Drone hits BA plane at Heathrow

Nikon_Nick said:
Drone shaped hole in the nose, maybe?
Click to expand...

Does make you wonder how strong the outer fabric on the nose would be and where the drone was believed to hit. I guess how much damage would depend on the impact location, I'll bet the circular areas are pretty strong and if it glanced off the damage might be nothing more than a paint scratch
 
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...

I'm sure the Met, British Airways and the CAA will rush it right over to you.o_O
 
Christ!
is replying sarcastically the default setting here?.
Reports are saying a drone hit with nothing to back it up!
 
robmac said:
Christ!
is replying sarcastically the default setting here?.
Reports are saying a drone hit with nothing to back it up!
Click to expand...
Dunno, replying in kind to your tone maybe?

I don't believe the CAA are in the habit of publishing findings until investigation are complete, but I'm not sure about that. I would imagine British Airways would not go on record without good reason.
 
robmac said:
Christ!
is replying sarcastically the default setting here?.
Reports are saying a drone hit with nothing to back it up!
Click to expand...

Wow, you seem to be taking this very personally, like just because you are a responsible drone owner, it couldn't possibly be a drone that hit the plane!!

As Richard has eluded to above,we will probably find out more when the findings of the report are made public. Why would the pilots lie? Anti-drone conspiracy...
 
I'm not saying the pilots are lying but I'm amazed they can come out and say a Drone was the cause but then not post a shred of evidence.
 
robmac said:
I'm not saying the pilots are lying but I'm amazed they can come out and say a Drone was the cause but then not post a shred of evidence.
Click to expand...
I guess they were a bit too busy to stop the plane, get out and look for the wreckage.
 
robmac said:
I'm not saying the pilots are lying but I'm amazed they can come out and say a Drone was the cause but then not post a shred of evidence.
Click to expand...

And yet for years we've done just that for traffic accidents,relying on witness statements.
 
robmac said:
I'm not saying the pilots are lying but I'm amazed they can come out and say a Drone was the cause but then not post a shred of evidence.
Click to expand...

Sometimes a witness testimony is all that's required
There's many a historical celebrity sex assault to attest to that of recent times.
 
We're talking a small drone here....not a Heuy UH-1
 
just a reply to your "I guess they were a bit too busy to stop the plane, get out and look for the wreckage" statement....
 
robmac said:
really?....thank god you posted that,i was unsure of what your were talking about
Click to expand...

And you're the one bleating about sarcasm?
 
well it seems the norm....thought i`d join in as thats all the replies are.
 
Well no. Most seem to be willing to accept the pilots' account without dismissing them out of hand in the absence of any other evidence.
 
Foil hats! Get your foil hats!

Finest quality! Impervious to facts, evidence and common sense.

Occam's Razor just bounces clean off.
 
This is my first post...
"still waiting to see any evidence of a drone strike..."
I haven't dismissed the pilots account.
 
It seems strange there's no damage to the plane in question.

Picture this scene, you're driving your car along a motorway at 70mph, an object the size of a house brick falls off a road/foot bridge and strikes the front of your car, it's going to do damage, how much depends on where it hit, how fast you were going and the weight of said object.
Planes are going much faster than this, hitting an object the size of a small drone will not only obliterate it but would also leave a mark or two on the plane, even if it didn't punch through the outer skin, since drones are made up of various materials, that include steel and sometimes composite materials like carbon fibre.
 
Rob 80386 said:
It seems strange there's no damage to the plane in question.

Picture this scene, you're driving your car along a motorway at 70mph, an object the size of a house brick falls off a road/foot bridge and strikes the front of your car, it's going to do damage, how much depends on where it hit, how fast you were going and the weight of said object.
Planes are going much faster than this, hitting an object the size of a small drone will not only obliterate it but would also leave a mark or two on the plane, even if it didn't punch through the outer skin, since drones are made up of various materials, that include steel and sometimes composite materials like carbon fibre.
Click to expand...

Does anyone know there's no marks?
 
Rob 80386 said:
It seems strange there's no damage to the plane in question.

Picture this scene, you're driving your car along a motorway at 70mph, an object the size of a house brick falls off a road/foot bridge and strikes the front of your car, it's going to do damage, how much depends on where it hit, how fast you were going and the weight of said object.
Planes are going much faster than this, hitting an object the size of a small drone will not only obliterate it but would also leave a mark or two on the plane, even if it didn't punch through the outer skin, since drones are made up of various materials, that include steel and sometimes composite materials like carbon fibre.
Click to expand...

I doubt that something the weight of a drone would even leave a mark on an Airbus, the airflow around the aircraft would deflect it unless it hit it square on to the nose or the leading edge of a wing/tailplane. The only really vulnerable parts are the windscreen and the engine intakes, the rest of it is pretty slippery.
Would have thought somebody like you, who flies model planes would have a better understanding of aerodynamics?
 
I thought all aircraft had front and rear facing cameras fitted. I remember years ago before cost cutting, the most enjoyable tv was watching the front on view as you landed on the tiny screen in the seat in front of you.

Drones today are the equivalent of pit bulls. Drones have been around for decades but the were called model aircraft but they were flown by geeks* where as today there is the odd scroat who can aford £50 from their giro and attempt to fly something that they now will annoy someone.

* the word geek is used in the loosest term and not intended to offend the responsible people who fly model gliders, fighter planes or helicopters within a free space
 
Steve B said:
I doubt that something the weight of a drone would even leave a mark on an Airbus, the airflow around the aircraft would deflect it unless it hit it square on to the nose or the leading edge of a wing/tailplane. The only really vulnerable parts are the windscreen and the engine intakes, the rest of it is pretty slippery.
Would have thought somebody like you, who flies model planes would have a better understanding of aerodynamics?
Click to expand...
Birds don't weigh much but they have been known to take down aircraft. In fact, a military jet had to make an emergency landing the other day in Scotland which was thought to be caused by birds. Engines are powerful and suck in anything in its vicinity
 
skiking said:
Birds don't weigh much but they have been known to take down aircraft. In fact, a military jet had to make an emergency landing the other day in Scotland which was thought to be caused by birds. Engines are powerful and suck in anything in its vicinity
Click to expand...

As I said, the windscreen and the engine intakes are the vulnerable parts of an Airbus, if it hit anywhere else, it would pretty much just glance off it.
Anything getting into the engine intakes is pretty disasterous, but luckily an Airbus would be fine, it can fly on one engine with no problem.
Even a kids balloon can take out a jet engine, it doesnt take much.
 
Rolls Royce in Derby used to test Trent engines by lobbing chickens in whilst they were running. The fixed catapult for doing it was quite impressive.
Far more engines survive bird strikes in flight than are taken out by them.
 
robmac said:
This is my first post...
"still waiting to see any evidence of a drone strike..."
I haven't dismissed the pilots account.
Click to expand...
Yes you have, by asserting that it isn't evidence.
 
viv1969 said:
Rolls Royce in Derby used to test Trent engines by lobbing chickens in whilst they were running. The fixed catapult for doing it was quite impressive.
Far more engines survive bird strikes in flight than are taken out by them.
Click to expand...

The chicken gun.... immense fun unless its a hot day. We used to test things at Woodford.
Where the animals hit the walls the guts would embed in to the brick works.

Chances are the drone would only have left a few scratches or maybe fractured a grp/carbon panel. If it hit the windows maybe a crack on the outer layer. An engine ingesting one would have been quite serious. The engine would have more then likely have ejected the first few stages of the compressor through the rest of it and would make a nice bang and some flames/smoke... but the pilots train for engine outs so would have been fairly safe.

Its possible though the drone could damage the flying control surfaces by wedging itself in them preventing movement...
 
Steve B said:
I doubt that something the weight of a drone would even leave a mark on an Airbus, the airflow around the aircraft would deflect it unless it hit it square on to the nose or the leading edge of a wing/tailplane. The only really vulnerable parts are the windscreen and the engine intakes, the rest of it is pretty slippery.
Would have thought somebody like you, who flies model planes would have a better understanding of aerodynamics?
Click to expand...
Yes I do understand aerodynamics.
The problem here is a lot of key information isn't being reported by the media ie what kind of "drone" it was, fixed wing or rotor type.
When it comes to model aerodynamics quadcopters are basically flying bricks, not aerodynamic at all and some things that can be done with models doesn't always scale up well to full size, but the basic principles are the same.
 
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...

Definitely not a bird, ever seen the mess of a bird strike on an aircraft !
 
Rob 80386 said:
Well if it wasn't a bird and it wasn't a "drone", what was it?
Click to expand...
Well, if its unidentified, and it must have been flying, there's not getting away from the fact that it was a UFO. ;)
 
Cobra said:
And UFO doesn't stand for Unidentified Flying Object then?
Click to expand...

Yep....It was a flying object (or indeed falling) and is as yet unidentified.
I think you got it covered! :D
 
Im pretty sure the pilot would know the difference between a drone and a bird to be fair.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Im pretty sure the pilot would know the difference between a drone and a bird to be fair.
Click to expand...

Possibly if he/she was staring out & paying attention, but aren't they usually sat there nodding, or chatting, or feet up on the dash reading a newspaper, while it lands itself? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top