Reply 48):
It looks like it was a plastic bag or some similarly innocuous item.

Those pesky plastic bags. Someone should ban them, clearly a hazard to aircraft

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net