Sign in / up

back to article Height of stupidity: Heathrow airliner buzzed by drone at 7,000ft

An airliner circling Heathrow narrowly missed colliding with a drone flying at 7,000 feet – while another aircraft approaching the London airport saw a drone hurtle past just 30 feet from its cockpit. The first near miss took place in mid-May when an Airbus A319 pilot flying to Heathrow saw a one metre-long drone, painted …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *

Page:

  1. Scott Broukell

    Sorry, but . . .

    Time to fit a tail gunner, waist gunners and auto-turrets, both above the cockpit and in the belly - any passengers (drawn out of the hat), who score a direct hit get to travel for free that day.

    On the other hand I suppose it would only encourage the stupid bastards into some sort of game/ war.

    Then again, what about jamming pods? - s'pose that would be a hindrance to some unsuspecting passer by on the ground when the shit-head's toy fell on him/her.

    Gggrrrrrrr, just gggrrrrrrrrrr . . . .

    15 8 Reply
    1. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Sorry, but . . .

      That sounds tempting, but at close ranges you'd be changing the problem from a potential collision with a single drone-sized thing, to the problem of potentially colliding with one or more sub-drone-sized things.

      If you look at it purely in terms of odds of something hitting something else, the 'shooting at things' option looks less inviting.

      I'd quite like to see some sort of mechanism for forcing the drone to return to its operator's position, at high speed, and with extreme prejudice.

      20 0 Reply
    2. BillG
      Reply Icon
      Happy

      Re: Sorry, but . . .

      One word: Phasers

      16 0 Reply
    3. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sorry, but . . .

      Jammers. Airliners should just have a "jam bubble" for WiFi when operating below a set height, maybe 10,000 feet or on approach/takeoff.

      1 6 Reply
      1. Slartybardfast
        Reply Icon

        Re: Sorry, but . . .

        Yeah, I'm sure that the residents of certain London Boroughs would love to have their WiFi cut out each time a plane goes over.

        12 0 Reply
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Sorry, but . . .

          Shaping the jamming beam to effectively confine it to the horizontal plane wouldn't be a problem, but simply jamming a drone doesn't really get you anywhere because it'll still be in the vicinity of the aircraft, but now under no control at all.

          4 1 Reply
        2. John Lilburne
          Reply Icon

          Re: Sorry, but . . .

          "love to have their WiFi cut out each time a plane goes over."

          Its a small price to pay for noise, and polution.

          3 0 Reply
    4. Christoph
      Reply Icon

      Re: Sorry, but . . .

      Override the controls, land it, fit it with a tracer, let it go again (or could you fire a tracer in a sticky package at it?).

      Probably not a good idea to fit it with a bomb that goes off when the engine is stopped and it's picked up.

      5 3 Reply
      1. AMBxx Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Mushroom

        Forget Robot Wars

        Time for Auntie Beeb to make this a game show - Drone Wars

        1 0 Reply
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Forget Robot Wars

          "Time for Auntie Beeb to make this a game show - Drone Wars"

          Airmageddon - CBBC

          Although not quite Robot Wars level of violence.

          0 0 Reply
    5. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Coat

      Re: Sorry, but . . .

      Why not shoot it with some kind of potato gun filled with extremely sticky, colored stuff ?

      It would stop the propellers from spinning and if you use the same ink that they use for money cartridges they can't get the color off, making identification of the perp easier...

      2 0 Reply
      1. Gavin Chester
        Reply Icon

        Re: Sorry, but . . .

        So the propellers stop and gravity takes over, leading to a few KG of plastic and metal falling at 120 mph to the ground.

        May not be seen as a great idea by the folks are under the flight path.

        3 0 Reply
        1. Gordon 10
          Reply Icon

          Re: Sorry, but . . .

          Any drone capable of reaching those heights is either a remote controlled plane or has a fail safe RTB mode when it loses signal.

          7 0 Reply
        2. Pompous Git Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: Sorry, but . . .

          So the propellers stop and gravity takes over, leading to a few KG of plastic and metal falling at 120 mph to the ground.

          May not be seen as a great idea by the folks are under the flight path.

          The Merkins crash landed nearly 80 tonnes of Skylab into Australia without incident. What's a few kg compared to that?

          3 0 Reply
          1. BernardL
            Reply Icon

            Re: Sorry, but . . .

            (Skylab) Unfortunately Hounslow is a lot more populated than Esperance.

            4 0 Reply
  2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

    More plastic bags?

    Yeah, drones...

    6 3 Reply
  3. Stevie

    Bah!

    Clarification please; These were fixed-wing drones as opposed to the helicopter sort?

    5 0 Reply
    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Bah!

      What caught my eye most was “a white, twin rotor drone pass by the right wingtip”. What's a twin rotor drone? A model helicopter? One which can fly to 7000' sounds like a very expensive bit of kit, not the sort of stuff bought by irresponsible idiots.

      5 0 Reply
      1. Farnet
        Reply Icon

        Re: Bah!

        "What caught my eye most was “a white, twin rotor drone pass by the right wingtip”. What's a twin rotor drone? A model helicopter? One which can fly to 7000' sounds like a very expensive bit of kit, not the sort of stuff bought by irresponsible idiots."

        Exactly - I fly quadcopters and this is nothing like a DJI spec device, I have a professional quad and there is no way it could reach 2.1km up and get back safely with the best battery pack I have, and in any case the software to run it blocks you flying it near an airport or with regulated air space, it wont even allow you to take off, so it is either a fixed wing that someone has lost control of and has gone out of range, or... well to be honest I havent a clue as it does match anything I can think of.

        And as for taking idiot drone out, hitting it with something will cause more issues, and jamming the signal is just plain stupid cos it could in absolutely any direction at any speed.

        0 0 Reply
  4. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Flame

    Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

    one of these bastards gets sucked into the engine then we are looking at a catastrophe ?

    I despair of UK law sometimes - AFAIAC we start with 20 years in jail - I don't care if nobody was hurt, because the full phrase ends with "this time".

    Perhaps, instead of spunking millions on police action to catch name calling on Twitter, we could have some real protection from the police.

    Oh, and I will make a separate suggestion in another post which would instantly solve the issue.

    16 10 Reply
    1. Brian Miller
      Reply Icon

      Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

      Yeah, drone + engine = horrific catastrophe.

      No explosives required, just some additional metal mass in the engine, and ... boom! Adding any kind of projectile weapon to the plane wouldn't do anything good. You also have to account for where those bullets land. However, the airplanes could be outfitted with emergency jamming devices to drop the drone out of the air.

      From what it sounds like, though, is that the pilots are not aware at all until it's way too late. You can't do anything when you see the drone within 100ft of the cockpit.

      3 9 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

        More DM style hyperbole.

        All new Engine designs/planes are tested to prevent structural failure of the Engine encasement. Any new plane design has to survive a complete engine disintegration (whatever caused it) without puncturing the wing, fuel tanks. Planes are designed to be able to land on a single engine, if one fails.

        23 8 Reply
        1. John 110
          Reply Icon
          Flame

          Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

          Yeah but the fact that I plane _might_ survive a drone strike doesn't mean that it's not incredibly stupid to precipitate one...

          25 0 Reply

        2. This post has been deleted by its author

          1. Kumar2012
            Reply Icon

            Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

            "Maybe, maybe not. We might not know until one actually gets sucked into an engine, and then hour like hell it is hyperbole." --- actually we do know since most twin engine jets today are ETOPS rated, which means they are fully able to operate on only one engine.

            3 1 Reply
            1. Anonymous Coward
              Reply Icon
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

              "Maybe, maybe not. We might not know until one actually gets sucked into an engine, and then hour like hell it is hyperbole." --- actually we do know since most twin engine jets today are ETOPS rated, which means they are fully able to operate on only one engine.

              Which is utter bollocks insofar that that is NOT the point. With the above you imply that it's perfectly OK to fly a drone into a flight path of a plane because if it blows up an engine it can still land with the remaining one - which suggests that you at least accept that it can harm an engine, but that's somehow OK because flying your toy is more important than the lives of the people onboard.

              How about not creating the danger in the first place?

              People with such a minimal appreciation of the dangers they cause deserve to have the batteries of their drones inserted from the orifice from whence they talk, and then short circuited. After all, batteries have safety valves so it should be OK, no?

              13 0 Reply
              1. Triggerfish
                Reply Icon

                Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

                "More DM style hyperbole."

                Look generally speaking on risk assessments, you tend to look at the potential impact of the problem, and figure out the chances of it happening and then work from there.

                Now it's fair enough planes are designed pretty robust, and yes the plane could land on one engine. Not being a pilot I can't say how much fun that would be when say flying into Manchester on a rainy shitty day with strong crosswinds, but I would have thought most pilots would consider engine loss at this point sub optimal.

                Now going back to potential impact, well thats about 70 tons of metal, fuel and of course a couple of hundred screaming people, plummeting to earth over a city.

                I would have to say as risk assessments go thats something to be avoided even if the chance is small, and if you can do so by the simple solution of banning people from flying their drones near aircraft (and possibly dislocating their twiddly thumbs when you find them doing so), then maybe thats a good solution.

                12 0 Reply
                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Reply Icon
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

                  Ahh yes, lets jam birds wifi shall we.

                  Couple of things.

                  1. Jamming wifi does NOT affect quadcopters. They are pretty resistant to jamming, I know, I have the equipment to jam wifi and (at least) my quad remains unaffected. It WILL affect FPV flying, but the "regs" state you should not ever lose unaided eye contact.

                  2. Both of these sound like WAY more than blades, dji, walkera quadcopters. 7000 ft is over a fucking MILE and hobby gear doesn't work at that range. With a typical flight time of 5-10 mins and a range of 500-700 meters max transmission range (usa has higher power output than Europe) again, this seems to throw doubt that these were "hobby" quadcopters.

                  3. Where's the proof??? Hyperbole and speculation aside, no evidence video, etc is available.

                  Don't get me wrong, flying a hobby quad near an airport is a move of enormous fuckwitterdry but something doesn't add up here.

                  12 0 Reply
                  1. eric halfabe
                    Reply Icon

                    Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

                    @cornz 1

                    Agree 100% including point 4.

                    Way out of the range of a hobbyist drone, these things must be bigger and have longer range than that. Engines are designed and built to handle the impact of flocks of birds so a small drone should be no problem. If these things have the range to get up to 7,000 feet then they are serious kit and it should be taken as an act of terrorism. Why aren't the police trying to track the powerful transmitters.

                    Seems strange that in all of these anecdotes I have read the plane is always coming into land. Surely if you really wanted to attack a plane you would do it during takeoff. The plane is going slower, the engines turning faster, losing an engine on takeoff probably would cause a crash while during landing probably not at all.

                    I call BS on these stories until I see actual proof. How mush would it cost to put a dashcam on a plane? Peanuts! Surprised they aren't required by law anyway.

                    2 1 Reply
                    1. nijam Silver badge
                      Reply Icon

                      Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

                      @ Eric Halfabe

                      > I call BS on these stories until I see actual proof.

                      Obviously a drone being hit by an airline engine is a bad thing - but until we actually see the video, I think we can identify this drone as one of the notorious "Balpa Imaginary" models that cluster round airports.

                      2 0 Reply
                    2. Anonymous Coward
                      Reply Icon
                      Anonymous Coward

                      flock of birds, or single bird?

                      " Engines are designed and built to handle the impact of flocks of birds "

                      Citation welcome.

                      My understanding was that engines are designed and built to survive the impact of **a single bird**.

                      There's a potentially interesting movie coming out this autumn on what happens if an aircraft flies through a *flock* of birds at a critical time, though you'll find there are already plenty of words and pictures on the subject - Captain Sullenberger and his flight into a flock of birds and subsequent landing on the Hudson.

                      And if it's a flock of seagulls, you get this:

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFZHxlsAPjA

                      0 0 Reply
            2. heyrick Silver badge
              Reply Icon

              Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

              "actually we do know since most twin engine jets today are ETOPS rated, which means they are fully able to operate on only one engine."

              You might find that there is a big difference between a plane being able to continue to fly with only one operational engine...

              ...and a plane existing at all when...I guess the worst case scenario would be the drone to fly into the engine, with then explodes sending burning pieces of itself through the hull of the plane.

              1 1 Reply
            3. Diogenes
              Reply Icon

              Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

              "Maybe, maybe not. We might not know until one actually gets sucked into an engine, and then hour like hell it is hyperbole." --- actually we do know since most twin engine jets today are ETOPS rated, which means they are fully able to operate on only one engine.

              Yeah & whilst the pilot & co pilot are distracted by all the flashing lights and machines that go 'ping' in cockpit as a result of said ETOPS rated engine failing spectacularly nothing else bad is going happen , if they misread the cause of failure, or they miss something else critical to flight ?

              2 0 Reply
              1. werdsmith Silver badge
                Reply Icon

                Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

                They've been doing that in the simulator throughout their training.

                If they lose an engine, they will land the plane using the other one. IF the pilots can't take that in their stride then they go for retraining, and if they still can't do it after that they don't get to fly anymore.

                Absolutely 100% a quadcopter should never get near any aircraft, at the very least the cost of the damage will be millions if it is an ingestion. But its extremely unlikely that a DJI anything is going to bring down any commercial jet. A flock of birds can do it, or volcano dust, but one quadcopter is well within the spec of a safe flight.

                Now, what kind of drone was this, at 7000 feet? No ordinary hobby drone for sure. And an airliner at 7000 feet will have been a fair way from an airport, They are usually on the glideslope from 10 miles out at 2000 feet. Remember, when aircraft are close to airports, they are also close to the ground.

                Maybe pilot of sophisticated expensive drone wasn't expecting any aircraft nearby.

                If this even happened at all.

                2 0 Reply
                1. Triggerfish
                  Reply Icon

                  Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

                  I keep seeing it's unlikely it will bring down a aircraft, what is the acceptable risk factor for a passenger jet full of people?

                  2 0 Reply
                2. DocJames
                  Reply Icon
                  Pint

                  Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

                  They've been doing that in the simulator throughout their training.

                  Oh yeah?

                  http://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash

                  Icon for assisting boarding planes following the perusal of such articles.

                  1 0 Reply
                  1. werdsmith Silver badge
                    Reply Icon

                    Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

                    Oh yeah,

                    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/27/us/southwest-emergency-landing-engine-trouble/

                    pilots have managed to crash planes all engines and systems active. These are ouliers, like Kegworth.

                    1 0 Reply
                3. 96percentchimp
                  Reply Icon

                  Re: If they lose an engine, they will land the plane using the other one.

                  "IF the pilots can't take that in their stride then they go for retraining, and if they still can't do it after that they don't get to fly anymore."

                  I'm guessing that if they can't land on one engine then they won't be around for retraining. A no-fly ban would be a bit late as well.

                  1 1 Reply
                  1. werdsmith Silver badge
                    Reply Icon

                    Re: If they lose an engine, they will land the plane using the other one.

                    I'm guessing that if they can't land on one engine then they won't be around for retraining. A no-fly ban would be a bit late as well.

                    Generally speaking, fatal accidents don't often happen in the simulators that I was talking about.

                    2 0 Reply
        3. heyrick Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

          "More DM style hyperbole."

          Maybe, maybe not. We might not know until one actually gets sucked into an engine, and then hour like hell it is hyperbole.

          That said, I think we need a distinction between little domestic drones (such as mine) and this thing. I mean, jeez, I'm not sure my craft could manage a hundredth of that height. And flying using only the FPV camera is risky as there's a good half second or so lag. It's for fun, not stupidity...

          What I'm trying to say - not all drone owners are wankers and not all drones are capable of such activity.

          9 0 Reply
        4. a_yank_lurker
          Reply Icon

          Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

          I would rather not need to rely on the design not having some unknown/untested flaw. And the best way to avoid this kind of accident is not have a drone anywhere near an aircraft. I have been around engineering enough to know there is often a scenario that was thought of during testing that will occur in real life.

          5 0 Reply
        5. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

          All new Engine designs/planes are tested to prevent structural failure of the Engine encasement. Any new plane design has to survive a complete engine disintegration (whatever caused it) without puncturing the wing, fuel tanks. Planes are designed to be able to land on a single engine, if one fails.

          Oh, here we go again. It's all not a problem because doing something utterly stupid during the most critical part of a journey doesn't add any danger whatsoever.

          Well, let's take an example where you CAN get your head around then. You know that a car has two separate brake circuits, yes? When one circuit falls out, you still have two wheels that can brake (we're assuming for the moment that you still have engine support). Do you really think that your car will just slow down in the exact same manner as before - as if nothing's wrong at all? See that sudden traffic jam form in front of you? Think you can still go from 120 km/h to a standstill in exactly the same distance?

          It's exactly this "oh it can't harm because engines can take it anyway" stupidity that leads utter idiots to operate drones where it's really a bad idea, so I have a proposal:

          Let's round up a group of these twats and use them as test dummies. Let a remote guided plane with this f*ckwits land whilst someone flies a drone into an engine in the name of science - after all, it allegedly can't harm at all. It combines getting real data with disposing of some idiots that would not even be suitable for the B Ark.

          20 1 Reply
        6. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

          "All new Engine designs/planes are tested to prevent structural failure of the Engine encasement."

          That's correct.

          Conveniently for engine manufacturers but inconveniently for the rest of us, a one off test for certification purposes plus any amount of CAD modelling does not reliably predict what will happen in a similar real life incident.

          "More DM style hyperbole."

          Not really.

          A wise man once said something like "I have proven this design correct, but I haven't tested it. Beware of errors." (Knuth, marginally paraphrased, I believe).

          QF32: real life uncontained failure, of a kind that certification allegedly showed had a negligible probability of happening.

          QF32: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32

          This reminder of the difference between theory and practice comes to you in the week that All Nippon Airways announce that all their Dreamliners will be re-engined, because of (presumably unpredicted) unsafe wear on the turbine blades (which had presumably been certified as OK for use on the aircraft and routes in question):

          http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/ana-to-replace-all-rolls-royce-engines-on-its-50-boeing-787s/

          1 0 Reply
          1. SkippyBing
            Reply Icon

            Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

            "All new Engine designs/planes are tested to prevent structural failure of the Engine encasement."

            Not strictly true, they're designed/tested to ensure failure of a fan or compressor blade won't escape the cowling. As I understand it that's not guaranteed with the turbine blades which are subject to a lot more stress at much higher temperatures. The only defence is that before hitting a turbine blade you have to get through the rest of the engine which birds tend not to do, don't know about drones though...

            1 0 Reply
          2. cortland
            Reply Icon

            Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

            Heat accumulated during time on the ground without having the air-stream carry it away is a plausible cause for increased failures, on routes of mostly short-hop flights. especially if the engines are kept turning while loading and unloading passengers, baggage, and cargo.

            0 0 Reply
      2. GBE
        Reply Icon

        Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

        "However, the airplanes could be outfitted with emergency jamming devices to drop the drone out of the air."

        What makes you think that jamming the control signal will cause it to "drop out of the air" rather than hover in place, or orbit at constant altitude, or fly slowly to some hard-wired home coordinates until a control signal has been re-acquired? Drones that are measured in meters and can make it to 7000ft don't just fall from the sky when they lose signal.

        4 0 Reply
        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..

          "Drones that are measured in meters and can make it to 7000ft don't just fall from the sky when they lose signal."

          And this is the major point to take from this story. This is not some kids just messing about, which is the scenario this and other report seem to imply, ie an extension of kids with laser pointers. This is a very expensive bit of pro level kit being used irresponsibly. Maybe some news organisation or aerial photography outfit being utterly unthinking fuckwits.

          1 0 Reply
  5. Martin
    Facepalm

    Cue loads of people saying...

    "...a drone can't damage an aircraft."

    Perhaps they might even be right. But the fact remains that it's still a stupid thing to do. If one person does it, and posts cool footage on YouTube, then next time it might be two; or three; or ten; or twenty; or fifty - and suddenly it is ridiculously dangerous.

    7 1 Reply
    1. JimmyPage Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Cue loads of people saying...

      I certainly wouldn't say that.

      Having seen what happens to a Rolls Royce Trent when a goose is fed into the intake, I cannot begin to imagine what something as unsquidgy as a drone would do.

      And as suggested previously, the worst case would be a fully laden 747/Airbus crashing into a densely populated suburb - even if it is just Hounslow.

      22 2 Reply
      1. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Cue loads of people saying...

        The incidents so far been in relation to civil aircraft, but there are a good few places in the UK where military aircraft fly laden with live munitions, e.g. when on exercises to live fire / impact areas like Otterburn, etc.)

        Wonder how much damage would happen on the ground if a fully-laden Tornado came off worse after hitting drone?

        4 0 Reply

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like