African airline reports drone collision with passenger jet

If you look at the first impact point, you can see three slices from a graphite prop and paint transfer consistent with a Mavic. You just can't fool forensics.

We all know about those Mavic people, don't we?

But in all seriousness, I can't imagine that's anything but a mid-air with another aircraft and nothing sporting a DJI logo. The question is, which country is missing a drone?

SB
I think iran has all our "missing" drones still.
 
I always wonder how E=MC^2 works now that C is not constant.
do we have to use C_max? or function from 0-light speed max.
 
Bottom line is that an airliner hitting an essentially stationary head object like a drone while traveling 200+ mph is going to get hurt. For this story, though, I still want to see some physical evidence (e.g. Pieces of the drone) of what it hit. Be interesting too to know some more about how high, ft .
 
Think I found what hit the plane

1483847550330.jpg


Neon Euc
 
  • Like
Reactions: Slackware
I'm trying to find the article now, but this has been found out to be FALSE... it was a structural failure according to the investigation
 
I'm trying to find the article now, but this has been found out to be FALSE... it was a structural failure according to the investigation

It certainly looked more like a structural failure than an impact. For starters there was no clear impact site despite a very extended damage zone. Plus the undamaged pitot tubes, as mentioned by others.
 
For the record: News article. There appears to be a rash of blaming drones for many events that simply are not found to be credible when further investigated by the proper authorities. This is just another.

"The Boeing 737-700 aircraft of Mozambique Airlines (LAM) that suffered damage in the western province of Tete last Thursday was not involved in any type of collision, according to the regulatory body, the Mozambique Civil Aviation Institute (IACM).

Presenting a preliminary report on the incident at a Maputo press conference on Tuesday, the chairperson of the IACM board, Joao de Abreu, said there was no sign that any flying object had collided with the Boeing – even though this had been the assumption made by LAM itself at the time.

The aircraft had left Maputo at 15.35 on Thursday, with 80 passengers and six crew members, and was due to arrive in Tete at 17.15. As the plane prepared to land, with the Tete runway in sight, the crew heard a loud noise, which suggested that something had struck the aircraft.

The plane was able to land normally, and once on the ground the crew confirmed that there was damage to the right side of the front of the fuselage, and reached the conclusion that there had indeed been a collision.

The story which travelled around the world was that the Boeing had collided with a drone. But not only was there no sign of any wreckage from a drone, but nobody is known to be operating drones in the vicinity of Tete airport.

Abreu said that the IACM investigators interviewed the captain of the Boeing, the co-pilot and other witnesses living under the plane’s flight path. Nothing that the investigators heard or saw led them to believe there had been a collision, or that any atmospheric disturbance had caused the damage.

Instead, they concluded that there had been a structural problem – a “material failure” of the plane’s radome. A radome is a dome-like structure, usually at the front of an aircraft that protects the plane’s radar assembly from damage. It is thus part of the nose of the plane’s fuselage.

The radome of this particular Boeing was acquired as a used part from an American company that provides aviation components and spare parts. The IACM believes that the radome failed because of defective repairs in the past.

Abreu said that the radome was duly certified by the supplier and was installed on the Boeing during major maintenance work in South Africa on 27 June last year.

The radome will now be submitted to NDT (Non-Destructive Tests) i n Mozambique, and will be sent for a new MRO (Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul) in South Africa. The damaged component has already been replaced and the Boeing is again flying LAM routes."
 
Last edited:
I've been quick to argue that most of these 'drone hits plane' reports were nonsense but I at first thought this might actually be a drone strike. BUT, when you look a little closer that picture changes. First, there was no obvious signs of blood or feathers that would suggest a bird strike and that might push us closer to a drone, but the damage to the radome just doesn't add up. The crack at the front doesn't show any penetration and with the amount of damage the impact velocity would have been high enough to cause penetration. But, look at the AOA transmitter -- if a drone had hit the radome in front of it the AOA transmitter would almost certainly been damaged or sheared off and the pitot tubes would also show damage. They do not so it is highly unlikely any debris hit them -- if a drone had hit the radome there would have been debris and it would almost certainly have hit either the AOA transmitter or one of the pitot tubes, likely all of them.

So, once again the drone is cleared as the culprit.


Brian
 
I wish news agencies would verify facts before reporting issues like this. In everything they do, they are creating unwarranted FUD. It's not just about drones.
 
The photo was taken Jan 5th but the year was not posted and there was no mention of a drone strike. Guess you could call these strikes anything you'd like.

images.jpg
There are many photos like this. Guess the pilot hit a hailstone during a storm or maybe it was a cloud at cruising speed.

Of course, there are a lot of chicken littles who read these forums and believe everything they read.
 
Last edited:
I wish news agencies would verify facts before reporting issues like this. In everything they do, they are creating unwarranted FUD. It's not just about drones.

Without getting into the political thing the media has ALWAYS been into fake news particularly when aviation is involved. Anytime a commercial plane crashes the major media outlets ping there aviation contacts for ANYTHING they can report even if its only a stopped toilet and then they spin that into a 'pattern' of negligence.

When it comes to drones the media is even more inclined to run with whatever blaring headline they can.


Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: Capo
Without getting into the political thing the media has ALWAYS been into fake news particularly when aviation is involved. Anytime a commercial plane crashes the major media outlets ping there aviation contacts for ANYTHING they can report even if its only a stopped toilet and then they spin that into a 'pattern' of negligence.

When it comes to drones the media is even more inclined to run with whatever blaring headline they can.


Brian

It's called sensationalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Capo

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,356
Members
104,934
Latest member
jody.paugh@fullerandsons.