SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.]
(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.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(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.