African Airline Reports Drone Collision With Passenger Jet (airlive.net) 78
McGruber writes:
Airlive is reporting that a drone collided with a Boeing 737-700 as it was on approach to Tete, Mozambique airport on Thursday. The 737 landed safely, but the right-hand side of the nose dome and fuselage were badly damaged.
The plane was carrying 80 passengers and a crew of 6, according to the Aviation Herald, which has more pictures of the damaged nose dome. "The crew heard a loud bang," they report, adding that "no abnormal indications followed. The crew, suspecting a bird strike, continued the approach for a safe landing." But USA Today notes that "While pilots have reported hundreds of sightings of drones near planes, previous suspected collisions have been debunked."
The plane was carrying 80 passengers and a crew of 6, according to the Aviation Herald, which has more pictures of the damaged nose dome. "The crew heard a loud bang," they report, adding that "no abnormal indications followed. The crew, suspecting a bird strike, continued the approach for a safe landing." But USA Today notes that "While pilots have reported hundreds of sightings of drones near planes, previous suspected collisions have been debunked."
Previous impacts (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Previous impacts (Score:2, Informative)
I've hit probably 20 birds at 200-300 knots and have had some sort of bird guts smeared on the aircraft each time.
Re: (Score:2)
Ground impact (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the damage pattern looks almost exactly consistent with a ground impact.
It is reasonably clear from the images that the impact came from the front right, not straight on, and any
drone moving fast enough to create that impact vector at approach speed would have punched straight through,
not made the distributed damage we see - this was quite clearly a low speed impact.
The pilots 'reporting a loud bang' on approach makes it sound like a good dose of arse-covering, something
endemic in Africa when costly damage happens.
You will note there is no evidence given of drone remains, etc. Something that would most certainly have been
chased down immediately if this was actually a drone strike.
A bird strike (which would do less damage that a drone of the size they are claiming) looks like this:
http://www.birdstrike.it/birdstrike/file/images/file/2012.06.05_birdstrike.png
Very VERY different.
Re:Ground impact (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the damage pattern looks almost exactly consistent with a ground impact.
It is reasonably clear from the images that the impact came from the front right, not straight on, and any
drone moving fast enough to create that impact vector at approach speed would have punched straight through,
not made the distributed damage we see - this was quite clearly a low speed impact.
The pilots 'reporting a loud bang' on approach makes it sound like a good dose of arse-covering, something
endemic in Africa when costly damage happens.
You will note there is no evidence given of drone remains, etc. Something that would most certainly have been
chased down immediately if this was actually a drone strike.
A bird strike (which would do less damage that a drone of the size they are claiming) looks like this:
http://www.birdstrike.it/birds... [birdstrike.it]
Very VERY different.
Retired senior avionics tech here that's seen plenty of damaged radomes over the decades on a wide variety of aircraft at various FBOs, resulting from a wide variety of causes. You're pretty much spot-on. This was almost certainly a very low speed impact IMHO.
Perhaps it was a ground service vehicle (cargo or passenger conveyor/stair vehicle, service/maintenance stairs, etc). I've seen damage quite similar occur in crowded maintenance hangars resulting from moving aircraft around carelessly, recklessly-driven ground service/maintenance vehicles, and from accidents on crowded & busy taxiways under poor visibility conditions.
I'd put $50 on this "story" being just that; a story to cover asses with.
Maybe they were attempting to reenact the "stair-truck and passenger-jet chase scene" from the Jim Cary movie "Liar Liar" and had an [Jim Cary] "oopsie!" {/Jim Cary].
Whatever it was, chances are extremely tiny it was from a drone impact in flight.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought we were supposed to thaw the chickens first.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
This is not a drone like your kids toy (Score:2)
It must have been a big-ass drone to do that kind of damage.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I just want to make sure I'm understanding your comment correctly.
Are you saying that you suspect that the African crew of this plane landed it, and then collided with a movable passenger loading/unloading staircase while on the ground? And then they came up with this drone/bird/whatever strike story to deflect blame away from themselves?
Or are you trying to say something else?
Re: (Score:3)
>> Are you saying that you suspect that the African crew of this plane landed it, and then collided with a movable passenger loading/unloading staircase while on the ground? And then they came up with this drone/bird/whatever strike story to deflect blame away from themselves?
I would buy that far quicker than the drone story,
Re:This is not a drone like your kids toy (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you saying that you suspect that the African crew of this plane landed it, and then collided with a movable passenger loading/unloading staircase while on the ground? And then they came up with this drone/bird/whatever strike story to deflect blame away from themselves?
That is plausible. It is also plausible that some bean counter made up the story because the insurance covers in-air collisions differently. Or some PR person made it up for publicity. Or maybe the ground crew tweeted the picture, and the rumor spread from there. TFA contains almost zero information, and does not say that the drone story came from the pilots. The Facebook post by the airline doesn't even mention the drone, although I may have misunderstood since I can read Spanish way better than Portuguese.
Re: (Score:3)
This particular theory has been espoused in a couple of aviation related sites. It is certainly possible that the crew ran into something on the ground without anyone else fessing up. But - it's going to be pretty obvious in the flight data recorder. Either you here a big thump or not....
If it was a UAV, then it hit the side of the radome with a lot of force. Some other posters are suggesting a fairly acute angle - more impact than you would expect in a glancing blow. So, either that theory is wrong or
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have thought the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) more likely than the Flight Data Recorder (FDR). You might pick it up on a vibration sensor from the FDR, or if any sensor wiring was cut. But I'd think CVR a better place to look.
What's that sound? A CVR being accidentally turned on while the hanger crew are playing the radio?
Re: This is not a drone like your kids toy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously have trouble spotting a joke, you might want to read up on the concept of humor.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if the flight crew reported hearing a bang, where did the "sure thing" that it was a drone come from?
Re: (Score:1)
My first thought was someone in Africa can afford a drone?
Re: (Score:3)
The Illuminati is just everywhere these days.
(Think industrial drone from a mining company.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Some countries have a decent middle class, albeit small by our standards.
True. But Mozambique isn't one of them. It is one of the poorest countries in the world [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Some countries have a decent middle class, albeit small by our standards.
True. But Mozambique isn't one of them. It is one of the poorest countries in the world [wikipedia.org].
Even poor countries have rich people.
Re: (Score:2)
My first thought was someone in Africa can afford a drone?
Is this because you think Africa only has starving children, people living in grass huts and wildlife wandering around on dirt roads? I initially wanted to provide a few enlightening facts and figures, but have decided it is not worth the effort. If this is your view of Africa, one post is not enough to change your very misguided perceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Africa is a rich continent. The fact that most people living on that continent are poor doesn't change that. It just means a lot of the countries are run for the benefit of a tiny elite at the top. It doesn't matter in those countries that the resources of the country a squandered as long as a few people do well.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno. Depends on how fast the plane was going.
Re: (Score:1)
Approach speed is around 130knots for a 737-700. Given that damage shown in the photos, I don't buy that this was a drone collision at all. I suspect that the drone collision aspect of this story will be debunked like all the others so far.
Re: (Score:2)
Since he was landing, we kinda know.
Vref of a 737-700 is 150 knots so 178 mph.
Re:This is not a drone like your kids toy (Score:5, Funny)
It must have been a big-ass drone to do that kind of damage.
Probably it's the UFO spotted earlier in Chile.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that a 737-700 running into a A340 would do more damage than a slightly dented dome.
https://www.metabunk.org/expla... [metabunk.org]
Absolutely no evidence (Score:1)
The crew claims it was a drone strike but there's no evidence given to support that claim. It looks more like the aircraft was struck from the side at low speed, possibly even on the ground. From an impact in the air and resultant debris you'd expect that the pitot tubes or static port would show signs of damage.
There have been multiple news stories of "drone strikes" that later turned out to be bird strikes. One turned out to be a plastic bag. Until they have some debris or other evidence that a drone was
Re: (Score:2)
What? 737's? You wanna fly in a Sukhoi?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but today, in the wrong hands, they can also be overpriced dangerous toys.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I think AC above has proven that his computer should be taken away, after all he is too irresponsible with it to own it.
Birdstrikes don't always leave blood or feathers. (Score:5, Insightful)
http://avherald.com/h?article=... [avherald.com] - also in africa.
http://avherald.com/img/comair... [avherald.com] - this damage was done by a red billed kite impact.
Broadly similar amount of buckling, though in a different place.
There are a lot of large birds in Africa, and aircraft frequently hit them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the large birds that one has to worry about. All of the European Barn Swallows have migrated down here, and 3 million of them [barnswallow.co.za] choose to roost at Mount Moreland -- which is around 2.5 km from and directly in line [google.co.za] with RWY 06 at Durban's airport.
The airport authorities are well aware of the potential danger and have installed a specialized radar system [mountmorel...ancy.co.za] solely to keep an eye on the birds during the late evening swarm. If the swarm poses a danger to aircraft, ATC will pick it up and can then
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Small birds are a very different problem though - they may cause engine issues when ingested, but are not heavy enough even if a lot of them hit to do minor structural damage.
That does not look like a drone impact, at all (Score:1, Insightful)
Are you sure the pilot didn't bump into something while taxiing and covered his ass by claiming "Russian hackers", no wait, "drone".
It's not confirmed and there's no proof. (Score:2)
The public statement released in Portuguese by the airline does not say anything about a drone. Get back to me when someone comes up with a squashed drone that has a paint match with the aircraft.
Re: (Score:1)
Aaaaand.... it was NOT a drone:
http://avherald.com/h?article=... [avherald.com]
Drone Regulations (Score:1)
I don't know for certain what collided with that aircraft, but I know there are drones capable of inflicting serious damage during a mid-air collision. Most drones are small enough to present difficulty for airplane pilots to see them in time to take evasive action. For that reason, the responsibility falls to drone pilots to see and avoid other aircraft in the area. I'm not in favor of software restrictions that limit what a drone can do, especially because there are instances in an emergency where it migh
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, mom.
Re: (Score:3)
We do need to have classes of drones. For example, there is no reason at all to make a 9 year old receive formal training before operating a toy in the back yard. Simple camera carrying drones don't need much more, though it might be possible to justify minimal training for commercial use. That, by the way, would cover the currently known near misses with people on the ground (sporting events and professional coverage). The most likely dangers to aircraft would be police and military drones. Those should v
Too heavy for a drone (Score:2)
Photo in the studio (Score:2)
I think it became a piece of a free advertising for airlines to claim a collision with a drone. The world wide attention is guaranteed.
Re: (Score:2)
There has been no confirmation that it definitely was a drone.
It was initially reported by the flight crew as an "impact". But further examination [avherald.com] has ruled that out and attributes the damage to structural failure of a used radome.