British Airways jet at Heathrow may have hit a drone

[Birdseye]

I'm reading that this appears to have occurred at 500', so less than two miles from touchdown. Still saying that they 'think it could have been' a drone, nothing I've yet read says that it was categorically a quad drone as some of the dodgy media are showing.

 

 

[Teckair]

I'd suggest that it doesn't go on "all the time" unless it's part of your job to tell tall stories

Well no, not my thing I think you would know by now if I was prone to that, as far as I am concerned it goes on with people pushing there various causes unions, politicians, club members and the media to name a few, to think otherwise would be naive.

 

 

[facthunter]

The media seek sensation to sell their version of "news" which is selected carefully, and is more their "Views". and makes you buy the next paper to see what happened eventually, if you are under their spell.

 

Most say they buy it for the crosswords or the sporting section, because they know deep down the rest is crap.Nev

 

 

[Teckair]

and it certainly doesn't go on all the time with professional aviators.

They would be the exception if that is right, I have met a string of aircraft sales people all full of it.

 

 

[Teckair]

The media seek sensation to sell their version of "news" which is selected carefully, and is more their "Views". and makes you buy the next paper to see what happened eventually, if you are under their spell. Nev

I don't buy papers or trust the media, but I have noticed professional pilots on these forums who are economical with the truth when it comes to things like politics.

 

 

[Teckair]

I was pleasantly surprised by this

 

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/577122-casa-allowing-unlicensed-drone-ops-2kg.html

 

Maybe I am wrong after all.

 

 

[facthunter]

This forum shouldn't do politics or religion, because it doesn't do either, well. Everybody is entitled to their opinion but a belief goes a bit further. It's not part of the normal "lift " equation. Nev

 

 

[dutchroll]

They would be the exception if that is right, I have met a string of aircraft sales people all full of it.

You're equating myself and my airline pilot colleagues to aircraft salesmen and telling me that if I don't spruik garbage, I'm the exception to the rule?

I'd like you to know that I and all my colleagues take air safety incident reporting very seriously. If you have evidence to the contrary, let's have it out here.

 

I don't buy papers or trust the media, but I have noticed professional pilots on these forums who are economical with the truth when it comes to things like politics.

........and because this is your opinion and you don't like some people's political views on this forum (or your perception of them at least), it means airline pilots around the world would just make stuff up - fabricate a report - about a drone near miss or collision?

Are you listening to yourself?

 

Source: UK Air Proximity Board, the outfit which monitors reports of near misses....

 

• 17 April 2016 - A British Airways plane approaching Heathrow is believed to have hit a drone while in midair
   
   
  
• 28 November 2015 - The pilot of an A321 plane narrowly missed a drone hovering at 100ft above a runway at Gatwick Airport
   
   
  
• 30 September 2015 - A small drone helicopter passed within 30ft of the cockpit of an A319 plane while on the approach to Heathrow
   
   
  
• 22 September 2015 - A "quadcopter-type drone" missed the right-hand side of a B777 plane by about 25m while at 2,000ft after it left Heathrow Airport
   
   
  
• 13 September 2015 - A silver drone with a "balloon-like" centre missed an E170 aircraft by about 20m, while the plane was approaching London City Airport over the Thames
   
   
  
• 13 September 2015 - A drone flew over the top of a B737 aircraft while at 4,000ft, missing it by about 5m, shortly after it left Stansted
   
   
  
• 27 August 2015 - A DO328 aircraft flew within 50ft of a drone while approaching Manchester Airport at 2,800ft
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Let me advise that you can see and identify fairly small birds at speeds around 140 knots, and often estimate the number of impacts on the nose area. It's much more pleasant to have it happening when landing than taking off when your attention goes to the engine instruments fairly quickly. If they go through the engines the smell will often confirm it as bleed air is used for pressurisation. Nev

 

 

[Teckair]

Okay guys you got this to yourselves now.

 

 

[BLA82]

Okay guys you got this to yourselves now.

Thank god for that

 

 

[planedriver]

For those who do not own a drone, the following may be of interest.

 

http://wiki.dji.com/en/index.php/Phantom_3_Professional-_Flight_Limits_and_No-Fly_Zones.

 

I own a DJI Phantom and it's software limits me to an altitude of 400ft AGL which is fine for most general purposes.

 

If I were to take it very close to nearby Mascot Airport for example, it GPS positioning would not even allow it to get off the ground.

 

From memory, assume I attempted to fly it just outside the airport, it may only allow it to climb to 30 or 40ft and on a sliding scale that would increase gradually until 5 miles out, when it could then climb to it's programmed max of 400ft.

 

However, a few build their own drones and may not necessarily incorporate all these features in the flight controller.

 

At least some manufacturers are trying to improve safety by designing their software to protect others from those who are less aviation safety conscious, which is a step in the right direction.

 

 

[Bats]

I'm afraid I have too many professional pilots in my circle of friends and acquaintances to be quite so positive about their impartiality. The tendency to quickly come to a decision and stick with it is desirable in their work environment, but can be a little trying when perhaps a little reflection and debate can assist in reaching a better outcome. I'd be a little wary of hitching my wagon too firmly to this report as proof of the dangers of drone strikes and that really is the crux of my original objection - the media and some of the pilot body are busily whipping up hysteria over these dangers and may indeed be shot down in due course when the drone strike is disproven. That does nothing to advance their cause overall. Just for the record, I don't fly a drone, although I have toyed with the idea of getting one to use in remote areas for photography.

 

Where the argument stalls imo is that the average owner doesn't particularly want his expensive toy pulverised, or even thrown to the ground by wake turbulence and will avoid situations where this is likely to occur. The reckless misfit or someone with evil intent isn't going to get licenced, isn't going to register the article and couldn't give two hoots about whatever laws are enacted. Outright banning is no longer a realistic outcome and even compulsory software inclusions a bit pointless when an electronics buff can brew his own.

 

Birds, yup seen them from the air too, particularly when they flap their wings - drones, UAS, UAV, RPV or whatever today's buzzword is - not so much. I have a little experience in the matter and speaking to a friend who was doing some filming with a professional outfit, he said the same.

 

 

[facthunter]

The "make a decision man, don't procrastinate" is outdated and invalid when a decision a pilot makes in a short time will be exhaustively evaluated and assessed over months if needed . Pilot's don't gain anything from reporting "Junk". You have obviously made your decision about pilots reliability and tendency to sensationalism. I don't see concern about small vehicles being in their immediate environment as being odd. In fact it would be odd if they didn't show concern. Nev

 

 

[dutchroll]

I'm afraid I have too many professional pilots in my circle of friends and acquaintances to be quite so positive about their impartiality. The tendency to quickly come to a decision and stick with it is desirable in their work environment, but can be a little trying when perhaps a little reflection and debate can assist in reaching a better outcome. I'd be a little wary of hitching my wagon too firmly to this report as proof of the dangers of drone strikes and that really is the crux of my original objection - the media and some of the pilot body are busily whipping up hysteria over these dangers and may indeed be shot down in due course when the drone strike is disproven. That does nothing to advance their cause overall. Just for the record, I don't fly a drone, although I have toyed with the idea of getting one to use in remote areas for photography.Where the argument stalls imo is that the average owner doesn't particularly want his expensive toy pulverised, or even thrown to the ground by wake turbulence and will avoid situations where this is likely to occur. The reckless misfit or someone with evil intent isn't going to get licenced, isn't going to register the article and couldn't give two hoots about whatever laws are enacted. Outright banning is no longer a realistic outcome and even compulsory software inclusions a bit pointless when an electronics buff can brew his own.

No-one is impartial. So it's pretty rich hearing a rec pilot tell a professional pilot he's not impartial! May I suggest taking a quick glance in the mirror?

I'm not impartial about safety of flight issues when carrying 300 passengers, and I will not apologise for it here on this forum.

 

Although still numerically small, the increasing trend of reports of near misses with drones at certain major airports is an empirical fact and aviation authorities are becoming concerned. Wishing it was all some big commercial pilot fantasy is not going to make it go away. There are many things we fantasise about. Getting up close and personal with a drone on takeoff and final approach is not one of them.

 

If I was certain that I saw something nearly collide with my Airbus A330 and which was obviously controlled by a human, I would be making sure people know about it too. Just like when I got lasered straight in the eyes on final approach in a Boeing 767 to Sydney Airport one night. I whipped up a bit of a stink about that too. Should I just get over it and accept that incidents which affect safety of flight happen and just forget about them? I mean relative to the number of flights, there are very few of these incidents. Are we commercial guys being overly precious about it? Should we just go home and forget about it? Leave the poor drone operators (and idiots playing with lasers) alone?

 

 

[poteroo]

Drones are a fact of aviation life - for better, generally. They are revolutionising aerial photography - we rarely do professional photoshoots these days. In agriculture, they are going to change the economics of remote sensing of diseases, pests and nutrition. They won't change aerial ag because of the loadings involved. We have a fleet of Bellanca Scouts with an an 'airforce' of pilots doing firespotting and controlling ops here in the SW of WA - but in time, all of this will devolve to a couple of operators sitting in an aircon room and watching realtime vision from a fleet of drones.

 

Locally, we have several commercial drone operators, whom I know have done PPL theory, and are responsible citizens. Their equipment is too valuable, as is their CASA approval - so we don't expect they will be risking anyone else' life. We face far greater risks from the 2 pairs of wedgetails that live under our circuit area, and the flocks of wetland birds that traverse the circuit at all altitudes. We would have at least 1 close shave per week from them.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I would have thought that drone detection at or close to primary airports was not an insurmountable technological problem and that an appropriate mm wave size radar wouldn't struggle to detect them . So I went looking and found this really interesting article..... http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/drones/small-drone-detection-strategies It in effect says that radars struggle with drone detection not by virtue of technology being unable to see the drone, but rather as the article says:-

 

The tricky part, he says, is not so much in sensing the subtle radar returns but in distinguishing a small drone from the many birds that your radar will also pick up. “You’d just be floored by how many birds there are around,” says Kelly. “And you’re looking for this one incident in this mass of activity.”

 

So I agree that drones can be an issue, but it seems our feathered friends are the greater issue and $ spent on drone patrol may be better spent on bird control....anyway interesting reading....IEEE as an organisation is controlled and professional so no sensationalism where its not deserved.....

 

P.S on the same site was this:- http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/drones/smaller-drones-arent-major-threat-to-aircraft..... IEEE covers professionals who work in electronics and engineering and would include those inside and outside of aviation so I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be a bias applied....but what would I know!

 

I guess if I was a CP then anything that made me have an involuntary pucker while interrupting my ability to breath normally would be a threat...whether major or not is only decided after the event!

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Well.....I'd argue that an airline pilot would be an idiot to make up a story about nearly being hit by a drone when no such incident happened. I really would.

You might, but it seems to have been probably just a plastic bag, not a drone.

 

 

 

[Birdseye]

I would have thought that drone detection at or close to primary airports was not an insurmountable technological problem and that an appropriate mm wave size radar wouldn't struggle to detect them .

If it was anything close to the issue that the media portray, I'm sure that it would be in place toutes de suite, however I somehow think its not.

 

 

[dutchroll]

You might, but it seems to have been probably just a plastic bag, not a drone.

Oh well if that's what the British Transport Minister said, I guess we can take that as absolute gospel then!

Here's another quote from him in the same article:

 

the transport minister said in a statement. "I've not actually landed a 747 at Heathrow, but I've landed the simulator and the pilot has a lot of other things to concentrate on. We're not quite sure what they saw, so I think we should maybe not overreact too much."

Well there you have it! The British Transport Minister hasn't actually landed a B747, but heck he's landed the simulator once, and thus we can reasonably conclude he has all the necessary expertise to know exactly what pilots on final approach to one of the busiest airports in the world are doing and seeing (because the 20 other aircraft on frequency and the extremely busy Air Traffic Controllers are so accurately replicated by the simulator instructor talking the Minister through a landing).

But wait....there's more from the Minister:

 

The

 

[/url]Telegraph reports

 

that Goodwill could not confirm the identity of the object that struck the British Airways Airbus A320 as it prepared to land last Sunday.

 

 

 

Synopsis:

 

 

 

"The Minister says it could've been a plastic bag, but he can't confirm it, but who knows what the pilots saw, because he landed the simulator once, so he knows what it's like."

 

 

 

Uh huh.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Plastic bags float around in the ocean so it stands to reason that some must float up into the air. You can believe that some politicians are intelligent till they speak on matters they have no comprehension of but wish to assure the public there is no problem Nev