Plane (apparently not) hit by drone at Heathrow.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Paul Jefferies on 18/04/2016 08:16:46:

As I said in a previous thread on this subject, I think the BMFA should be in right at the start of any negotiations to make suggestions that we could live with, rather than wait for more draconian measures to be imposed on us.

Paul

According to the BMFA News and website, isn't this just what they are doing? The BMFA is in regular dialogue with both the CAA and European legislators. There's tangible evidence in the new multicopter/FPV tests and of course, the dreaded 20 questions!

[Dai Fledermaus]

I wonder if the Drone owner has been on the phone already to see if he can sue BA for destruction of property.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

The pilot hit someting - whether it was a drone or not is I think an open question. Let's say he flying at 160knots, to see the drone it would have to be at least a reasonable size - a 250 at the very minimum, probably larger. The most likely culprit would be an "out of the box" job like a Phantom for example. Now if an aircraft doing 160knots hit something like that I would expect there to be some noticable and significant damage. The drone is going to weigh 0.5 to 2kg but the real issue is that (unlike a fixed wing aircraft) the drone's weight is concentrated into a relatively small package - ie it is more dense. This means the affect of impact with it is likely to be highly focussed and much greater.

But what happened? The aircraft was inspected and found OK to simply continue with its next scheduled duty. For that to be the case any damage would have the be completely superficial with absolutely no posiblity of anything more serious. We are talking scratches on the paintwork - no more. Any structural surface damage, no matter how slight, would have required a full examination involving scans and probably removal of the panel to access and inspect the area behind. That can't be done "on the stand" or by the sort of ground technical crew that would have been available. No, it seems certain that any "damage" done was very, very slight indeed. Remember an engineer is going to have to formally sign this aircraft off as "safe" and the captain is going to have to sign to say he accepts the aircraft as safe. Neither of these are going to take the slightest chance with something like this.

So is that consistent with hitting a drone? Well it could be - but only if it was an extremely shallow angle grazing impact. Anything other than that would have resulted in significantly more than "scraped paintwork" in my estimation - even with quite a small drone.

So, I'm not sure he did hit a drone. Maybe he did, but I think its unlikely. It more likely he hit a more disperse object, a latern, or the like. Something less dense, where the mass is more widely distributed.

But even if it is shown that he did hit a drone, I still don't accept that this will result in the sort of backlash many fear. The CAA are not fools, they know the hobby is well regulated and managed and that any probblems there are out there are not down to the likes of us - who are just as concerned as they are.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 18/04/2016 09:14:21

[Mr.B.]

BEB, could a UAV be deflected by the pressure wave ahead of a large aircraft, or at least would the pressure wave dissipate some of the energy?

[raimond c]

Fellow modellers, when was the last time you saw a programme or series about conventional model flying on mainstream TV? Never! ... far too 'niche','anorak-like' or 'boring'. However,thanks to the morons with drones, the hobby of model flying has now been well and truly placed into the grasp of the media for all the wrong reasons. Hardly a week goes by without hearing or seeing the word 'drone' mentioned. Safety and security is so paramount these days, that the clock will no doubt be ticking on when we will see a return to registration of all personal radio transmitting equipment (with the inevitable fees of course) and who knows what other oppressive legislation thrown in for good measure...and much as we detest it...we will all be tarred with the same brush. Drones can't be disinvented but they need to be kept out of the hands of the "kids" among us.

[Peter Miller]

Well I know from experience that birds do not get deflected and birds can punch holes in aircraft very easily. I have seen what a pigeon can do to a Hunter intake and a photo of a Canadian Argus (Brittania with radial engines) showed one that had flown through a flock of seagulls. You would swear that someone had opened up with a 20mm canon.

Then the nose of a Valetta that his a large bird. Not it wasn't deflected it just caved the nose in.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

If it was light enough, if the speed of the aircraft was high enough or if the portion in-line to be struck was the right sort of shape to create a strong pressure wave- yes. But there are a lot of unknowns there! With the object being big enough for the pilot to see it - when busy and travelling at that speed - I would not have thought it likely the pressure wave could push out of the way.

For comparison look at page 98 onward of this report: This is an AAIB report of an impact which took place in 2015 between a SAS Wildthing being slope soared and a light aircraft on approach to Shoreham. Now a Wildthing is a lot less dense than a drone - but even so significant damage was done to the other aircraft's wing leading edge, aileron and rudder. Not so serious that the aircraft could not land sucessfully - but cerainly much, much, more damage than would allow even a thought of flying the aircraft again without repairs which would require "out of service".

Its also possibly of intrerest to note here that this is the only incident of a collision of this type I am aware of in recent years. And it wasn't a "drone" by the usual definition applied here, and it wasn't "a irresponsible idiot" - it was "one of us"! And it didn't lead to CAA, or anyone else, calling for or instigating a "ban" - or taking any other drastic action. In fact I'd suggest, with the greatest of respect, that most of you weren't even aware it had happened?

BEB

[Mr.B.]

Thanks BEB. I've previously read the Shoreham report. The response was to stop flying at the slopping site. There are lessons there for us. It shows the importance of that other contentious issue - knowledge of the ANO & relevant CAPs

[Don Fry]

We have had a day to pontificate about this, as as far as our guesswork goes a small 'drone' may or may not have hit a commercial airliner, resulting in no or minimal damage to the airliner.

But it does strike me, despite our prognostications of doom, any risk analyst at the CAA would be unsurprised that a risk activity has resulted a collision.

My point is, this does not change the situation.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Enforcement of the law is for others to do.

Education we can play a part in, are you or your club doing your bit ? turning your back, banning them from your clubs is a missed opportunity and they may go fly where they shouldn't be ?

BMFA has been liaising and brought about a few changes for us, the response ?

John

[Martin Whybrow]

Someone has reported they heard the pilots communication with the tower: "Pilot reported to tower "on approach we hit something, maybe a bird or a piece of litter".

[Bucksboy]

The other factor at work here is the Press and their desire to sell newspapers. They sensationalise anything and everything to sell papers. So, when cold, hard facts are scarse, they fill in the blanks with anything.

[Bob Burton]

I see that

"The object has since been recovered and multiple reports suggest it was a drone, flow by persons unknown."

We shall see how true those multiple reports turn out to be.

[Peter Miller]

P robably a bit of styrofoam out of someones dustbin

[John F]

Well a mate of a mate who was out drinking at the time said he saw everything and he says the plane hit a Minion.

The Minion was riding a multi rotor aircraft but was playing with the lipo on the model and, well you know how dangerous they are!! Next thing - boom! The minion shot up into the sky on the super massive explosion that these lipo's are famous for.

On the way down the plane hit the Minion. That's how my mates mate saw it.

[kc]

The real question now is why the BBC have comments from someone called 'Lee Butler' ( who's he? I fly in Essex and i don't know who he is ! ) rather than from the BMFA.

Whats wrong with the BMFA that they don't respond directly to the BBC and give 'our' viewpoint?

Come on BMFA this is the time to earn your salaries and fellowships etc.

 

Edited By kc on 18/04/2016 13:31:06

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Nah, seems a pretty fair article to me, don't know Lee either, I live in Yorkshire

John

 

Edited By john stones 1 on 18/04/2016 14:06:31

Edited By john stones 1 on 18/04/2016 14:14:37

[John F]

KC, what could the BMFA say that Lee Butler from Essex did not; "most folk fly responsibly"?

The BBC article then quotes and leave links to the CAA website which lays down the rules.

Why do you want the BMFA stating the same thing? What about other modelling bodies such as LMA of FPVUK?

To be fair they did a pretty good article with a good overview of the rules as well as a link to the CAA rules pages which all model associations refer to. 

Edited By John F on 18/04/2016 16:22:47

[Tim Mackey]

The important thing here is that according to the report highlighted by BEB clearly indicates that wildthings now have rudders - yeeeeeeh"!

[Old Geezer]

Just caught something on FiveLive just before 2.00pm. Someone from BMFA being interviewed by Beeb presenter - what I heard seemed OK in the short time allowed. Understandably he was a bit cagey as to whether the plane had actually struck a drone at all.

[Bravo Delta]

**LINK**

Reading down the article , it appears the incident happened around the Richmond Park Area at around 1700ft

"No debris has been found and Police have asked for anyone who finds drone parts in the Richmond area to come forward"

"A Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) spokesman said it was "totally unacceptable" to fly drones - which are generally used to capture aerial film or photographs - close to airports."

Richmond Park is around at least 9km from Heathrow according to google maps measuring tool

So the jury is still out on what the object was , but assuming the Pilot is identifying the object correctly , and the information correct , a 'drone' flying at 1700ft on an airport approach path is certainly a cause for concern.

There are comments on compulsory ' Geo Fencing ' proposal to drones and US style registration .

[fly boy3]

Slightly off topic, but can any one explain to this dinasaur (me) how this geo fencing works. Who sets it up and what happens if the fence is breached. Thanks

Edited By fly boy3 on 18/04/2016 18:33:23

[John F]

The term "geo fencing" is simply a virtual mapped perimeter that excludes, or includes, certain areas.

In this instance the reference is for model flying so you would need GPS on the aircraft and have the ability for a program to interrupt the input from the pilot or route that you have planned and to steer away from the fence line back into unrestricted airspace.

How on earth that would be implemented would be hard to say though.

[John Privett]

I've just had a quick look at the "playback" function on flightradar24. There's no sign of any BA flights from Geneva, that I can see, anywhere near Richmond Park at the time stated in the BBC article ("at 12:50 BST on Sunday".

There is however flight BA729 from Geneva passing just north of Richmond Park (directly over the South Circular Road) at 12:50 UTC - an hour later. I'll excuse journalists not knowing their backside from their elbow, it's about par for the course really.... The groundspeed was 169 kts at that point and the altitude 2,000 feet, descending at 1,000 ft/min.

Good luck looking for bits of mangled drone on the South Circular!

[Pete B]

There are two sides to every story, you know.....

Pete