Suspected drone hits plane during Heathrow landing
Ron Czapala
Posts: 2,418
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/suspected-drone-hits-plane-during-133942759.html
The plane, an Airbus A320 with 132 passengers and five crew on board, was on its final descent into Heathrow when it was struck.
"A pilot on an inbound flight into Heathrow Airport from Geneva reported to police that he believed a drone had struck the aircraft," a spokeswoman for London's Metropolitan Police said.
"The flight landed at Heathrow Terminal Five safely. It transpired that an object, believed to be a drone, had struck the front of the aircraft".
A BA spokesman said the plane had been examined after landing and was cleared to operate its next flight.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-18/u-k-probe-of-british-airways-plane-drone-strike-finds-no-debris
A U.K. police investigation into the alleged crash of a drone into a British Airways Airbus A320 aircraft has so far elicited no evidence of a strike and no suspects.
The initial probe found no damage to the airplane and a wide area search for suspects and debris has been unsuccessful, London’s Metropolitan Police said Monday. The pilot reported that the front of the aircraft was hit as it was descending over Richmond Park in southwest London at an altitude of about 1,700 feet (518 meters), shortly before landing normally at Heathrow Airport on a flight Sunday from Geneva.
The plane, an Airbus A320 with 132 passengers and five crew on board, was on its final descent into Heathrow when it was struck.
"A pilot on an inbound flight into Heathrow Airport from Geneva reported to police that he believed a drone had struck the aircraft," a spokeswoman for London's Metropolitan Police said.
"The flight landed at Heathrow Terminal Five safely. It transpired that an object, believed to be a drone, had struck the front of the aircraft".
A BA spokesman said the plane had been examined after landing and was cleared to operate its next flight.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-18/u-k-probe-of-british-airways-plane-drone-strike-finds-no-debris
A U.K. police investigation into the alleged crash of a drone into a British Airways Airbus A320 aircraft has so far elicited no evidence of a strike and no suspects.
The initial probe found no damage to the airplane and a wide area search for suspects and debris has been unsuccessful, London’s Metropolitan Police said Monday. The pilot reported that the front of the aircraft was hit as it was descending over Richmond Park in southwest London at an altitude of about 1,700 feet (518 meters), shortly before landing normally at Heathrow Airport on a flight Sunday from Geneva.
Comments
That was what I was thinking. There are a lot more birds than model aircraft, and flesh and bone isn't much of a match for aluminum.
Quite wrong there. It all depends on impact speed. Jet turbine blades are usually made out of quite hard and temperature resistant material, still a bird can take down a engine.
It's about the energy and the affected surface.
Enjoy!
Mike
Birds took down a whole A320, just ask Sully Sullenberger.
I would be interested to know why the pilot thinks it was a drone that they ran into, what did he see that led him to believe it was a drone?
I checked a couple of websites (including Airbus) and it appears the speed of an A320 at that part of the approach is around 130 kts. Since a quad is more rigid than a bird, it's pretty hard to imagine that a quad hitting the aircraft at 130 kts wouldn't leave some sort of mark or damage.
I think Xanadu might have it; something insubstantial that made some noise but wasn't enough to even mark the paint.
Big jets arrive at Heathrow at the rate of one every 90 seconds along well defined approach paths. It's kind of awe inspiring to watch them come in from under one of those approaches nearby the airport. Especially in the evening when you can see a line of landing lights stretching far into the distance.
If one were to put a drone up into that stream of airliners I would say the drone had gone up to hit a plane. It deliberately put's itself in the way.
Yea, it's semantics. I think what Rich was saying is the aircraft is traveling faster than the drone, so it ran into the drone, bird, other trash.
Thing is, unlike a bird or trash, a drone is up there with intent. The intent of it's human operator. Unless that human is as dumb as a bird or piece of trash.
Still, from physical point of view they are both moving relative to each other so who hit who? More correct to say they hit each other or collided.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36083916
A human, dumb? What are the chances of that?
Mid-Air Collision With Bird Leaves 2-Foot Crater In Airliner Nose
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36159117
They also say another airplane saw a six foot drone with a red flashing light at 12,500 ft. Are "drones" the new UFOs?