Drones

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:56 pm

And that would do what exactly? Apart from putting a hole in the wing the aircraft would still fly and be able to land. A Canada goose would damage the wing as well but we don’t stop flying because of them. Btw, what are the odds of someone being able to pilot a drone into an aircraft? Also, the slats would be out when coming into land and would protect the leading edge from the majority of that damage.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:02 pm

Mrpotatohead wrote: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.

I was making the point that your blasé attitude to other people’s disruption might be a little bit more measured if you were inconvenienced to the same extent. So, as the expert, when would you open the airport again if the culprit isn’t found? Why then and not mid-morning today?

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:08 pm

BennyD wrote:And that would do what exactly? Apart from putting a hole in the wing the aircraft would still fly and be able to land.

What if it instead went through the window of the plane and killed a few people?

Bosscat · Post by **Bosscat** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:09 pm

BennyD wrote:And that would do what exactly? Apart from putting a hole in the wing the aircraft would still fly and be able to land. A Canada goose would damage the wing as well but we don’t stop flying because of them. Btw, what are the odds of someone being able to pilot a drone into an aircraft? Also, the slats would be out when coming into land and would protect the leading edge from the majority of that damage.

Bloody hell BennyD you would gamble the lives of 2-300 people on that would you.....

Can picture it now at the Goverment Enquiry...

"Well your Honour, BennyD said it would be alright so there ner ner ner...."

Billy Balfour · Post by **Billy Balfour** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:10 pm

Get your facts right, BennyD. You're the only one on here claiming to be an expert. Others have offered an opinion. HTH.

box_of_frogs · Post by **box_of_frogs** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:10 pm

nil_desperandum wrote: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.

Because we cannot just act on our own. We must wait for the civil authorities to request our support. Then there is the fact that 95% are already on Xmas leave.....

pushpinpussy · Post by **pushpinpussy** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:10 pm

Does anybody know how to land a drone? Only since I got given this one as an early Christmas present every time I line up with the runway either a poxy plane is in the way or police vehicles.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:12 pm

Billy Balfour wrote:Get your facts right, BennyD. You're the only one on here claiming to be an expert. Others have offered an opinion. HTH.

I’m not claiming to be an expert, just someone with a lot of aviation experience. There is a difference. Perhaps I should tell you about the in and outs of your job from a point of ignorance.

Billy Balfour · Post by **Billy Balfour** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:14 pm

Not your best day this, Benny.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:14 pm

Bosscat wrote:Bloody hell BennyD you would gamble the lives of 2-300 people on that would you.....

Can picture it now at the Goverment Enquiry...

"Well your Honour, BennyD said it would be alright so there ner ner ner...."

To me, the most important life on my aircraft is mine and I wouldn’t gamble with it. I’m speaking from a professional point of view and you watch, nobody will bat an eyelid about drone sightings at airports in 5 years time.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:16 pm

Billy Balfour wrote:Not your best day this, Benny.

Why? Debating sh!t like this with people like you means nothing to me. I don’t care what you think, this is a storm in a teacup because nobody wants to be left carrying the can, JUST IN CASE something happens.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:17 pm

Benny is correct though, an aircraft wing can sustain massive damage before its dangerous. He is wrong in that they should risk it though if he ever said that.

(I have an Aeropspace Manufacturing Honours Degree, I know my stuff too, especially how aircraft are manufactured)

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:18 pm

FactualFrank wrote:What if it instead went through the window of the plane and killed a few people?

Not as many as a mid air collision and we don’t stop flying because there are other aircraft in the sky.

Billy Balfour · Post by **Billy Balfour** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:18 pm

BennyD wrote:Why? Debating sh!t like this with people like you means nothing to me. I don’t care what you think

Yeah, it shows.

deanothedino · Post by **deanothedino** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:20 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:I think you missed my point, which is that surely our armed forces have the technology, sophistication and accuracy to bring something like this down in a controlled environment [i.e. on an airfield]?. I did use the term GUIDED weapons.
And as for the Daily Mail, if you read my posts, you'll know that I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail or a right wing agenda of any kind.

Typhoon's carry AIM-132 ASRAAM missiles, at 88kg they're considerably bigger than the drone will be and completely unsuitable for taking one down. (Especially at a unit cost of £200k)

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:21 pm

If you knew what you were talking about I would listen to what you have to say, but it’s obvious you don’t.

deanothedino · Post by **deanothedino** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:23 pm

BennyD wrote:And that would do what exactly? Apart from putting a hole in the wing the aircraft would still fly and be able to land. A Canada goose would damage the wing as well but we don’t stop flying because of them. Btw, what are the odds of someone being able to pilot a drone into an aircraft? Also, the slats would be out when coming into land and would protect the leading edge from the majority of that damage.

Slats won't protect the engines from ingesting the drone, potentially causing an uncontained failure that could result in someone being killed by the departing turbine or compressor blades.

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:23 pm

BennyD wrote: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.

All good on paper, didn't stop the engine failure on SWA breaking a window and killing a woman who got partially sucked out though did it. I know the front end is made of certain material and looks as bad with a bird strike but it doesn't mean we should stick drones in the air so it happens more regularly. I would imagine an aircraft would be out of service for at least 24hrs if it needed replacing so that also costs the airline etc

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:28 pm

deanothedino wrote:Slats won't protect the engines from ingesting the drone, potentially causing an uncontained failure that could result in someone being killed by the departing turbine or compressor blades.

I know. I was referring directly to the previous post showing the drone hitting the leading edge.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:31 pm

box_of_frogs wrote:Because we cannot just act on our own. We must wait for the civil authorities to request our support. Then there is the fact that 95% are already on Xmas leave.....

Not sure who you mean by we. I was referring to the inaction of the govt. but I would include the "civil authorities" as being negligent in allowing this to drag on so long without bringing in support.
Anyway, in light of your 2nd sentence, I guess we'll just have to keep our fingers crossed that we don't get an ISIS (or similar) terrorist attack at any of our airports in the next couple of weeks.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:32 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:All good on paper, didn't stop the engine failure on SWA breaking a window and killing a woman who got partially sucked out though did it. I know the front end is made of certain material and looks as bad with a bird strike but it doesn't mean we should stick drones in the air so it happens more regularly. I would imagine an aircraft would be out of service for at least 24hrs if it needed replacing so that also costs the airline etc

The SWA accident was most unfortunate as the woman was sitting well aft of the engines. Most of the aircraft inbound to Gatwick for the last 24 hours are most probably on the ground waiting to get back to Gatwick. This disruption is going to rumble on for days, maybe weeks, all because of a couple of drone sightings.

dales_claret · Post by **dales_claret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:34 pm

https://twitter.com/i/status/1075791258138935296

Could this be the answer ?

box_of_frogs · Post by **box_of_frogs** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:51 pm

nil_desperandum wrote: Anyway, in light of your 2nd sentence, I guess we'll just have to keep our fingers crossed that we don't get an ISIS (or similar) terrorist attack at any of our airports in the next couple of weeks.

Keep calm. Civ Armed Police are the primary response, and the dedicated CT teams from the military are on high readiness to respond. If asked!

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:55 pm

If the government want to ban them there must be an easier way than cause all this disruption...

deanothedino · Post by **deanothedino** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:12 pm

BennyD wrote:I know. I was referring directly to the previous post showing the drone hitting the leading edge.

You didn't quote it and I didn't read page 2 so apologies.

Mrpotatohead · Post by **Mrpotatohead** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:36 pm

BennyD wrote:I was making the point that your blasé attitude to other people’s disruption might be a little bit more measured if you were inconvenienced to the same extent. So, as the expert, when would you open the airport again if the culprit isn’t found? Why then and not mid-morning today?

My attitude is far from blasé, it isnt me who thinks we should start launching aircraft again whilst there is a significant risk of this drone reappearing and some lunatic potentially trying to fly it into an airliner carrying 300 people. I've never had to deal with a drone operating within the confines of an airfield I'm working at but for what it is worth, if there have been no more sightings by tomorrow morning I would look at resuming operations. If it appeared again then flying would have to stop.

Hibsclaret · Post by **Hibsclaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:51 pm

The Enclosure wrote:Just spit out my brew at that.

Happy to help.....I think

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:01 pm

I presume there is the danger that if somebody is committed and capable enough of flying a relatively harmless drone into the grounds of Gatwick airport then the same drone could quite feasibly be carrying explosives. I’m sure the concern doesn’t just lie just with the potential of a collision between a drone and plane.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:09 pm

It has already been assessed as a non-terrorist incident. However, there may be cause for concern that there may be in the future, especially as those so inclined will have noticed how easy it is to paralyse an international airport.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:10 pm

deanothedino wrote:You didn't quote it and I didn't read page 2 so apologies.

No worries, my mistake; I should have quoted but I didn’t notice it was going to be the first post on the next page.

Bullabill · Post by **Bullabill** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:16 pm

y FactualFrank » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:08 pm

BennyD wrote:
And that would do what exactly? Apart from putting a hole in the wing the aircraft would still fly and be able to land.

What if it instead went through the window of the plane and killed a few people?

I don't have as much flying experience as Benny but I did do 21 years as a commercial airline Flight Engineer and I can assure you that there is far less chance of the cockpit window suffering that sort of damage than the wing leading edge. Cockpit windows are around 1" thick and are a glass/perspex/glass sandwich with the perspex heated to maintain it's tough, flexible state. Wing leading edge damage is a fairly common event and rarely seriously affects handling characteristics.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:22 pm

Bullabill wrote:I don't have as much flying experience as Benny but I did do 21 years as a commercial airline Flight Engineer and I can assure you that there is far less chance of the cockpit window suffering that sort of damage than the wing leading edge. Cockpit windows are around 1" thick and are a glass/perspex/glass sandwich with the perspex heated to maintain it's tough, flexible state. Wing leading edge damage is a fairly common event and rarely seriously affects handling characteristics.

To be honest, I was on about the side of the plane, hitting passengers. It could hit the 3 on the left/right before travelling through and hitting the passengers on the other side. Unless you mean the cockpit window is the same thickness as passenger side windows.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:29 pm

It wouldn’t penetrate the side of the aircraft, it would be much more likely bounce down the side. It would be like you running into the side of a car doing 60mph. FYI, the side windows are a lot thinner than the flight deck windows because there is less chance of anything hitting them

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:55 pm

FactualFrank wrote:To be honest, I was on about the side of the plane, hitting passengers. It could hit the 3 on the left/right before travelling through and hitting the passengers on the other side. Unless you mean the cockpit window is the same thickness as passenger side windows.

A drone hitting head on can have a collision speed of about 700 mph (although less when the plane is landing or taking off) because the drone's speed is added to the aircraft speed when the plane is moving towards it. A drone hitting from the side has a collision speed of about 50 mph tops, because the aircraft isn't moving towards it.

atlantalad · Post by **atlantalad** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:51 am

Bosscat wrote:

Here you go BennyD think on

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

There is something not quite right with the physics of this video clip. I think this is an artificial situation. The wing looks to be held stationary while the drone is projected at speed into it. Surely on the leading edge of a moving aircraft wing there would be a compression air creating a buffer/cushion, which would deflect the trajectory of the approaching drone either above/ below the leading edge rather than head on as shown.

Oshkoshclaret · Post by **Oshkoshclaret** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:00 am

The wing on the GIF above is a Mooney M-20 and I own and fly one of those. I would happily take off or land at Gatwick with a known drone in the vicinity. Chances of it killing me are not zero but they are extremely, extremely small and well within my personal risk tolerance.

Chances of it taking down a jet airliner are even smaller. What was not posted above was the equivalent video from the same tests that showed a small bird doing more damage than the drone did. There are more than 10,000 aircraft bird strikes in the US every year. It's a pretty common thing. Very, very rarely it results in a fatality. It's considered an acceptable risk. Airports have bird mitigation strategies but they cannot eliminate birds, as Captain Sullenberger discovered when he flew into a whole flock of big ones, and all survived.

Same circumstances here in the US, there's not a chance in hell that the authorities would shut down a major commercial airport because a drone had been sighted in the vicinity. Everyone's risk tolerance is different but this Gatwick thing is complete nanny state in my opinion.

Taffy on the wing · Post by **Taffy on the wing** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:22 am

Foulthrow wrote:Two drones can shut an airport down? And you can buy these things online whenever you like? I would imagine that the enviro-mentalists will be taking note.

Did you get a little thrill 'down below' after you posted that?
Those terrible environmentalists!

Pearcey · Post by **Pearcey** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:56 am

If I’d have known a drone could’ve shut down an airfield I’d have taken one in to work on my RAF base on a Friday afternoon and stopped flying! Would’ve had some decent long weekends!

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:04 am

Oshkoshclaret wrote:The wing on the GIF above is a Mooney M-20 and I own and fly one of those. I would happily take off or land at Gatwick with a known drone in the vicinity. Chances of it killing me are not zero but they are extremely, extremely small and well within my personal risk tolerance.

Chances of it taking down a jet airliner are even smaller. What was not posted above was the equivalent video from the same tests that showed a small bird doing more damage than the drone did. There are more than 10,000 aircraft bird strikes in the US every year. It's a pretty common thing. Very, very rarely it results in a fatality. It's considered an acceptable risk. Airports have bird mitigation strategies but they cannot eliminate birds, as Captain Sullenberger discovered when he flew into a whole flock of big ones, and all survived.

Same circumstances here in the US, there's not a chance in hell that the authorities would shut down a major commercial airport because a drone had been sighted in the vicinity. Everyone's risk tolerance is different but this Gatwick thing is complete nanny state in my opinion.

Nail on head. Good to hear sense from a fellow pilot. As I said earlier, like a lot of things in this nanny state, it's been a massive over reaction.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:27 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqCo4T-QkGk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:32 am

My favourite way of dealing with drones is of course, the Russian way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhbuEUoxntQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:18 am

All the smart money is on Eco climate change nutters in conjunction with others..

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:28 am

How robust are these drones? Would a shotgun bring it down? They don't worry about stray pellets from a shotgun.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:08 am

Liz Truss knows how to deal with drones

https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1 ... 3482895361" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:19 am

BennyD wrote:Why? Debating sh!t like this with people like you means nothing to me. I don’t care what you think, this is a storm in a teacup because nobody wants to be left carrying the can, JUST IN CASE something happens.

I know we’ve had our disagreements in the past Benny but your comments have been pretty much vindicated over the past couple of days , I doubt you’ll get an apology though.

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:21 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Liz Truss knows how to deal with drones

https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1 ... 3482895361" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Soon to be introduced at Ferry Ports to deter asylum seekers

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:23 am

SmudgetheClaret wrote:All the smart money is on Eco climate change nutters in conjunction with others..

Quite possibly,and they do not realise Drones use lithium batteries

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:30 am

joey13 wrote:I know we’ve had our disagreements in the past Benny but your comments have been pretty much vindicated over the past couple of days , I doubt you’ll get an apology though.

Joey, you are one of the last people I would expect to hear that from, but your post is very much appreciated and I thank you. You have gone up in my estimation. Much respect.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:40 am

It must be pretty annoying when experts get ignored..........

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:53 am

dsr wrote: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.

What I understand is you can programme a drone to fly a particular path and so don't need any form of radio control, therefore they cannot be jammed.

A question for the experts. Is there any way a drone could bring down a modern passenger plane? Interfere with the tailplane for example?