Drones

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:24 pm

Mrpotatohead wrote:No. It obviously depends on the weight of the drone and the speed of the impact. It is possible for a drone to smash straight through the windscreen of an airliner and strike the aircrew or it could be taken in by an engine. Whilst it could equally bounce off a wing etc the risk is there that it could bring an aircraft down so to continue to fly would be dangerous.

Most common drones would not be able to bring down an airliner. The flight deck windows are very strong and are able to withstand a large-bird strike without failing. Also, whilst a big drone being sucked into the engine would cause damage and might even lead to failure, the aircraft would continue to fly without undue concern to the two up front. This appears to me to be a massive over reaction, much like the Icelandic volcano fiasco.

Bosscat · Post by **Bosscat** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:25 pm

joey13 wrote:Airport runways are checked for debris throughout the day

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 01txt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Billy Balfour · Post by **Billy Balfour** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:44 pm

It's most reassuring to see that we have BennyD - a world-renowned authority on aviation posting on this forum.

Mrpotatohead · Post by **Mrpotatohead** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:07 pm

joey13 wrote:Airport runways are checked for debris throughout the day

I'm aware, it still doesn't make smashing two drones together above a runway a good idea.

Mrpotatohead · Post by **Mrpotatohead** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:13 pm

BennyD wrote:Most common drones would not be able to bring down an airliner. The flight deck windows are very strong and are able to withstand a large-bird strike without failing. Also, whilst a big drone being sucked into the engine would cause damage and might even lead to failure, the aircraft would continue to fly without undue concern to the two up front. This appears to me to be a massive over reaction, much like the Icelandic volcano fiasco.

You're correct, the drones that you can buy on a shelf most likely won't bring down an aircraft. Large industrial drones, like the one reported, are capable of going through flight deck windows of airliners.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:15 pm

Mrpotatohead wrote:No. It obviously depends on the weight of the drone and the speed of the impact. It is possible for a drone to smash straight through the windscreen of an airliner and strike the aircrew or it could be taken in by an engine. Whilst it could equally bounce off a wing etc the risk is there that it could bring an aircraft down so to continue to fly would be dangerous.

How do planes currently cope when they come near seagulls, or geese for example?

Mrpotatohead · Post by **Mrpotatohead** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:19 pm

Spijed wrote:How do planes currently cope when they come near seagulls, or geese for example?

Well in an ideal world they wouldn't, which is why airfields employ wildlife control units to minimise the risk. I stress the word minimise though, because you obviously can't remove this risk completely.

Billy Balfour · Post by **Billy Balfour** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:20 pm

Spijed wrote:How do planes currently cope when they come near seagulls, or geese for example?

Not too well.

https://bit.ly/2EG9ZaK

Bosscat · Post by **Bosscat** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:44 pm

Spijed wrote:How do planes currently cope when they come near seagulls, or geese for example?

The birds don't fair to well either....

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:55 pm

No question they should be banned. Anyone caught with one and in particular causing a problem like this should have a very severe sentence imposed on them. But that won't happen will it? Our authorities are clueless and useless. The police are more interested in hate crimes and speed cameras (cash cows) than solving dangerous crimes, we have a PM who couldn't negotiate her way out of a paper bag. We have an environmental secretary telling us to take bottles etc back to the shops for a rebate, thereby likely increasing shopping traffic and polution. We have a communist leading the labour party. We have Blair, Major, Campbell and Clegg roaming the corridors of the EU in Brussels advising them how to thwart a democratic vote in THEIR own country. It goes on. The establishment is pathetic.

Billy Balfour · Post by **Billy Balfour** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:31 pm

Yes dear. Now do you want some more tea?

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:51 pm

Billy Balfour wrote:It's most reassuring to see that we have BennyD - a world-renowned authority on aviation posting on this forum.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:06 pm

A little off topic, but when do you think drones will take over from manned fighter aircraft? I would imagine we can already create a drone that could perform in ways in which a pilot would not be able to stay conscious.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:15 pm

AndrewJB wrote:A little off topic, but when do you think drones will take over from manned fighter aircraft? I would imagine we can already create a drone that could perform in ways in which a pilot would not be able to stay conscious.

I think thats part of the premise in Top Gun 2

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:39 pm

I would have thought a drone ending up in one of a twin engine aircraft's engines whilst taking off would be very dangerous.

I'm interested to know how the drones were detected. Radar I assume.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:40 pm

Hipper wrote:I would have thought a drone ending up in one of a twin engine aircraft's engines whilst taking off would be very dangerous.

I'm interested to know how the drones were detected. Radar I assume.

Visual detection - control tower spotted it

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:52 pm

At night, with the drones allegedly tampered with to achieve their ends (including no lights presumably)?

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:19 pm

Billy Balfour wrote:It's most reassuring to see that we have BennyD - a world-renowned authority on aviation posting on this forum.

Having spent the last 35 years flying military transports and long haul commercial airliners, I feel I’m suitably qualified to pass an educated opinion. Are you?

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:22 pm

CombatClaret wrote:Unless it's declared an act of war I'd argue it is.

No he's right, if you fly inside an airport perimeter you get 5 stars on you and tanks and everything after you.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:31 pm

Hipper wrote:I would have thought a drone ending up in one of a twin engine aircraft's engines whilst taking off would be very dangerous.

At the risk of further ridicule from Billy Balfour, performance A aircraft (large commercial airliners) have to be able to lose an engine at maximum take off weight, and at rotate speed (VR) climb away safely. They can then climb and maintain a level above safety altitude, make a single engine approach and either go-around or land. Pilots have to demonstrate their ability to carry out this manoeuvre in every simulator they do. Consequently, it’s not a dangerous event as it is well practised.

Billy Balfour · Post by **Billy Balfour** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:51 pm

BennyD wrote:Having spent the last 35 years flying military transports and long haul commercial airliners, I feel I’m suitably qualified to pass an educated opinion.

Is that so, Benny. Well, for me, this makes your previous comments look even more dunderheaded than they first appeared.

I've had the radio news on all day and I've yet to hear one expert say this is a "massive over reaction" like you claim it to be, Benny. But what the heck do they know, eh. Silly aviation experts.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:52 pm

I don't get why they can't find them. In World War 2, resistance radio operators had to keep their signalling short because they would be caught by German tracking devices. Why can't they find where the signal is coming from?

Or a bit more low tech, they say that the thing has landed for new batteries several times. Can't they follow it?

I bet if someone in Afghanistan was flying a drone near a military base, they would have the equipment to track it.

And I hope that when they do find the culprit, they give him a bill to pay for all the expenses. Hopefully he's got a nice house that can be repossessed.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:53 pm

Benny, quick question - that plane in the Hudson, was that multiple bird strikes or just the one?

Genuinely don't know, and know enough that they are supposed to be able to fly perfectly well on one engine but this does seem a bit weird.

box_of_frogs · Post by **box_of_frogs** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:01 pm

BennyD wrote:Having spent the last 35 years flying military transports and long haul commercial airliners, I feel I’m suitably qualified to pass an educated opinion. Are you?

Smash!

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:05 pm

theroyaldyche wrote:Wouldnt a plane jus smash thru a drone?

Aeromexico damaged by a drone recently - imagine if it had gone in an engine

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:07 pm

BennyD wrote:At the risk of further ridicule from Billy Balfour, performance A aircraft (large commercial airliners) have to be able to lose an engine at maximum take off weight, and at rotate speed (VR) climb away safely. They can then climb and maintain a level above safety altitude, make a single engine approach and either go-around or land. Pilots have to demonstrate their ability to carry out this manoeuvre in every simulator they do. Consequently, it’s not a dangerous event as it is well practised.

..........unless a fan blade snaps off and causes a catastrophic failure in the hulk (god forbid). Easiest thing to do is just ban drones and anyone caught flying them near an airport gets 30 years in prison not the 5 currently on offer.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:09 pm

Billy Balfour wrote:Is that so, Benny. Well, for me, this makes your previous comments look even more dunderheaded than they first appeared.

I've had the radio news on all day and I've yet to hear one expert say this is a "massive over reaction" like you claim it to be, Benny. But what the heck do they know, eh. Silly aviation experts.

I’ll bow you your experience in such matters. However, the CAA and airport authorities will always play it very safe because any damage caused by such air proxs will be the subject to mass litigation, and they are not willing to be exposed to such financial risk. Nobody said the volcano episode was a huge over reaction at the time but it was and we pilots knew it. Btw, If there are no drones over the airfield at the moment, why is it still closed? It shouldn’t be. How long after the drone disappears is it safe to fly? Almost immediately. The fact that the airfield was closed until early this evening despite no further sightings points to a huge overreaction. 760 flights disrupted by a couple of drone sightings is, IMO, completely unnecessary.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:12 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:Aeromexico damaged by a drone recently - imagine if it had gone in an engine

The radar fairings in the nose are made of lightweight materials and are classed as frangible so any damage will look significant.

Billy Balfour · Post by **Billy Balfour** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:13 pm

Benny and the jets...

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:15 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:..........unless a fan blade snaps off and causes a catastrophic failure in the hulk (god forbid). Easiest thing to do is just ban drones and anyone caught flying them near an airport gets 30 years in prison not the 5 currently on offer.

There is a heavy Kevlar belt around the outside of the fan duct designed to contain detached fan blades inside the engine. In fact, an engine can’t be certified until it has demonstrated its ability to do so.

Mrpotatohead · Post by **Mrpotatohead** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:17 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Benny, quick question - that plane in the Hudson, was that multiple bird strikes or just the one?

Genuinely don't know, and know enough that they are supposed to be able to fly perfectly well on one engine but this does seem a bit weird.

The aircraft flew through a flock of birds in this case, a flock of geese If I remember rightly, which resulted in the loss of both engines.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:20 pm

I wonder if there is more to this.

If two drones can shut a major airport for 12 hours plus, then we are in a bit of trouble.

Mrpotatohead · Post by **Mrpotatohead** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:20 pm

BennyD wrote:I’ll bow you your experience in such matters. However, the CAA and airport authorities will always play it very safe because any damage caused by such air proxs will be the subject to mass litigation, and they are not willing to be exposed to such financial risk. Nobody said the volcano episode was a huge over reaction at the time but it was and we pilots knew it. Btw, If there are no drones over the airfield at the moment, why is it still closed? It shouldn’t be. How long after the drone disappears is it safe to fly? Almost immediately. The fact that the airfield was closed until early this evening despite no further sightings points to a huge overreaction. 760 flights disrupted by a couple of drone sightings is, IMO, completely unnecessary.

Someone obviously has zero concern about the safety of aircraft operating in and out of Gatwick, I would be reluctant to allow aircraft to fly again until the drone or/and its operator are caught.

box_of_frogs · Post by **box_of_frogs** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:21 pm

https://youtu.be/H2zB7Z-b6Kc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hopefully link works. Someone I know in a Hawk vs Goose scenario......

Mrpotatohead · Post by **Mrpotatohead** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:26 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I wonder if there is more to this.

If two drones can shut a major airport for 12 hours plus, then we are in a bit of trouble.

I just think they are playing it safe Lancaster. Nobody can be sure of the intentions of the operator so it is the safest thing to do for the time being. However, it can't remain closed forever so at somepoint they will have to decide to reopen and just hope it doesn't return.

Billy Balfour · Post by **Billy Balfour** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:34 pm

Apparently, they reopened earlier on and the drone reappeared.

It goes without saying that safety must come first, but to some this is an anathema.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:42 pm

Seems this is an issue:

Drone pilot David Walker has contacted the BBC to highlight what he sees as the problem with drone training in the UK.

"The industry doesn't help itself as the cost for flying courses and certification can be as much as £1,000 for just three days training. Anyone who gets a £50 quad is not going to want to pay £1,000 to fly it."

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:44 pm

I think the solution is to either ban them and make them illigal of for people to need a licence for them for spefic use only and any unlicenced use categorised as an illegal activity.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:48 pm

: IMG_20181220_174810.jpg (500.95 KiB) Viewed 2151 times

Mrpotatohead · Post by **Mrpotatohead** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:50 pm

Spijed wrote:Seems this is an issue:

Drone pilot David Walker has contacted the BBC to highlight what he sees as the problem with drone training in the UK.

"The industry doesn't help itself as the cost for flying courses and certification can be as much as £1,000 for just three days training. Anyone who gets a £50 quad is not going to want to pay £1,000 to fly it."

However, reading the rules of drone flying costs nothing. It costs nothing to learn that you can't fly a drone within 1km of an airport. Whilst he may well have an important point, I don't think it is the cause of this issue.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:51 pm

Billy Balfour wrote:Is that so, Benny. Well, for me, this makes your previous comments look even more dunderheaded than they first appeared.

I've had the radio news on all day and I've yet to hear one expert say this is a "massive over reaction" like you claim it to be, Benny. But what the heck do they know, eh. Silly aviation experts.

Btw, Savage and Sutton are regarded as football experts and Diane Abbott is, apparently, an expert on politics. I suppose you believe every word they say as well.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:58 pm

Mrpotatohead wrote:Someone obviously has zero concern about the safety of aircraft operating in and out of Gatwick, I would be reluctant to allow aircraft to fly again until the drone or/and its operator are caught.

I have every concern for aircraft safety, but I know I wouldn’t be unduly concerned flying into or out of Gatwick just because a drone had been sighted nearby. I see by your post you wouldn’t care if it took a day, a week, a month or even a year to catch the perpetrator, despite the costs incurred by the Airlines, airfield operators and the flying public. I rather hope your Christmas break is cancelled because of this fiasco.

bf2k · Post by **bf2k** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:00 pm

This has caused havoc getting him from Madrid because planes weren’t were they should be. Ban the *******

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:02 pm

Bit fishy that just after the government steps up its plans for leaving the EU with no deal (something that could severely disrupt air travel) this happens at Gatwick.

Is this a dummy run to see how we cope with major flight disruption? Is this all part of a test?

Anyway, I'll take my conspiracy theory hat off now

Mrpotatohead · Post by **Mrpotatohead** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:07 pm

BennyD wrote:I have every concern for aircraft safety, but I know I wouldn’t be unduly concerned flying into or out of Gatwick just because a drone had been sighted nearby. I see by your post you wouldn’t care if it took a day, a week, a month or even a year to catch the perpetrator, despite the costs incurred by the Airlines, airfield operators and the flying public. I rather hope your Christmas break is cancelled because of this fiasco.

How grown up of you. Your last sentence is the sort of thing I would expect a child to say, not an adult with over 35 years flying experience, you clearly have intelligence somewhere. For what it is worth, at no point did I say that the airport should remain closed indefinitely, I only said I would be reluctant to reopen. Furthermore, in reply to Lancaster I have clearly said that it will have to open again at somepoint.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:14 pm

Mrpotatohead wrote:However, reading the rules of drone flying costs nothing. It costs nothing to learn that you can't fly a drone within 1km of an airport. Whilst he may well have an important point, I don't think it is the cause of this issue.

From the sounds of it those flying the drones know exactly what they are doing, and how to fly them.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:16 pm

Well guess what?
It's only taken the government (The defence secretary) almost a full day to bring in the military and their expertise and technology.
Makes you wonder what the government are actually for, and why we bother having armed forces if we don't bring them in to deal rapidly with this sort of incident.
Really feel for all those people and businesses being disrupted by this, and if the govt can't demonstrate that they can deal rapidly and effectively with this, then it will likely become a regular occurrence.

Bosscat · Post by **Bosscat** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:18 pm

theroyaldyche wrote:Wouldnt a plane jus smash thru a drone?

Check out this video of a test by the faa in the USA ....

Imagine yourself on a plane and this happens....

Bosscat · Post by **Bosscat** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:20 pm

BennyD wrote:I have every concern for aircraft safety, but I know I wouldn’t be unduly concerned flying into or out of Gatwick just because a drone had been sighted nearby. I see by your post you wouldn’t care if it took a day, a week, a month or even a year to catch the perpetrator, despite the costs incurred by the Airlines, airfield operators and the flying public. I rather hope your Christmas break is cancelled because of this fiasco.

Here you go BennyD think on

https://petapixel.com/2018/10/08/this-i ... -airplane/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mrpotatohead · Post by **Mrpotatohead** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:52 pm

Bosscat wrote:

Here you go BennyD think on

https://petapixel.com/2018/10/08/this-i ... -airplane/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cowboy pilots know best!