Drones not proven to be problem to airliners

[bubbers]

The recent London Heathrow airliner incident striking a drone on approach indicates as most thought. Birds, hail and other aircraft are much more likely to damage an airliner than a small drone weighing less than 3 lbs. Maintenance found no damage and returned the aircraft to service immediately at the gate after a visual inspection. Even the cockpit windows are tested for large bird strikes during certification. An engine ingestion of a drone may cause some damage but nothing like a large bird. Most drone operators know the rules about flying under 400 ft and staying clear of airports. Most drones with their GPS will not fly into these restricted areas and won't even take off if you attempt to take off inside one.

After being retired from a major airline and enjoying my P3 photo shoots I understand both sides quite well. Most airline pilots have a lot more important things to think about than a drone hitting their airplane. Lightning strikes, turbulence, fuel, weather and bad crew meals come to mind.

 

[Waylander]

Hi bubbers

I hear what you say, however the stator and rotor of the four electric motors are made of metal, which is far more dense than the hollow light weight bones of most birds, and whilst bird strikes in engines is well documented, has anyone ever throw a drone into the engine of a jet at landing speeds, I think not ?.
As yet there is no definitive proof that it was a Drone strike, yes it could be from collision with a number of other objects, let us hope that is the case, I would not like to be in an aeroplane coming to land with drone parts rattling around inside the engine, would you..?
My 10 cents
Waylander

 

[tenpine]

The airlines and drone manufactures really need to test this like they do with birds. There is a big difference between a soft bird and a hard drone and the only way to tell for sure is to test it.

 

[Wallyboy]

The important thing to remember here is the pilot thought it was a drone, it has not been clarified to actually say it was a drone in the reports I've heard.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[bubbers]

The important thing to remember here is the pilot thought it was a drone, it has not been clarified to actually say it was a drone in the reports I've heard.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

Hi bubbers

I hear what you say, however the stator and rotor of the four electric motors are made of metal, which is far more dense than the hollow light weight bones of most birds, and whilst bird strikes in engines is well documented, has anyone ever throw a drone into the engine of a jet at landing speeds, I think not ?.
As yet there is no definitive proof that it was a Drone strike, yes it could be from collision with a number of other objects, let us hope that is the case, I would not like to be in an aeroplane coming to land with drone parts rattling around inside the engine, would you..?
My 10 cents
Waylander

I agree, the small electric motors have parts much more dense that could cause considerable damage to an aircraft engines turbine. I am sure Captain Sully would have much rather encountered a drone than a flock of geese when he ditched his Airbus into the Hudson a few years back due to complete dual engine failure.

If this incident was a drone causing no damage when it was hit then it makes the close sightings reported not very newsworthy, don't you think? I don't know anyone stupid enough to fly a drone around an airport but if you do, please set him straight so we can all continue enjoying our drones without more drama.

 

[TWP723]

The drone's video feed would be scary as heck!

 

[Clipper707]

I don't see how the reported incident proves anything. First of all, there's no proof the airliner hit the drone.

More importantly, a single drone-strike proves nothing. It's anecdotal, not statistical.

I'll need a lot more drone-strikes without aircraft damage before I'll believe anything has been proven.