Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Boeing 737 Passenger Jet Damaged in Possible Midair Drone Hit (bloomberg.com) 122

Posted by msmash from the growing-concern dept.
Grupo Aeromexico SAB is investigating whether a drone slammed into a Boeing Co. 737 jetliner as the aircraft approached its destination in Tijuana, Mexico, on the U.S. border. From a report: Images on local media showed considerable damage to the nose of the 737-800, which was operating Wednesday as Flight 773 from Guadalajara. In a cabin recording, crew members can be heard saying they heard a "pretty loud bang" and asking the control tower to check if the nose was damaged. The collision happened shortly before landing. "The exact cause is still being investigated," Aeromexico said in a statement. "The aircraft landed normally and the passengers' safety was never compromised."

The potential drone strike stoked fears that the rising use of uncrewed aircraft will endanger planes filled with passengers. While most nations prohibit drones from flying in pathways reserved for airliners, the millions of small consumer devices that have been purchased around the world can't be tracked on radar, making it difficult for authorities to enforce the rules. In addition, many users don't know the rules or don't follow them.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Boeing 737 Passenger Jet Damaged in Possible Midair Drone Hit More

Boeing 737 Passenger Jet Damaged in Possible Midair Drone Hit

Comments Filter:

  • Planes must be armored against a 5 kilogram drone impact at landing and takeoff speeds.

    • Re:Solution (Score:5, Insightful)

      by froggyjojodaddy ( 5025059 ) on Friday December 14, 2018 @03:11PM (#57804950)
      Or.... and I'm just throwing this out there...

      You prohibit drones flying in air corridors (is that what they're called?) and you strictly enforce it with hefty fines or jail time. What's the difference between someone catapulting a rock into a 737 vs. a drone?

      • Re:Solution (Score:5, Insightful)

        by apoc.famine ( 621563 ) <apoc.famine@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Friday December 14, 2018 @03:13PM (#57804970) Journal

        The number of youtube views.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Dude, if you had a channel that was nothing but Catapult vs. Airliner battles, you would be the highest paid YouTuber ever.

      • What's the difference between someone catapulting a rock into a 737 vs. a drone?

        "drones" are much lower density (mostly plastic), aren't traveling at a high velocity and are expensive.

        I feel like you have overlooked some important differences between the two.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Or.... and I'm just throwing this out there...

        You prohibit drones flying in air corridors (is that what they're called?) and you strictly enforce it with hefty fines or jail time. What's the difference between someone catapulting a rock into a 737 vs. a drone?

        You put Mexico and enforce in the same context.

        LOL

      • To hit a typical hobby drone (aka quadcopter, "drone" has many meanings), it would have had to be quite near the airport. A 737 coming in for landing descends at about 700 feet per minute. Drones are typically flown at 10 to 300 feet, with 500 feet possible. That means the 737 would need to be within seconds of landing to be low enough for a drone impact.

        It's quite very illegal to fly a drone so near an airport. In the US, you can't even fly ten feet off the ground with five miles of an airport, without p

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by E-Lad ( 1262 )

        Considering the phraseology you used in your assertion, I take it that you're fairly unfamiliar with how airspace works.

        In the US, at least, UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems, the general term for things like drones) MUST be operated by someone with a UAS certificate from the FAA. Getting this certificate can be done online and the course teaches the student basic airspace knowledge, including the knowledge on where and, more importantly, where not to operate a UAS and who to contact if you do. Indeed, it's ac

    • Re:Solution (Score:5, Informative)

      by TWX ( 665546 ) on Friday December 14, 2018 @03:13PM (#57804968)

      5kg isn't really a problem.

      Drones capable of doing work weigh considerably more than 5kg. You're looking at a mass more like 50kg, possibly quite a bit more:

      Drone Weight Article [3dinsider.com]

      Realistically you're not going to armor the front of a jetliner to withstand a strike against something as heavy as a person at eighty meters per second.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Zocalo ( 252965 )
        5kg is absolutely a major problem in the right circumstances. The nose of a plane (where this impact occurred) is generally a pretty flimsy cover for the radar system and has a very limited amount of structural integrity in order to be radar transparent, so even a fairly small bird can cause a lot of damage. There have been instances where the resulting investigation has concluded that similar amounts of damage were caused by hailstones, and even *air pressure*. Google images of "airplane radome impacts"

      • Hobby drones (quadcopters) are almost all the same set of sizes. The outdoor size weighs about 1.3 Kg. That's the vast majority of "drones" - all the ones costing been $300-$1000.

        The big (and VERY expensive) commercial drones that Amazon builds are a tiny, tiny fraction of drones.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by arth1 ( 260657 )

      Planes must be armored against a 5 kilogram drone impact at landing and takeoff speeds.

      They are. They are hardened against birds, which they hit quite a bit more frequently than drones. Some can be quite a bit larger than 5 kg.

    • Hobby drones (quadcopters) are almost all the same set of sizes. Weight of outdoor drones falls into two classes. Racing drones are limited to 800 grams by rule, with a 150 gram class also being popular. (The 35 gram class could be classified as an indoor drone).

      The other group is the utility, camera-carrying drones. The outdoor size of a camera drone weighs about 1.3 Kg. That's the vast majority of "drones" - all the ones costing been $300-$1000.

      The big (and VERY expensive) commercial drones that Amazon bu

    • go all the way and build it with black box armor

  • Must be a drone (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 )
    Nothing else flies in the air.

  • Maybe noise sensors around airport parameters (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Friday December 14, 2018 @03:09PM (#57804936)

    One solution might be to put in noise sensors around airports, drone flight noise is fairly distinctive and loud (especially for anything heavy enough to cause any real damage). Once you know a drone is there, you can use a number fo drone counter-measures to remove it.

    I also figure at this point any commercial drone has enough parts in it that can be traced back to the owner, that any drone hit will lead to them finding you and presumably a lot of jail time. We should publicize that part more.

    • That's a good idea. Put a noise sensor around airports.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dougmc ( 70836 )

      People are making fun of your noise sensor idea because airports are already really loud. But even if they were completely quiet, I can't imagine that any sort of sensor to "hear" a quadcopter would work at a distance more than a few hundred feet.

      In any event, yes, these things have been traced back to their owners by the parts -- for example, this case [forbes.com]. I can't find the article where they revealed this now, but as I understand it they found the owner by the serial number of the brushless motor (one of fo

    • Drones are not noisy, not in the slightest. They basically need to be within 15-20m of you in order to make out the sound over a typical suburban background noise, you have no possibility of making this work, even if the planes themselves were silent. Typical aircraft approaches go for kilometers it's not something you can cover with any kind of audio detection.

      And that's before you talk about plane noise. Your other reply to our favourite /. troll suggests you think that audio filters are magical, they are

  • What idiot does this? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    So many idiots out there, I guarantee that a drone will take out a airliner eventually. Then the whole drone industry will be subject to major lawsuits. This will only get worse as drones become more popular and owned by more idiots.

    • So many idiots out there, I guarantee that a drone will take out a airliner eventually. Then the whole drone industry will be subject to major lawsuits. This will only get worse as drones become more popular and owned by more idiots.

      Are drones going to get more popular? Seems like it is dying out a bit to me. We've hit peak drone. (at least for this generation of drones).

    • Bird strikes are the best proxy for the threat to airliners and bird strikes are mostly just an issue if you hit many birds.

    • It's about on par with the damage [alpa.org] you see [standard.co.uk] from bird strikes [nypost.com], and they weigh about the same. The difference being that birds are mostly soft pieces of meat which compress to absorb energy and bounce off [youtube.com], while drones are made of hard components which concentrate their energy into a smaller surface area and can thus penetrate further.

      Odds are it's a bird strike, not a drone strike. There are something like a hundred billion birds aloft at any give time, while there are probably only a few tens of thousan

  • ADS-B transponders for drones (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DanDD ( 1857066 ) on Friday December 14, 2018 @03:45PM (#57805146)

    The FAA actually has a pretty decent infrastructure and plan for this, it's called ADS-B [faa.gov]. By the end of 2019 all manned aircraft that fly in US airspace are to have these transponders.

    If drones had these then anyone would be able to get the registration data [rtl-sdr.com] directly from nearby drones, so you could see who the peeping toms flying around your neighborhood are, in real-time, on a map.

    It's just a matter of time before any drone capable of interacting with the national airspace system [faa.gov] will be required to have such a transponder. Along with that expect inspection and compliance requirements - just like for manned aircraft. You want to take to the sky outside of class G airspace - then prove your craft is compliant. Manned aircraft are inspected at least once per year, commercial craft more often, based on hourly inspection requirements. Hobbyist drone operators should probably also be trained, tested, and required to show competency at least, oh, once every two years, to prove you even know what class G airspace is, and maybe a certificate of training of some kind.

    Take your drone to class G airspace and stay there and below 400 feet - do whatever you want. With a functioning transponder. Enjoy the sky, but please realize you aren't alone up there.

    • By the end of 2019 all manned aircraft that fly in US airspace are to have these transponders.

      You are wrong. Only aircraft that want to fly in certain kinds of airspace will be required to have them, and there is currently a worry that even the ones that need them most won't be able to get them installed in time.

      There is a significant number of the GA fleet that will not have them, because the pilots/owners aren't interested in spending the money just in case they ever want to go someplace they don't want to go now.

      If drones had these

      Never happen. It adds a battery drain and huge pricetag. Also, if the entire "drone

    • And you're back to square one with the same results as DRM. The people who are generally behaving themselves end up with an inferior and more expensive product and Joe Schmoe with home made drone bolted together from parts on a hobby website is still zipping around airports colliding with planes.

      There are many existing regulations that many drones break, and "requirements" haven't stopped any of them. Just look at the RF mess and how dead easy it is to buy radio modules for drones that are completely illega

  • Or a goose (Score:5, Informative)

    by sjames ( 1099 ) on Friday December 14, 2018 @03:45PM (#57805158) Homepage Journal

    The last drone panic with startling pictures of the damage turned out to be a goose. Of course, "oops, it was a goose" didn't make the big headlines. That was strictly back page news.

    Of course, our only source is Bloomberg, so it might have been a secret Chinese spy goose.

  • Not true (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Friday December 14, 2018 @03:49PM (#57805176)

    can't be tracked on radar

    Wanna bet? You just need a better radar [youtube.com]...

  • Check the nose cone for (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tulsa_Time ( 2430696 ) on Friday December 14, 2018 @04:21PM (#57805440)

    Drug Residue ....

    Special delivery went off course

  • Terrorists no longer have any need to sneak bombs past TSA. Just wait at the edge of the airfield for a jet to take off and have a medium-size drone ready to fly up and hit the engine intake. Equipped with a video camera and maybe a small explosive, it's the equivalent of a very slow missile.

    The potential for misuse is huge.

    I'm not big on Big Brother regulation, but this tech screams out for some controls.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      No need for a drone, a bag of cracked corn and an air horn would do the job for less money and it would be harder to trace.

    • You're not going to get a useful amount of explosive on a hobby drone. Even if you could, you would be better off aiming for the cockpit than an engine. If you hit the engine, you destroy the fan and maybe some of the compressor section, and nothing much happens. If you hit the cockpit there's at least a chance you'll blind the pilots with shrapnel, or maybe destroy enough of the control systems to cause a crash.

      Either way, not a particularly good strategy. You could try to get a larger drone, of course

  • The other day when I was onsite, our rich clients son decided to show all of his mates how high his drone flies. I have a private pilot license and I know their house is on a common flight route. We also constantly see stories of people using these in national parks and such here in Australia where its illegal, and people simply don't care. Whilst drones have their uses, unfortunately, they also attract the type of crowd who needs to overcompensate.

    People shouldn't even be allowed to buy them without a lice

    • At the very least, they should be required to have ADS-B so they are visible to aircraft.

      As a pilot, I can tell you that something having an ADS-B OUT doesn't make it visible. It only creates an alert that requires the pilot's attention to search the sky to see. UAS are much smaller than manned aircraft, and manned aircraft can be damned hard to see sometimes.

      Distract the pilots from flying the airplane enough and that, by itself, will create problems.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DanDD ( 1857066 )

        ADS-B transponder broadcasts include very accurate position and altitude data. along with aircraft registration and embarrassing pilot biometric data, so if you are unable 'see' where a contact is located and how well endowed the pilot may or may not be, then you have an 'out' only transponder, and likely, a cockpit full of ADS-B 'in' clutter devices to compensate.

        There are surgical treatments that can help. Visit your nearest avionics shop for an appropriate cockpit enhancement.

        • ADS-B transponder broadcasts include very accurate position and altitude data.

          That's nice. It doesn't mean it makes the vehicle sending the data visible. It doesn't even mean that the receiver displays "very accurate" position data for the sender. I fly in an ADS-B in equipped aircraft with a modern glass cockpit. It shows a small aircraft icon on a small map for a target. That's not enough to make the target visible. It provides a direction to look, but that's not always enough. Any pilot who flies in airspace that isn't completely empty knows that.

          so if you are unable 'see' where a contact is located and how well endowed the pilot may or may not be,

          I'm sorry you've never flown, beca

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by DanDD ( 1857066 )

            Not only am I trolling you, I am now directly implying that you are a marginally competent pilot, based on all the above. A well implemented ADS-B system presents traffic almost identically to TCAS - which is very good at "making the vehicle sending the data visible" - at least visible enough to avoid a collision. TCAS has been around a very long time.

            Your glass panel is likely a G1000 that you barely know how to use, resulting in your head always being down in the cockpit, unable to efficiently translate

  • Reports on local news this morning say that the plane went off it's planned flight path and strayed north of the border.

    The plane was bound for General Abelardo L. Rodríguez International Airport in Tijuana from Miguel Hidalgo and Costilla de Guadalajara International Airport.

    The Tijuana airport DIRECTLY abuts the border fence. I have photos I took of landing planes, the tower, etc. from Big Toy Depot on the other side of the fence. (My friend was keeping his bus there.) I mean it is literally RIGHT TH

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jtara ( 133429 )

      .... annnnnd....

      The story disappeared from local San Diego news!

      I first heard about it this morning on a local morning news show.

      While there are a few scattered national and international outlets reporting on the incident - including Bloomberg, and LOL Sputnik - and a smattering of out of the area local outlets who picked up the story... the San Diego press is now completely silent.

      While I don't think it was an intentional hit by a CBP drone, I think an accidental one is the most likely scenario.

      That area i

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jtara ( 133429 )

      Well, THIS is interesting...

      Did a Google search (NOT news tab) for "Tijuana drone" and Google features 6 news stories with photos at the top, 3 and 3.

      The 3 on the top are - LOL I kid you not - Sputnik, Bloomberg, and RT.

      Now I think Russia did it.

      FWIW, I am NOT a Trumpy.

      Realistically, just the real fake news (Sputnik/RT) taking advantage of a news vacuum which got them pushed to the top.

  • I'll believe it when they find pieces of the drone embedded in the nosecone or find LiPo residue. There is a disturbing fervor regarding the "dangers" of drones at the moment that can result in some hilarious/disturbing claims about their capabilities/risks. I have literally had family members believe that the palm sized quad-copter I have is going to chop off their fingers, and police have made some outlandish claims that were later proven to be demonstrably false.

    NYPD flew helicopter at drone [popsci.com]
    Park helico [youtube.com]

  • If a birdstrike can take down an Airbus A320 I'd be afraid to think what a medium sized drone can do.

  • YouTube video with the ATC traffic and translation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close