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
Related Stories
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.]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @07:47PM
When I was into model rockets, we had to be at least 4 miles from the nearest airport, and check for air traffic before launch. Higher powered ones required an FAA waiver and license to buy propellant. Only a fucking moron flies a drone near or in the flightpath of aircraft.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @07:50PM
This is Sarfeest Engurlund we are talking about. All Tory and UKIP supporters to a man.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday April 17 2016, @07:52PM
We still haven't seen any reason to believe it wasn't an "organic drone".
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday April 18 2016, @02:52AM
Precisely, I'm curious how the pilot knows what they hit. Even during the final approach planes are moving rather fast and both birds and drones are rather small.
It's certainly something to look into, but I think it's rather too soon to say unless there was some sort of signs left on the plane.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Arik on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:04PM
The same kind of idiot that calls an RC model airplane a 'drone' I should think.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:20PM
There's a large open field next to the airport in Springfield, IL. People used to fly kites over there back in the day. Not sure if they still do.
Back in a more innocent world (the 90's) my dad and I managed to get a homemade one we built ourselves high enough over there that they sent someone over to tell us to knock the the hell off. We complied of course, but I recall being somewhat incredulous that a kite could ever interfere with a plane landing. I'm not sure what the point of this anecdote was, but I guess something you could take from this is that it's actually much easier to get into airspace than you'd think it is.
Of course, in this day and age, I wouldn't even attempt to set a kite (let alone a drone) in flight within miles of an airport.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:22PM
A modern idiot, the simpler things become, the better idiots Nature develops.
Or one that wants a casus belli for lot of new laws and technical restrictions.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:37PM
RC aircraft went from a hobby where you had to put down a decent amount of cash to get into. Then have some amount of skill to not obliterate whatever it was you put together. Then have the backup spare parts and know how to fix the thing when you did obliterate it. To a hobby where you buy a whole kit from amazon for 30-100 bucks controller and all. Little to no skill in using it. Also being fairly robust in taking a hit.
At that point it was no longer a hobby but a mass market toy. I was into RC cars. I probably spent well over 1k on 1 car. I have bought a few of the 30 helicopters. They are fun. But not as satisfying as putting it all together yourself.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @09:37PM
Aeronautics class was a blast in high school. We made everything from scratch, from design to flying models. Too bad it and a lot of other subjects were dropped.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @05:54PM
You can build multicopters yourself too, far surpassing the performance, robustness and price/performance ratio of ready-to-fly models. The community that does is centered around RCGroups like the rest of the hobby.
You might have to spend less time on mechanical things like reparing swashplates all the time, yes, but there is a lot of work done on the software side of things like improving PID controllers or trying to get better readings from the gyro (Example: Betaflight and Raceflight firmwares).
Of course the people that do this are fewer in number than owerners RTF models, but not fewer than the fixed wing or heli guys.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @12:50AM
See subject. It's "eternal september" applied to flying models.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday April 17 2016, @07:50PM
Did they at least find scuffed paint?
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:06PM
"believed to be a drone" as in it might as well been a bird. And the source albeit reputable is the pilot.
Birds fly regardless of CAA permissions.
However Airprox Board found that there were 23 near-misses between drones and aircraft between October-2015 and April-2016. Ie, 3.3 strikes every month or 1.2 per week. The article mentions debris, perhaps the battery lithium which is very reactive is a separate concern?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:14PM
I don't know how it's being counted in the U.K., but in the U.S. the FAA's "near misses" for drones turned out to mean "within a few miles miles", so zero confirmed strikes.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gravis on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:11PM
breaking news is supposed to be when something interesting happens. the plane landed without issue or even minor damage. "breaking news! plane lands without issue... oh and a rc plane might have bumbed it" ಠ_ಠ
if it's gonna be breaking news, the plane better have crashed or you are wasting everyone's time!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:25PM
I'll break all the news, Gravis!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @09:02PM
British Airways is on approach now. There appears to be a small craft in its flight path. The... oh my god, ladies and gentlemen, British Airways has struck the drone... there are people screaming and... a man has fallen from the craft... there's chaos on the ground with onlookers fleeing everywhere... my god... oh, the humanity!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @09:26PM
I'll bet this is a false flag operation.
Be afraid! A drone hit a plane. Give up your freedoms now!
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @12:54AM
Oh no, jackass can't fly his rc model, it's the end of civilization.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 20 2016, @06:46PM
Well, I guess the drone did broke..
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:11PM
In addition, officials could make it mandatory for drones to run geo-fencing software - that would prevent them flying in restricted areas.
I guess this assumes that all drones have onboard GPS?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @08:04AM
Don't all drones have GPS? A camera plus pattern recognition takes a lot more power and weight than a simple GPS chip.
Or are you confusing drones with RC helicopters?
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:29PM
Serious question. If a drone gets into the jet engine, I would imagine it could pose some risk. But is the risk significant higher than that caused by a bird? Are the metal parts stronger than bird bones? Depends also on the type of bird and type of drone, of course...
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:46PM
Birds don't have lithium batts. Airplanes are tested against birds, but flammable/explosive batts hitting an engine?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:52PM
Insignificant compared to the fuel combustion already happening.
(Score: 3, Informative) by KilroySmith on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:56PM
A lithium battery ain't gonna explode, but it'll surely catch fire - slowly. If the fan blade at the front of the engine shorted the Li battery, or cut it in half, the battery is going to be through the back of the engine long before it'll ever heat up, so fire isn't going to be much of a concern for a jet engine. The hard parts in the model (e.g. the motor) may cause damage to the engine, but that's a different issue.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Dunbal on Sunday April 17 2016, @11:44PM
I seriously doubt it. I'm not a materials engineer, but drones are mostly plastic and really, really soft metals, Jet fan blades are amazingly strong titanium. Yes, the blades might crack, just like they crack when frozen seagulls are thrown into jet engines during testing. Yes the debris might bounce around inside the engine and cause a compressor failure, just like a bird strike. But I doubt very much you'd get a catastrophic engine failure from one, and I LAUGH at all the people who point out how lithium batteries can catch fire and explode - as if the inside of a jet engine were a nice cool and gentle environment in the first place...
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday April 18 2016, @02:57AM
There are documented cases of drone blades literally cutting through human skulls. I'm definitely not an expert, but considering how powerful some of the larger drone's props are, I wouldn't assume that they can't hurt a plane.
And that's assuming that the thing doesn't get sucked into one of the engines. I know that they can land with more than one, but some of the smaller planes have only one or two engines.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Monday April 18 2016, @03:29AM
Human skulls are not made of titanium. Also consider that the turbine blade would be hitting the drone blade edge on. I think titanium would win over plastic. That drone prop just gets sliced into very thin pieces as each turbine blade passes. Hell, haven't you seen what a jet engine does to a human skull (and body)? (GRAPHIC PICTURE OF ACCIDENT WHERE MAN WAS SUCKED INTO JET ENGINE DO NOT CLICK IF SQUEAMISH [liveleak.com]) You're going to tell me your little plastic thing is going to do MORE damage than this? Please note that the damage to the fan blades is actually not all that much...
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday April 18 2016, @03:38AM
No, skulls aren't made out of titanium, but they are rather thick and difficult to cut through. Certainly harder to cut through than a plane would be. Also, most planes are made out of aluminum, carbon fiber, fiberglass and other similar materials over a frame skeleton and a skull is definitely tougher than most of those materials. It just takes a poke in the wrong place to cause all sorts of problems.
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday April 18 2016, @07:17AM
Now please... I have a wooden prop on my air-plane. No money for titanium.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Username on Monday April 18 2016, @01:52AM
You can cut through birds with a knife, cooks do it all the time. Can you cut through steel or aluminum with a knife?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @01:07PM
Can you cut through steel or aluminum with a knife?
Yes. Though perhaps not if either of them were very thick or the knife or wielder is wimpy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @02:36AM
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/05/when-drone-flies-jet-engine-bad-things-happen/84568/ [defenseone.com] "it changes the equation" yet there is no official test (yet?) for mechanical devices getting into engines. They have to start testing, and check probabilty numbers (idiots++).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @05:45PM
Counter!
http://mercatus.org/publication/do-consumer-drones-endanger-national-airspace-evidence-wildlife-strike-data [mercatus.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:50PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:54PM
Or because they need a damned good excuse to keep air power from the hands of the Peons.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Sunday April 17 2016, @09:25PM
Not sure what the big fuss is, sounds like the airplane won. If anything, this seems to indicate that drone are safe to fly near airports (for the airplanes, anyway).
(Of course, you probably don't want to get a drone into any of the engines.)
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Sunday April 17 2016, @09:32PM
http://i.imgur.com/9Dh66XY.png
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @10:07PM
Exactly.
"Drone hits British Airways plane"
It that was true there would likely be some pretty significant damage. If there really was a drone involved, there should be stern words had with the military. If it was just some idiot with a quad-copter, the reporting agency is stupid for elevating a toy to a weapon of war.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday April 18 2016, @04:53AM
The type of drone that's used as a weapon in wars is called an unmanned combat aerial vehicle, UCAV for short. The BBC know the difference:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22968362 [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10602105 [bbc.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday April 18 2016, @12:08AM
-- https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/drone [oxforddictionaries.com]
2 a)
-- http://www.dictionary.com/browse/drone [dictionary.com]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday April 18 2016, @12:29AM
Noun
(uncountable)
(slang) Annoyance because of a perceived insult.
(slang) Upset because of a perceived injustice.
He's just full of butthurt because I insulted him.
Despite the weakness of the dictionary definition, I am able to correctly parse the word in the context of your posts.
You should learn to do the same for the word drone. You can refer back to the picture. There may well be corner cases but the vast majority are perfectly clear. A toy airplane is not a drone. A drone is a working craft, as in it has a job to do.
If this plane had impacted a drone there would have been damage. Most likely it bumped some sort of bird.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday April 18 2016, @12:59AM
Ad hominem much?
You like yourdictionary.com better than the OED or Random House, fine:
-- http://www.yourdictionary.com/drone [yourdictionary.com]
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday April 19 2016, @12:40PM
Sorry, but it seems people are stubbornly refusing to stick to the officially mandated meaning of the word "drone".
But then again, there isn't one, so that's fine.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, and are generally slightly behind the times.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday April 19 2016, @03:06PM
You start with two words that clearly describe two ends of a spectrum.
Then you get people confusing the two words, either deliberately or through ignorance.
Then you get relativists defending their mistakes using the same logic you just stated.
And finally you get a language that no longer has two words to describe two ends of a spectrum, but instead two words that are now synonyms, and no simple way to express what was simply and easily expressible before.
This is how a culture commits suicide. Why are you assisting?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday April 19 2016, @04:38PM
Then you get relativists defending their mistakes using the same logic you just stated.
I'm not defending anything. It's simply the way English works and will continue to work, whether you like it or not.
Culture is not "commiting suicide" because one word is now slightly more ambiguous than it was before. It's hardly the first time this has happened and it won't be the last.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday April 19 2016, @04:52PM
It's not a given, it's not 'just how English works' that meaningful words are stripped of meaning and conversation made progressively more difficult.
If it were as you paint it, every random error would just automatically become correct English over time, and that's never been the case. (If it were, English would by this point be essentially incapable of expressing any denotative meaning - all words would over time be reduced nearly to synonyms with only emotive distinctions remaining fully expressible.)
What happens is ONLY IF large number of people, including particularly *literate* people who engage in reading and writing every day, do not accept it, classify it simply as an error, then it remains an error. It is OUR language, and it is OUR duty to defend it. You're advocating we surrender instead, whether that's what you intend to do or not.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday April 19 2016, @06:08PM
It is OUR language, and it is OUR duty to defend it. You're advocating we surrender instead, whether that's what you intend to do or not.
No, I'm saying you've already lost this one. Get over it.
Are you offended every time someone says "that's so cool" when they don't mean a thing is of low temperature? Do you cringe every time someone uses "bloody" as an intensifier, because it might be mistaken for "covered in blood"?
It is OUR language, and it is OUR duty to defend it.
No, it's not. I've as much right to use words as I see fit as you have. I could start saying "blarb" instead of "cheese" but I'd be an idiot to expect anyone else to join in (but hey, it might take off). It's our "duty" simply to use - and modify - language as best suits our needs. If the "loss" of the word drone becomes such an encumberance (which, let's face it, is hardly likely) the system will correct itself in time. A word for buzzy flying toys was "needed" as they became more popular; "drone" wasn't doing all that much (and in most dictionaries it covers them anyway) so it's been co-opted.
It's hardly in the same class as "literally" where a meaning really has been lost (replaced almost by its opposite), and can be nearly impossible to judge from context. I'm still hoping that'll sort itself out and the new usage will die off, but who knows.
Good grief, if it was up to the likes of you we'd still be saying "forsooth" and "gadzooks" and calling each other "sirrah" instead of "buddy."
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday April 19 2016, @07:58PM
Neither of those uses conflict with the primary denotative meaning. Neither of them collapse a semantic space obstructing conversation.
You're comparing meaningful slang expressions to *errors* that strip meaning rather than adding to it.
"A word for buzzy flying toys was "needed" as they became more popular"
No, it wasn't. We already have terms for these, and if I am wrong on that, if a new term is genuinely needed for some reason, then fine, coin a new term. Don't take a term that already has a meaning, a similar but nevertheless very different meaning, and just misuse it willy-nilly.
Drone was doing an awful lot, in fact, that's simply ignorance speaking. Drone has been in continuous use in this sense in the military since at least 1935.
"Good grief, if it was up to the likes of you we'd still be saying "forsooth" and "gadzooks" and calling each other "sirrah" instead of "buddy.""
Not at all. Those are just more examples where you're just citing slang expressions. I never objected to slang expressions. You're missing the point entirely.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @05:57PM
Tell me, then, why was the term drone not applied to RC aircraft before Parrot's marketing department existed? We had flight controllers with semi-autonomous capabilities (like RTH) and video downlinks (FPV) before that.
And if your answer is "well language changes" then your dictionary citations are meaningless.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday April 19 2016, @11:15AM
I looked in a paper dictionary printed in 1983. It defines a drone as a pilotless, radio-controlled aircraft, controlled via radio by an operator from the ground or from another aircraft. That's my paraphrase, but it mentions nothing about the size or purpose of the aircraft.
Usage does indeed change; else we would not be calling aircraft "drones" at all. It is said [wsj.com] that the term "drone" was first applied to aircraft circa 1935 by a U.S. Navy officer as an allusion to the Royal Navy's DH 82B Queen Bee. In 1996, the term was applied to helicopters, originally designed to have a pilot aboard, which were converted into RC aircraft.
Your statement that the application of "drone" to small quadcopters typically used as toys was popularised by Parrot USA. Likewise for the notion espoused elsewhere in the thread that the term formerly referred to weapon-carrying military craft above a certain size. Let's suppose those can be supported. Then it remains to be seen why only UCAVs ought to be deemed "drone" aircraft. Are you suggesting that the current usage promotes Parrot USA, or that past usage ought always to be preferred? If the former, the connection appears tenuous to me. If the latter, the term had best not be used for aircraft at all, since that application is less than a century old. Indeed, if there are good reasons to prefer old language, we should be speaking Latin.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @11:28PM
Use this post as a parent for all the "drone owners' property rights shall not be infringed" / "drones should be flown anywhere" / "FAA evil conspiracy" and other bullshit drone apologist posts.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Sunday April 17 2016, @11:38PM
"Our aircraft landed safely, was fully examined by our engineers and it was cleared to operate its next flight."
Looks like drones are just about as dangerous as laser pointers... I agree that logic dictates that sticking drones in front of airplanes is not a good idea. But I can just imagine the disproportionate shitstorm that is coming...