Drone in NEAR-MISS with passenger jet at Heathrow airport An unidentified drone came very close to colliding with a passenger jet in the summer, an official report to be published this week will say. According to the Sunday Times (£), which has seen the Civil Aviation Authority's document on the risks associated with the growing popularity of drones, an Airbus A320 was involved in …
>"However, investigators were unable to detect the drone on air traffic control radar after the incident had occurred."
That's not really hugely surprising really. The drone is likely under the size of a propeller on a light aircraft so the RCS would be tiny and even if the radar detect it then it'd probably get squelched due to the size of the radar return.
That's not entirely accurate. Airports do have "real" RADAR however since it only gives the direction and distance from the transmitter it's not very useful for ATC purposes with the number of aircraft we have floating around these days, so ATC would normally use secondary surveillance radar which is what your thinking of. That does rely on a transponder and as drones don't have transponders it won't pick up one.
You'd imagine that the professionals know more than us though, and wouldn't have been checking a system that just checks transponders. That said, a few more many incidents like this will end up with drones being licensed and having to have transponders.
There is a distinction between "damage to the engine" and "endangering the aircraft", i.e. endangering the lives of the people on board. As a potential passenger, I'm much more worried by the latter than the former. If aircraft might really be brought down by hitting a (smallish) drone, that's worrying.
I'm also curious as to how much more dangerous is the combination of plastic and carbon fibre that e.g. quadcopters seem to be made of than the flesh-and-bones of a goose. A goose could certainly weight a lot more than the sort of drones that I'm imagining. Hence my question above: do we know how big the drone in question in this case was?
I think there are more risks than ingesting a drone into engine. For instance, though tough, I am not sure that cockpit windows are capable of withstanding high speed collision with small but dense metal parts, ie electric motors. Even the chassis of the drone is far stronger than anything avian. Hail is also somewhat softer than electric motor with its heavy core and copper wiring. Hitting it in 400kph or more can be exciting. Especially when there are four or more of them.
Those dense metal parts, combined with lithium powerpack, which will violently burn on its own when prodded too vigorously, may also create larger damage to engine than some small, soft meatbag you can chop with larger knife, bones and all.
"There is a distinction between "damage to the engine" and "endangering the aircraft", i.e. endangering the lives of the people on board."
Yes and no. The approach and landing are the most busy, difficult and dangerous maneuvres in any civil flight. A damage to an engine that close to touch down (700ft) certainly isn't going to go unnoticed and might force the pilot to interrupt the approach at the very least until cause and impact are assessed. I surely wouldn't want to be on a plane that is hit by any item big enough to take out an engine during approach.
When he says "damage to the engine" he means it's going to stop working, so it's effectively "destruction of the engine".
Without engines, a plane becomes a metal box weighing a couple of hundred tons a mile or so up in the air. It touching the ground in a manner that allows reuse of the plane or in fact the survival of everybody on the plane entirely depends on the skills of the pilots.
There is a distinction between "damage to the engine" and "endangering the aircraft", i.e. endangering the lives of the people on board
On approach, that distinction tends to go away. Although these aircraft are capable of flying on a single engine, the asymetric thrust caused by doing so can make low-speed handling very difficult. Becoming single-engined at 700ft could be a serious brown-trouser moment...
Vic.
Some of the media have hyped it as a near-fatal accident, which I thought was overegging it a bit. Aircraft are designed to deal with minor collisions (birds, etc), so it's unlikely to have been at any risk of downing the aircraft.
That said, airports spend significant money having people run around scaring birds and doing their best to eliminate the risk of FOD and bird strikes. They don't need people flying bird-sized aircraft back into their airspace after they've finished scaring off the animals who genuinely can't be expected to respect restricted airspace.
A drone may not down an aircraft, but it'll force a turn-back if it goes through an engine, and who's going to pick up the tab for either a multi-million pound rebuild or an all-new engine?
Only the Pope and CA pilots seem to have it.
For any other branch of common sense or the law, one person's eye witness statement is taken with a pinch of salt.
In CA - the pilot's word is taken as gospel.
Nearly blinded at 40,000 feet with a 5mw laser pointer in deference to the law of physics ? If you say so Captain.
'Drone' seen over the starboard bow ? Ok Captain.
I'm not saying it didn't happen - hell it probably did - I've been flying (for real, and with drones) for years, and there are as many fuckwits flying drones as there are any other branch of aviation.
I AM however, saying that airprox can be very very one sided reports with ZERO collaborating evidence - as is the case here.
There was a section of Class E airspace between Glasgow and Edinburgh. A glider, well within his rights was flying through it VFR. Some airline pilot almost hit him, and tried to blame the glider pilot for not using ATC.
Not only did the CA apparently not know the rules of the air for where he was flying, but he fucked things up for other GA pilots as the CAA had to review the classfication in that area.
That's like a cyclist being well within his rights being in a cycle lane next to an articulated lorry distribution centre and a motorway. He does have every right to be there, but if he isn't paying attention he'll end up right, but dead.
I'd also expect the council to review the cycle lane after a reported near-miss, and if it's deemed to be dangerous, remove it, even if it messes up the plans of all the cyclists who use the area. no different with Class E airspace. I'd opine in this case that there are a lot more jetliners around, in a lot more of a hurry than there were when that airspace was first designated Class E - so reviews by the aviation associations following air-proximity reports are entirely correct.
Aviation is safe because these rules exist and are strictly enforced, and every time an accident or near-miss happens it is reported and the root cause investigated, which often leads to it's removal from the equation. Drones in controlled airspace are an accident waiting to happen, and aviation is one of the few industries where it doesn't have to bring down a plane before something is done to prevent it.
If that means lending more weight than is usual in other areas of society to a captain's report, as a professional charged with the care of his passengers, then so be it. It has my full support.
@stu4, yeah..... NO.
If an airline pilot SAW a drone, it HAD to have been close. Given the size of these things, atleast within 100 meters. any further away and it would have been VERY hard to discern. Especially if it was below the aircraft. 100 meters is VERY close in aviation terms. I certainly wouldn't ever want to fly with only 100 meters separation from any air traffic I wasn't VERY aware of.
There is no captain that has ever claimed to have been nearly blinded at 40.000 feet. (Provide proof if you say otherwise) Plenty have been blinded on final approach or at low altitude where even a 5mW laserpointer can be VERY bright if you are fully night adjusted with dilated pupils.
This post has been deleted by its author
Airbus and Boeing are reported to be investigating fitting radar controlled 50MM canon to the front of their Aircraft.
Any Geese, Swans or indeed Drones will be vaporized should they come within 500m of the Aircraft.
Rumours that Gatling Guns were to be fitted have been squashed despite evidence of their effectiveness as an air-brake.
Black Helicopter Pilots are also reported as being concerned about their safety as they normally fly with their IFF responders switched off.
The current problem is that it's not the drone operators with licences you have to worry about it's the ones without.
Off the top of my head you don't need a licence for one under 7KG, and considering how prolific they are it may be too late to even try. You could go and buy one tomorrow in Maplins as could anyone else and there's no real idea of the numbers already out there.
More worryingly, assuming this report was accurate there's nothing illegal about what they were doing. We had a presentation on drones at work as part of our attempts to figure out if we need to be worried about our aircraft hitting them. The main thing that occurred to us was that we could do exactly what the drone operator in this case was doing without breaking the law. I mean I assume multiple homicides after it goes through the cockpit of a 777 might have some legal comeback, but actually putting a drone >7KG on the approach path doesn't seem to be against the law.
Would a 7KG drone damage another aircraft? Not sure, I think that's heavier than the usual bird strike tests, but then it's also a different density so the effect would presumably be different than that of a comparable weight avian. I wouldn't like to be the one to find out though.
Depends where they were; if they were flying in an ATZ without radio comms with and permission from the controller, they were in breach of the ANO. There's also the responsibility of any pilot to avoid a collision; the fact that a landing aircraft has right of way over everything except an emergency (does the drone pilot know which way he has to turn to avoid a collision?).
I must admit I'm curious about the effect of a drone strike with a speed differential of over a couple of hundred miles an hour... even without hitting an engine, that's probably going to leave a hell of a dent.
As mentioned earlier; it's not the licenced pilot that worries me; he knows the rules. It's everyone else.
(And I expect to be flamed as usual for any negative view of these things.)
More worryingly, assuming this report was accurate there's nothing illegal about what they were doing. We had a presentation on drones at work as part of our attempts to figure out if we need to be worried about our aircraft hitting them.
Since you say you're in the industry, you should know that it is not legal to fly any model aircraft above 400 ft or inside controlled airspace. Drones weighing under 20kg that aren't licensed for airwork and being used for it come into the same category as model aircraft. They are covered by CAP 658:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP658%204%20Edition%20Amend%201%20June%202013.pdf
Sounds like it would be a good idea for you to read CAP 658. Same applies to anybody else who has a drone and isn't a BMFA member and a member of a model aircraft flying club. I hope you've got third party insurance for that drone.
The main thing that occurred to us was that we could do exactly what the drone operator in this case was doing without breaking the law. - what makes you think he wasn't breaking the law? If you still think its legal, I suggest you have a word with that American idiot who put his drone up to 3500ft straight through his local class B airspace and then posted the video on YouTube. Its a safe bet he didn't enjoy his mandatory visit to the FAA. Do that here, get caught, and you'll be invited to Swanwick for tea and bikkies. You're unlikely to enjoy the experience either.
You're not quite accurate. There is no legal requirement to remain below 400ft. The ANO purely states you must maintain unaided visual contact at all times. 400ft is the recommended max, but that's all it is. CAP 658 is not the law, it is a guide - CAP 393 (The Air Navigation Order) is teh statutory instrument. In fact the CAA Exemption that allows first person view (FPV) flying of model aircraft (including multirotors) - with suitable safeguards, including a competent observer, of course - actually states the maximum permissible height for FPV operations is 1000ft agl, thus rather blowing your assertion out of the water. I have been able to maintain full visual contact with a 1.2kg UAV at 900ft in suitable conditions and in suitable locations (class G airspace, competent visual scan and listening watch), and conversely I have seen people merrily flying at just under 400ft thinking they were in the clear legally... but actually flying in weather conditions providing intermittent visual contact at best.
Also, anyone who flies a DJI Phantom class UAV will also be prevented from taking off within 2.5km of major airports and restricted to certain ceiling heights heights within an 8km radius... As the manufacturer of the most popular consumer and professional-grade multirotors I think they are showing a pretty good lead in terms of flight safety. It doesn't negate the requirement for people to think about where and how they fly, but it does provide a mechanism for preventing the terminally stupid from taking "that's my house down there" videos whilst on short final to a major international airport...
Oh, and if you happen to want third party insurance for your model aircraft, multirotor or "drone" valid for flights anywhere in Europe, but don't want to join a model flying club, you can get £5M of third party liability through www.fpvuk.org
Ok...seriously... how will licensing stop stupidity? It doesn't do it on the motorways/roads/highways or what any place calls them. It doesn't stop illegal ownership and use of firearms. I really cant' think of anyplace the laws and licensing can stop morons. I believe the "First Rule" applies... not sure if it's codified but it should be.
First rule: Nothing is foolproof as the fools are smarter than you are. Same for licensing and laws....
And this is why we need licensing for drones, and drones only to be sold to licensed persons. Because when any moron can fly one, any moron WILL fly one.
Ah yes, this model has worked out so well for motor vehicles, no morons behind the wheels of those licensed beauties..
If we're talking about flight, there were a number of right ummm 'bumpers' I knew a couple of decades back who used to hold CPLs...one of them in particular stands out, his forte was doing things like flying unannounced through the MATZ of an airfield during a NATO exercise with two Harrier squadrons and two Phantom squadrons flying sorties from the field and assorted Yanks, Dutch and Belgians doing practice attacks (Dutch and Belgian F-16 pilots...ye gods!, serious, serious nutjobs,,,going over the Q shed roof just subsonic with about 5 feet to spare..the pilots of the Q kites sitting on chairs to the side rating them..) and he still didn't lose his license, his exploits elsewhere were just as legendary..prangs, ending up in farmers crop fields at least once every month, performing the vanishing undercarriage trick whist taxiing..so yeah, licensing will surely weed out the morons..
BUT the idiots in motor vehicles can be identified via their licence. A licence may not stop stupidity, but it would help track it down. If the drone was fitted with a transponder the airport would have it's ID, then it's a simple case of looking up the registration document et voila, one idiot suitably fined and his toy taken away.
Hey Chad, perhaps all potential owners of a multirotor should also have to suffer an application for ownership via Disclosure and Barring Service in case they're a sex offender and want to fly a machine into the local public toilets or into primary schools.
My preferred license would be for cyclists as the sheer number of deaths per year dwarfs any likely multirotor carnage.
I don't see much shouting regarding model planes being licensed yet one of the reports of a 'drone' was a model plane (but then the pilot would probably have felt left out if he hadn't gotten a drone sighting)
Another one of the US sighting was possibly for a turbine driven F16 model, but once again it was called a drone, for the sake of newspapers, FAA and the pilots ego.
Yeah I do fly multorotors, in sensible places, insured and I don't fly to 400 feet (or above) because I can't see the damn thing, and also can't see the appeal of sticking the thing very high in the air via a video line and looking around.
Much more fun flying sub 1 metre around trees and other obstacles.
Hmm. Cyclists kill around 2 pedestrians a year in the UK, and are killed (own fault or others') around 100 - 120 times a year.
So, as long as we keep the drone vs. commercial aircraft crashes down to less than, say, one passenger jet every two or three years then we should be ok by your reckoning ... personally I'm not convinced.
we're all very cool, aren't we, until a passenger jet DOES go down. Given the steep rise in popularity, this is bound to happen :( and
Then the world has a serious and very expensive problem to solve pretty much NOW. And apart from idiots, uninformed users, teens wanting to impress their pals and gfs on youtube, and other mishaps really, what's to stop the you-know-whom buying several drones and then purposefully trying to score a hit during a plane take-off? I mean, legal bans don't stop people who are happy to blow themselves up, and in the short run there's no effective technology to stop drones coming close to the airports. I mean, you can't install AA batteries... You might be able to set up some beacons at the perimeter to disrupt drone comm, but it won't happen overnight, given the shitload of relevant airport comm that need to be protected from interference...
"we're all very cool, aren't we, until a passenger jet DOES go down. Given the steep rise in popularity, this is bound to happen :("
I'm with you AC, on this one. A small airliner (2 engines) is likely to be impacted seriously in case of impact with a drone, to the point the pilot may not be able to recover the situation. Heck, The 2010 flight Rio-Paris was downed by one 30 s incident (recovered after that, therefore plane was fully functional) and the 2 pilots panicking and stalling the plane for what, 4 mins before crash !
Imagine them losing one engine out of 2 at 200 m altitude during landing !
So, a drama WILL happen, and then relevant authorities will likely install radio detectors for drones (triangulation of radio freq ?) around airports, and I take it, also shooting devices.
I figure another major issue is that if one of these things hits a plane, there might be enough stray styrofoam to clog up a pitot tube. Modern jets use a complex system to detect which of the pitot tubes are iced up to select which other ones are more trusted. I wonder if that software will properly compensate for blockages of non-icy materials.
/black helicopters don't care about drones
Most decent drones these days are GPS enabled. Is it too much to ask for appropriate Legal No-Fly Zones to come pre-loaded? I'm pretty sure you could put the entire worlds Airports no-fly boxes/circles onto a single microSD card.
You could easily legally restrict drones to no-fly without "Permitted Zones Data File" for appropriate country/area. And you could get your "Permitted Zones Data File" (locked to your serial Number) when you buy your insurance from BMFA. (Data File Could also expire with 3rd party insurance.)
Sensible laws are what is required not knee-jerk bans.
You mean like the great job that DJI managed where you can't fly near airfields that haven't existed for 50 years (they must be using some old German maps they found)
As for decent multirotors all being fitted with GPS I suggest you actually learn something about the subject matter (rather than repeating the crap spoken on that Click programme that the BBC insist on showing.)
Apart from some commercial uses (waypoint navigation for example, or to prevent drift outside of an approved area) GPS modes are seldom used because it's yawn inducing. Of course those who can't actually fly a multirotor do float around in GPS mode.
So should I assume my 500g, FPV quad isn't a proper machine because it hasn't got GPS, even though it outperforms my larger (GPS) equipped machine in every aspect?
By such thinking surely all flying models should be hobbled in the manner you describe.
Drone is as far as I know a US word for what we in the UK have always called a radio controlled aircraft. I certainly recall an episode of Batman from the sixties with a "bat drone" in it so they've been using it for some time. So why suddenly are the UK media using the word drone solely to describe a r/c quad copters? Either all r/c craft are drones or none of them are.
The idiocy goes further. I heard Jeremy Vine (OK so the man's ignorant on a wide range of subjects) claim that there were all sorts of legal restrictions on drones that don't apply to "the sort of radio controlled planes that people used to fly in the seventies". Don't you just love media ignorance?
"We have undoubtedly seen this technology flown in controlled airspace, we have undoubtedly seen it used to harass people, and we have seen it flown in contravention of the air navigation orders, so I think that concern arises by the fact that there is clearly a means of offending that we do not seem to be able necessarily to address quickly,"
This reminds me of the TV series Yes Minister and Yes, PM
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
