from the close-calls-are-too-close-for-comfort dept.
The British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) is calling for the UK Department for Transport and Civil Aviation Authority to conduct research into the effects of drones colliding with passenger jets, following reports of 23 near-misses between April 11th and October 4, 2015 in the UK:
In one incident a drone passed within 25m (82ft) of a Boeing 777 near London Heathrow Airport. [...] The incident at Heathrow was one of 12 that were given an "A" rating by the independent board, meaning there was "a serious risk of collision". It is the most serious risk rating out of five.
Other incidents given the most serious rating include a drone coming within 20m (66ft) of a[n] Embraer 170 jet on its approach to London City Airport above the Houses of Parliament on 13 September. On the same day, a Boeing 737 had a near miss with a drone shortly after take-off from Stansted Airport in Essex. Regulations set by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) prohibits unmanned aircraft from flying within 50m (164ft) of any vessel, vehicle or structure that is not in the control of the person in charge of the aircraft.
[...] Many pilots think it's a matter of time before one actually strikes a plane, yet no-one has any real idea what would happen if it did. Balpa says it is possible a drone could smash the windscreen, showering the crew with glass, or even cause an uncontrolled engine fire which could bring down the aircraft. In 2009, an airliner lost both engines coming out of New York after it hit a flock of geese. It was only the skill of the pilot, gliding the aircraft down in an emergency landing on the Hudson River, that saved everyone's life. Balpa says a drone strike could be even worse, because they have powerful lithium batteries on board that could start an engine fire. It's now asking the government and the safety regulator to help pay for tests to see just how serious a drone strike might be.
BALPA Related: Laser Beam Incident Causes Redirection of Transatlantic Flight
[In before the pedants: yes, "near-miss" should be "near-hit', but that is what they used in their stories and I am running with it. -Ed.]
Related Stories
A Virgin Atlantic flight from London's Heathrow Airport destined for New York was forced to return following a "laser beam incident":
A flight heading to New York turned back to London Heathrow Airport after a "laser beam incident", Virgin Atlantic has confirmed. A crew member is recorded saying to Irish air traffic control that they had a "medical issue with one of the pilots after a laser incident after take-off". It happened at 20:13 GMT, shortly after take-off, the company said, before flight VS025 returned as a precaution. There were 252 passengers and 15 crew on board. Metropolitan Police tweeted: "Aircraft forced to return to Heathrow after being hit by a laser strike... #laserstrike CAD4."
[...] A new law introduced in 2010 means people could be charged with "shining a light at an aircraft in flight so as to dazzle the pilot".
Janet Alexander, a commercial airline pilot, said shining a laser beam into a cockpit was a very dangerous thing to do. "It's unfortunately becoming an increasingly problematic occurrence. It's very like a lightning strike in that it's very instantaneous, very, very bright light, which is dazzling basically," she said. "And of course if it's targeted in exactly the wrong way you could permanently damage someone's sight."
A total of 414 "laser incidents" in the UK were reported to the Civil Aviation Authority between January and June 2015. The highest number of them was at London Heathrow Airport - 48 were reported during this period. In 2014, there were 1,440 incidents in the UK, with 168 at Heathrow, according to the CAA.
The British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa) has called for lasers to be classified as "offensive weapons" and banned in the UK, following the Virgin Atlantic flight VS025 laser incident. Members cite the frequency of laser incidents and say the 2010 legislation on lasers isn't tough enough.
An unconfirmed incident near Heathrow Airport in London may fuel calls for a drone ban:
A plane approaching Heathrow Airport is believed to have hit a drone before it landed safely, the Metropolitan Police has said. The British Airways flight from Geneva was hit as it approached the London airport at about 12:50 BST with 132 passengers and five crew on board. After landing, the pilot reported an object - believed to be a drone - had struck the front of the Airbus A320. Aviation police based at Heathrow have launched an investigation. Police said no arrests have been made.
If confirmed, it is believed to be the first incident of its kind in the UK. A British Airways spokesman said: "Our aircraft landed safely, was fully examined by our engineers and it was cleared to operate its next flight." The airline will give the police "every assistance with their investigation", the spokesman added.
Also at The Guardian and Reuters.
Previously: Call for Research after Drone Near-Misses in the UK
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday March 03 2016, @04:32PM
This way we can have all the dangerous flying things at once.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday March 03 2016, @04:55PM
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=site:nextbigfuture.com+laser+drones [google.com]
150 Kilowatt lasers will be tested on predator drones and AC130 gunships in 2016 [nextbigfuture.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03 2016, @04:41PM
It's really weird no one has thrown a "drone" into an engine yet. I bet there are thousands of end-of-life engines laying at the airplane cemetary. Not to mention airplane bodies.
Maybe myth busters could make a show about it. They have the cannon they shot the chickens at the airplanes with.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Thursday March 03 2016, @04:51PM
I'm pretty sure that such a machine being sucked into jet turbine would cause damage. Birds have caused damage to jet turbines and at least forced planes to land. Remember the plane that had to land in the Hudson River a few years ago.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday March 03 2016, @04:54PM
BBC remembers: TFA discusses it and includes a picture of the jet in the Hudson River.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Thursday March 03 2016, @05:47PM
so does the Pepperidge farm...
http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/411108-pepperidge-farm-remembers [knowyourmeme.com]
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 03 2016, @06:08PM
Such a thing has given us the fantastic word "snarge." (apparently a combination of "snot" and "garbage.")
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday March 03 2016, @07:18PM
It would cause damage, but probably not kill the engine. Remember it was a whole flock of geese that brought down Captain Sully's plane in the Hudson River.
It depends on the size of the drone. Small (less than 5 pound) drones would go right through a jet engine, with no significant damage to the engine.
Larger drones with heavier batteries and cameras might damage the engine, but probably wouldn't kill it.
As for the windshield, that is amazingly durable glass. Usually when you lose a windshield on a jet is is more than one goose. Your typical Canada Goose weights in at around 14 pounds.
On approach a 777 is usually doing no more than 136 knots, (156mph 251kph), and bird strikes are a design criteria [wikipedia.org] for cockpit windows.
In short, I think the risk is a bit hyped.
The stupidity of unauthorized flights near airports, on the other hand, knows no bounds.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Friday March 04 2016, @08:42AM
Even though most planes should be able to recover on a single engine loss it doesn't have to be that much heavier than a five pound drone to be much more serious, and uncontained failures are a much more dangerous proposition:
http://www.engineering.com/DesignSoftware/DesignSoftwareArticles/ArticleID/10914/Personal-Drones-Getting-Sucked-into-Jet-Engines-Could-Be-Disastrous.aspx [engineering.com]
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Thursday March 03 2016, @08:05PM
It's really weird no one has thrown a "drone" into an engine yet. I bet there are thousands of end-of-life engines laying at the airplane cemetary.
I once took a course on gas turbine maintenance, and the instructor mentioned that all aircraft engines are type tested on the test bed by tossing a [dead] chicken into them. They (the engine not the chicken) have to keep on running. Chickens cannot fly of course, but are assumed to bound most birds; not geese or swans though.
I don't see why the same could not be done with a drone; perhaps it has.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03 2016, @05:19PM
It was a miss. So it is a miss.
It was, however, near to being a hit. So it wasn't a hit. It was a miss, but a near miss.
Any "pedant" who thinks otherwise is, quite frankly, ignorant of the language they profess knowledge of.
So, just drop the hyphen; it adds nothing apart from the opportunity for idiots who call themselves "pedants" to get in a flap.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 03 2016, @05:33PM
Agreed. For pedantry, I tend to go to the dictionary:
near miss or near-miss
noun
1.
a strike by a missile that is not a direct hit but is close enough to damage the target.
2.
an instance of two vehicles, aircraft, etc., narrowly avoiding a collision.
3.
something that falls narrowly short of its object or of success:
an interesting movie, but a near miss.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 03 2016, @06:12PM
a strike by a missile that is not a direct hit but is close enough to damage the target.
Some interceptor missiles are designed not to actually hit the thing, but explode in close proximity to it and riddle the target with enough shrapnel to take it out. Is that considered a "hit" or a "miss"?
But yeah, now that somebody mentioned it one would think "near-miss" = "nearly a miss" = a hit.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 03 2016, @06:22PM
Are you asking me what definition #1 is?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 03 2016, @07:25PM
Nah, just musing out loud. My first thought when I hear "strike" is "two things physically contacting each other," too.
Seems like another case of a word having a clear meaning, then some people got ahold of it and started to use it in the exact opposite sense and ruined everything. (I'm a prescriptivist, obviously)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday March 03 2016, @06:35PM
Any "pedant" who thinks otherwise is, quite frankly, ignorant of the language they profess knowledge of.
While we're on the topic of ignorance of language... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/near-miss [reference.com]
noun
1. a strike by a missile that is not a direct hit but is close enough to damage the target.
2. an instance of two vehicles, aircraft, etc., narrowly avoiding a collision.
3. something that falls narrowly short of its object or of success:
an interesting movie, but a near miss.
I guess when you put the word pedant in quotes it means "one who looked it up."
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday March 03 2016, @06:38PM
I guess when you put the word pedant in quotes it means "one who hasn't looked it up."
Fixed that for me. Please feel free to point and laugh.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday March 04 2016, @02:11AM
You can't apply near as a modifier to hit. Either you hit or you don't. While near miss is somewhat idiomatic in phrasing, miss can take a modifier to indicate the margin. As in you might miss by a mile or you might barely miss in which case it's usually referred to as a near miss.
Near hit is just something that pedants like to bitch about because they've got nothing better to complain about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2016, @08:57AM
You're absolutely right - there is no such thing as a glancing blow. Nor do archery targets have any kind of quantification of a shot's accuracy using coloured annuli, as a hit is a hit is a hit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2016, @09:06AM
No, I put "pedant" in quotes as it was a term I was quoting the word.
A handy hint before considering what reply to now make - the best way to try to play smart is the way which doesn't make you look dumb.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2016, @10:26AM
(Score: 4, Funny) by DutchUncle on Thursday March 03 2016, @06:59PM
[WHAM! CRUNCH!]
"Look, they nearly missed!"
"Yes, but not quite.”
― George Carlin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKdvTecYAM [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03 2016, @07:12PM
FTFY. Had it actually been a near-miss, it probably would have just scratched the paint or something similar.
Just because most people have done or said something incorrectly their whole lives doesn't make it right.
"100,000,000 lemmings can't be wrong."
Yes they can.
(Score: 3, Informative) by BasilBrush on Thursday March 03 2016, @11:21PM
Your logic is wrong. An adjective describes a noun. It doesn't negate it. It's a miss. What type of miss? A near one. It's not a hit, and putting an adjective in front of it won't make it one.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday March 04 2016, @02:13AM
People who like to argue about these things are usually wrong. Hit is binary, either you've hit or you've not. There are a few times where it's somewhat debatable, like if a bomb goes off near the target and close enough to damage it. But, pedants aren't usually referring to that situation.
Near miss is somewhat idiomatic in phrasing, but at least a near miss is possible whereas a near hit is an oxymoron.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2016, @09:10AM
And "glancing blow" is a meaningless concept to you.
Probably because the concept of being "vaguely right" is alien to you too.
You can modify proximity in both directions, you know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03 2016, @05:32PM
Registration and accountability is all you can do short of outlawing the things all together.
As we have seen over and over again. These things are in fact VERY dangerous. So maybe they should be illegal.
Is it fair that the non-morons need to suffer for the morons? Nope. But this is the world we live in and I don't want to ever see a drone take down a plane or mame another kid or person or pet or even someone else's property or privacy again.
I say make everyone that buys one at least register it and have it broadcast its location constantly along with it ID so that accountability goes everywhere it does...all of the time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03 2016, @08:39PM
Don't be stupid. The risk from bird strikes is far greater, and we have no registration and prohibitions on birds.
As will all other crime: Let intent be the measure.
Here's the thing: The government doesn't want anyone to have drones but them. They will now produce a study to show how dangerous drones are. This, from the same dumbasses who have prohibitions on knives. It's not the knives that kill people. It's not the drones that strike planes. People kill people. People fly drones into planes.
Up next: UK bans citizens from being outdoors to protect public from threat of newly classified "assault meteors". Meh, I actually don't fucking care. There will be no UK if their suicidal immigration plans continue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03 2016, @10:15PM
Actually, people launch missiles into planes/hospitals/schools/crowds from drones. Drones are too big and expensive to kamikaze except, maybe, as a last resort. But in the end, you are absolutely correct: drones don't kill people; people kill people. The drones just let them do it from a considerable distance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2016, @12:47AM
TFA is referring to RC multicopters. Not a military UAV.
One weighs a few kg and can give you a few cuts or damage an eye at worst, the other is the size of a van shooting rockets as you said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2016, @12:58AM
In the US, the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) did an analysis of the FAA reported "near misses": https://www.modelaircraft.org/gov/docs/AMAAnalysis-Closer-Look-at-FAA-Drone-Data_091415.pdf [modelaircraft.org]
They found that the portrayal was very inaccurate and that the amount of near misses of "drones" was far lower; Because the reports included sightings of things military UAVs, blimps, hot air balloons, birds or one report where the pilot said it looked like a dog (?!); Or that it was just of people flying models completely within the legal guidelines that still got reported.
"Drone" is really just the new UFO.