Drone hits BA plane at Heathrow

fabs said:
But an interesting enough subject for people to discuss without having to wade through that thread. ;)
Click to expand...

Your call of course. I don't mind discussing it in two different parts of the forum.
 
Hopefully, they'll identify the idiot and give out some adequate punishment!
 
Just read a few posts in the drone thread- not noticed it before. Quite a few posts re responsibility and the law. If the papers pick it up someone will be asking the PM what he is going to do about it, following the inquiry will need a license to buy drones over X size I reckon.
 
Just goes to prove Einstein's postulation that there is no limit to human stupidity.
 
Shouldn't there be an exclusion zone for flying drones around civil and military airfields?
Does one already exist?
I would have thought that anyone flying a drone near aircraft coming in to land is doing it deliberately and not as a genuine hobby.
 
andy700 said:
Shouldn't there be an exclusion zone for flying drones around civil and military airfields?
Does one already exist?
Click to expand...
According to the "expert" that they interviewed on the radio, its possible to geo-tag ( I think that's the buzz word) the software to make it impossible to fly
near airfields. Supposedly tamper proof too, but I would put money on that last bit.
 
andy700 said:
Shouldn't there be an exclusion zone for flying drones around civil and military airfields?
Does one already exist?
I would have thought that anyone flying a drone near aircraft coming in to land is doing it deliberately and not as a genuine hobby.
Click to expand...
Flying a drone near an airport can already be punished with up to five years in prison.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/artic...ode-rules-on-flying-drones-safely-and-legally

Whoever flew it probably not aware of the law or penalty, if they were aware ... not much hope unless all drones are geo-tagged/ as above or all ops are licensed
 
Call me a skeptic, but I don't believe it was a drone, for two reasons.
a) Lack of damage to the plane.
b) Lack of drone wreckage on the ground.

I think it may have been a bird.
 
Rob 80386 said:
Call me a skeptic, but I don't believe it was a drone, for two reasons.
a) Lack of damage to the plane.
b) Lack of drone wreckage on the ground. I think it may have been a bird.
Click to expand...
I must admit that I was sceptical but took the news report at face value.
Bird strikes are a problem, that's why there is normally bird control measures in place.
Be that audio or visual.
 
andy700 said:
Shouldn't there be an exclusion zone for flying drones around civil and military airfields?
Does one already exist?
I would have thought that anyone flying a drone near aircraft coming in to land is doing it deliberately and not as a genuine hobby.
Click to expand...

Cobra said:
According to the "expert" that they interviewed on the radio, its possible to geo-tag ( I think that's the buzz word) the software to make it impossible to fly
near airfields. Supposedly tamper proof too, but I would put money on that last bit.
Click to expand...

There is on high end MR control systems, as for being tamper proof, no they are not, but you have to know what you are doing to get round it, so not really in the scope of the clueless.
Geo-fencing as its technically known as doesn't work on all FC's or model aircraft that doesn't even use an FC.

I know this from experience with FC control software and delving into the workings of DJI phantom 3 firmware, I can't say too much as it really is for my eyes only.
Although non-GPS FC's like the Naze32 acro fun fly, I can tell you are like souped up KK and KK2 controllers, you have to actually fly it and it's a lot of fun too, but would be hard to regulate by electronic means, apart from jamming the ISM band, which is illegal in itself.
 
Rob 80386 said:
Call me a skeptic, but I don't believe it was a drone, for two reasons.
a) Lack of damage to the plane.
b) Lack of drone wreckage on the ground.

I think it may have been a bird.
Click to expand...
Theres been several reports lately of near misses. solid idents from both pilots
 
Rob 80386 said:
Call me a skeptic, but I don't believe it was a drone, for two reasons.
a) Lack of damage to the plane.
b) Lack of drone wreckage on the ground.

I think it may have been a bird.
Click to expand...

Eye witness was watching the owner and saw it crash to the ground.
 
Rob 80386 said:
Call me a skeptic, but I don't believe it was a drone, for two reasons.
a) Lack of damage to the plane.
b) Lack of drone wreckage on the ground.

I think it may have been a bird.
Click to expand...

Can't see why a small drone would cause damage to the nose of a 'plane.
Lucky it was the nose.
a******e in "control" of the drone wants a slap.
 
Mr Bump said:
Ban them all, horrible things just chav jet skis that fly.
Click to expand...
Either you're being humorous or being an idiot mate.

Not all drone owners fly them recklessly

Also there was zero evidence of the drone hitting the plane

Sure the pilot could tell it was a tiny drone when he was doing 185mph

Media sensationalise this crap all the time. The plane had no damage etc
 
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the possibility of putting a 'suspect' package on a drone instead of a camera...
 
F/1.4 said:
Either you're being humorous or being an idiot mate.

Not all drone owners fly them recklessly

Also there was zero evidence of the drone hitting the plane

Sure the pilot could tell it was a tiny drone when he was doing 185mph

Media sensationalise this crap all the time. The plane had no damage etc
Click to expand...


Riccardo's post a couple above yours would appear to show an eyewitness's report.

F1 drivers can see their pit boards at that sort of speed.

Had the object gone into an engine, it could have been a very different story. As someone pointed out on a news earlier, bird strikes cause enough problems and birds tend not to contain LiIon batteries.
 
Living in Richmond and walking through the park on Sunday lunchtime I saw plane after plane coming in, might have seen BA727 but did not see the drone. But like the poor african chap who decided to stow away in the undercarriage bay of a BA B744 from JHB only to fall dead just 500 ft away from our house I dread to think what would've happened if the drone got sucked into the engine. Just does not bear thinking about.
 
F/1.4 said:
Also there was zero evidence of the drone hitting the plane

Sure the pilot could tell it was a tiny drone when he was doing 185mph
Click to expand...

I see no reason to disbelieve the flight crew.
So many reported near misses it was just a matter of time.
 
F/1.4 said:
Either you're being humorous or being an idiot mate.

Not all drone owners fly them recklessly

Also there was zero evidence of the drone hitting the plane

Sure the pilot could tell it was a tiny drone when he was doing 185mph

Media sensationalise this crap all the time. The plane had no damage etc
Click to expand...

There's been tests done on reasonable sized drone, which broke the windscreen. Imagine if one went into an engine as the plane is on approach
 
We watched a BA doc or something like that. I hadn't realised what important stuff is in the "nose" so perhaps it was a lucky escape that the "nose hit" didn't have any ramifications for that flight. Hopefully they will find this drone's owner and find several pages of the book to throw at him/her.
 
Looks like the eye-witness report I read may have been fiction. Seems the police are now saying the drone was over Richmond Park (according to the Daily Mirror).
 
kendo1 said:
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the possibility of putting a 'suspect' package on a drone instead of a camera...
Click to expand...
Have seen news reports a while ago that is being looked at, probably same report police? /security were looking at possibility of using birds of prey to bring drones down.
 
I don't think any drone struck any plane. I would also welcome some more regulation as there is no doubt there's ALOT of complete idiots flying them

It's a great hobby and I love the change it gives me photo wise from shooting weddings and portraits
 
F/1.4 said:
I don't think any drone struck any plane. I would also welcome some more regulation as there is no doubt there's ALOT of complete idiots flying them

It's a great hobby and I love the change it gives me photo wise from shooting weddings and portraits
Click to expand...

More regulation isn't needed and would be detrimental to those that operate safely, it would not curb unsafe flying, however better policing of current regulation would help curb unsafe flying, without punishing everyone else in the process.
 
Rob 80386 said:
More regulation isn't needed and would be detrimental to those that operate safely, it would not curb unsafe flying, however better policing of current regulation would help curb unsafe flying, without punishing everyone else in the process.
Click to expand...
Afraid the chances of that happening are close to zero imo.
 
nog said:
Afraid the chances of that happening are close to zero imo.
Click to expand...
Really?

I'm optimistic that the CAA won't be draconian and will work with the BMFA to come up with something sensible, that won't stifle innovation.

Meanwhile I'm still going to fly. (y)
 
Rob 80386 said:
Really?

I'm optimistic that the CAA won't be draconian and will work with the BMFA to come up with something sensible, that won't stifle innovation.

Meanwhile I'm still going to fly. (y)
Click to expand...

You might be right but policing by who? and who will pay for it, something has to be done to stop the cowboys/minority and the easiest & cheapest would be regulation
 
Rob 80386 said:
More regulation isn't needed and would be detrimental to those that operate safely, it would not curb unsafe flying, however better policing of current regulation would help curb unsafe flying, without punishing everyone else in the process.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but unfortunately that's the way our governments act, its easier to ban things that only affect "a few" than than to strictly regulate :(
 
still waiting to see any evidence of a drone strike...
 
Cobra said:
I agree with you, but unfortunately that's the way our governments act, its easier to ban things that only affect "a few" than than to strictly regulate :(
Click to expand...

Agreed. Banning something because regulation may be expensive, or reacting to the tabloids, are the norm unfortunately.
 
Unfortunately, a ban is easier to enforce than any amount of regulation.
 
RichardtheSane said:
What sort of evidence are you expecting?

I don't think airliners have dashcams.
Click to expand...
Picture of damage on the nose?
Drone debris?
jets don't have dash-cams?
You should be on sky with that kind of helpful insight...
 
robmac said:
Picture of damage on the nose?
Drone debris?
jets don't have dash-cams?
You should be on sky with that kind of helpful insight...
Click to expand...

How rude. No need to start up on the personal insults is there?

I would have thought the eyes of two trained pilots would be ample evidence. I'm genuinely not sure what else would be available, I don't belive airliners have external cameras unless you know something I don't, hence asking what you were expecting.
Drone debris? Could be anywhere and may have been retrieved by the owner (assuming GPS was still operative).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top