SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Fox News reports a claim that Drone at Newark Airport Came Within 30 Feet of Aircraft:
Arriving flights were halted at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey on Tuesday when a drone was spotted near a neighboring airport, officials said. And one pilot claims that the drone came as close as 30 feet to his aircraft, according to a new report.
Two airplanes headed to Newark reported seeing a drone around 5 p.m. over Teterboro Airport, a smaller airport located roughly 18 miles northeast of Newark.
The FoxNews report quotes this story at ABC news:
Officials have now resumed operations after a ground stop had been ordered at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey due to drone activity, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.
Officials received two reports of a drone seen about 3,500 feet above Teterboro Airport in Bergen County, New Jersey, FAA spokesman Greg Martin told ABC News.
[...] "Missed the drone by about 30 feet off our right wing," one pilot said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @04:22PM (7 children)
Bird strikes are serious problems for aircraft engines, there is nothing "soft" about it. For example there is extensive damage to the fan blades in this engine after a bird strike [wikipedia.org]. That probably happened during takeoff roll and probably forced the pilots to idle or shut down that engine (proceeding to land at earliest opportunity).
Yeah drones are probably a bit worse.
Anyway to answer the OP's question... the reason people care is that this is a hazard which is completely unneccesary and should not be there. Assholes just need to not fly their aircraft (i.e., drones) in the controlled airspace, without following the rules of that airspace like all other operators have to! (This probably means, at minimum, equipping the drone with a suitable transponder and being in radio communication with ATC).
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday January 24 2019, @04:44PM (3 children)
the irony here, is that drones could probably help prevent bird strikes by surveillance of the airfield using airport controlled drones.
It's just a shame that such neat technology can be misused in such a potentially catastrophic way...
(Score: 4, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 24 2019, @05:00PM
Just because you're accustomed to 24/7 surveillance, doesn't mean the wildlife should be subjected to the same thing.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @06:34PM
A nearby military base airport uses falcons for pigeon and seagull control.
When not in the air, they are on high perches to ward-off other birds.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:16PM
I call your irony and raise with my own - ironically birds [thedrive.com] can prevent a drone strike too.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday January 24 2019, @05:55PM (1 child)
I wonder why — given that lightweight and small cameras and DVR tech are both so readily available — the aircraft is not equipped for continuous recording of the near airspace. I would think that the difference between "pilot claims" and "here's a frame of the drone" would be worthy.
Many cameras can take individual frames very quickly. Very high light sensitivities can be used to achieve very short exposure times, which helps to freeze fast moving subjects in place.
At least then they might have a hint of the brand and configuration of the drone. It's a starting point if nothing else.
Seems odd, that's all.
--
The eyes are the windows to the soul.
Sunglasses are the window-shades.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @08:20PM
New frontier for google skyview, so i know where i am going in my flying car.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @02:16PM
Which is exactly what a stupid pilot would do. An experienced pilot following guidelines on bird strikes would keep the power to the engine as in vast majority of the cases the engine is still capable of producing power and is not seriously damaged. The power surge from bird strike doesn't destroy the engine. A drone, on the other hand, rather would. The metal in the motors of the drones would alone destroy the compressor. Then you have to turn off the motor as you end up with engine fire and/or disintegration.
As to your image, that looks plainly like superficial damage to the front fan that would not have done much damage to the internal compressor. That motor should have been NOT turned off or idled. The fan is damaged as the blades cut the bird into tiny tiny slices. And this looks like a sizable bird.. But as you can see, that fan is still intact and the motor is in one piece. Try throwing some coins in it instead - those would destroy the motor, unlike a bird.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/27/chinese-passenger-throws-coins-plane-engine-luck/ [telegraph.co.uk]
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/23420/how-man-bird-strikes-are-there-per-year-any-world-wide-statistics [stackexchange.com]
and as you can imagine, in most cases, not much damage. (in your example, the engine needs overhaul after emergency landing)