Was just a matter of time…Drone hits British Airways plane near Heathrow...

Drone hit British Airways plane approaching Heathrow Airport - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36067591)

For those that might not be able to access the link in non-UK locations, here is some of the BBC news text (posted about 30 minutes ago on their website):

A plane approaching Heathrow Airport is believed to have hit a drone before it landed safely, the Metropolitan Police have said.
The British Airways flight from Geneva was hit as it approached the London airport at about 12:50 BST with 132 passengers and five crew on board.
After landing, the pilot reported an object - believed to be a drone - had struck the front of the Airbus A320.
Aviation police based at Heathrow have launched an investigation.
Police said no arrests have been made.

Just posted this !

I wonder if new rules and regulations will come in to place because of this incident.

Only allowed to buy one if it's registered to an owner like a car ? so it can be traced perhaps ?

I imagine new rules and regulations are almost CERTAIN to occur after such an incident.

Info is still coming in...but it sounds like it was pure luck for those 137 people on board (and those that live/work/were travelling on the ground below them) that the thing hit the front of the plane and did not get sucked into an engine etc.

I hope they tighten up regulation massively. It seems completely out of control. There have been many reports of near misses.

Lives should not be put at risk by drones.

Perhaps I should declare an interest : I live under the Heathrow flight path!

I drove my daughter to the Charleroi airport last week because they where planning a holliday abroad and there was military inspecting every single car that came in, I was not allowed to drive to the front gate but had to drive to the underground parking instead, inside the airport security was also much higher then usual.

So with all this tight security at airports because of recent terrorist attacks I just wonder after reading about the drone incident what is keeping terrorists from attaching a explosive device to such a drone and just bypassing all the security by flying it from a distance right onto a airstrip into any incoming or leaving plane.

Eventhough that incident was not caused by a terrorist the operator should be treated as one, he/she clearly has no idea what consequences their drone might have if a plane would crash because of it.

Which one landed safely and which one was blown to smithereens, the 2lb drone or the 60 ton Airbus?

I can't wait to see how this "investigation" plays out.

So many of these drones are seen from aircraft. 1) It seems to me it'd be hard to see a drone with an 18" wingspan when going 500mph. 2) How come we never catch these nefarious pilots from the ground? How come no one having lunch outside the airfield ever sees these guys with the drone? And yet there are SO MANY of these "near-miss" incidents. Seems like once in a while someone would bust a guy flying the drone at the foot of the runway, no?

I'm surprised an airliner flying 150 mph (240 Kph for you folks out of the U.S.) could even SEE a drone.

I drove my daughter to the Charleroi airport last week because they where planning a holliday abroad and there was military inspecting every single car that came in, I was not allowed to drive to the front gate but had to drive to the underground parking instead, inside the airport security was also much higher then usual.

So with all this tight security at airports because of recent terrorist attacks I just wonder after reading about the drone incident what is keeping terrorists from attaching a explosive device to such a drone and just bypassing all the security by flying it from a distance right onto a airstrip into any incoming or leaving plane.

Eventhough that incident was not caused by a terrorist the operator should be treated as one, he/she clearly has no idea what consequences their drone might have if a plane would crash because of it.

Couldn't agree more ! I hope they catch him / her.

Which one landed safely and which one was blown to smithereens, the 2lb drone or the 60 ton Airbus?

I can't wait to see how this "investigation" plays out.

So many of these drones are seen from aircraft. 1) It seems to me it'd be hard to see a drone with an 18" wingspan when going 500mph. 2) How come we never catch these nefarious pilots from the ground? How come no one having lunch outside the airfield ever sees these guys with the drone? And yet there are SO MANY of these "near-miss" incidents. Seems like once in a while someone would bust a guy flying the drone at the foot of the runway, no?

That 2lb drone is the equivalent of a bird strike / much worse if it hits the engine.

If one of the engines blew up whilst the pilot was trying to land the air craft I dread to think what would have happened.

Getting sick of drone operators recklessly flying these things wherever they please.

I'm surprised an airliner flying 150 mph (240 Kph for you folks out of the U.S.) could even SEE a drone.

I had an admin job at Easyjet several years ago in health and safety and had to log incidents including bird strikes. You would be surprised what the pilots can see.

Getting sick of drone operators recklessly flying these things wherever they please.
Allegedly. Drone operaters *allegedly* flying these things wherever they please.

the problem is, that they can bring in all the rules and regulations they can think of! it wont stop reckless, stupid people from doing it.

Theres been lots of reports of laser beams pointed at aircraft during landing/takeoff operations too, with that sort of mentality rules don't mean a thing!

Here in Ireland i'm sure the vast majority of registered operators would be very compliant but what of the rogues??

I've read of reports here that in the commission of rural crime, that drones have been employed at night to recce an area before doing the break-in etc.

Which one landed safely and which one was blown to smithereens, the 2lb drone or the 60 ton Airbus?

I can't wait to see how this "investigation" plays out.
The outcome would always have depended where on the aircraft the drone impacted. Sucked into an engine or an impact with the cockpit would obviously have a different result to hitting (say) a wheel as it comes into land.

So many of these drones are seen from aircraft. 1) It seems to me it'd be hard to see a drone with an 18" wingspan when going 500mph.

The landing speed of an average airliner is nowhere near 500mph - that's typical of cruise speed at altitude. I believe on final approach a figure of around 130mph is far more likely, and at that stage of flight the crew are very likely to be paying careful attention outside the cockpit, so I don't see any problem with such drones being spotted? This is assuming the majority of incidents are most likely to be in the height range 200-2,000 feet roughly?

2) How come we never catch these nefarious pilots from the ground? How come no one having lunch outside the airfield ever sees these guys with the drone? And yet there are SO MANY of these "near-miss" incidents. Seems like once in a while someone would bust a guy flying the drone at the foot of the runway, no?

Well, the footprint around Heathrow where planes are below about 2,000 feet covers a pretty big area, made even bigger as it varies depending which runway is being used, and in which direction. So "outside the airfield" is not like "just outside the perimeter wire". It also covers large areas of residential property, so theoretically the drone owner could be standing in the seclusion of their own garden.

Add to this that the problem drones may have "escaped" from their owners control, and the area where owners may be becomes pretty big.

It's also wrong to say "nefarious pilots" are "never caught" - see Man fined after flying drones over Premier League stadiums - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-34256680) . Point is it takes time for law enforcement to catch up with new problems - just think back to mobile phone usage whilst driving a car, and how many accidents happened before legislation?

To quote a bit more from the BBC link earlier in this thread:

But the latest incident will only add to the pressure for further steps to be taken.

The US recently introduced a compulsory registration scheme so any drone recovered from an accident can be traced back to its owner.

In addition, officials could make it mandatory for drones to run geo-fencing software - that would prevent them flying in restricted areas.

The Department for Transport has promised to publish a strategy for unmanned aircraft this year.

And pilots have also called for the DoT to fund tests into what would happen if a drone got sucked into an engine or crashed into a plane's windscreen.

Last month, the British Airline Pilots Association noted that while the threat of bird strikes had been well researched there was little data about how much damage a drone could cause a plane.

Now that an impact has actually occurred, feel sure that pressure will really be on the authorities to take action - and I suspect that will include pressure to find a culprit and make an example of them. If I had owned the drone in question here I would be a very worried man - and not simply due to the loss of the drone. :-)

It all depends how much resources the police are prepared to put in - and I think it's likely to be ramped up heavily after this incident. I also agree with Noa's point. So far, it's likely the incidents have been down to drone-owning idiots. What about if terrorists did decide to try them with explosives as a rough and ready "missile"? They needn't even be successful in downing a plane - a near-miss explosion could cause huge public panic with enormous ramifications for aviation.

the problem is, that they can bring in all the rules and regulations they can think of! it wont stop reckless, stupid people from doing it.
Well, one possibility would be to make it mandatory for ownership of all drones to be registered, and possibly for them to be required to broadcast an identification code upon interrogation.

So any misuse is relatively easily traceable back to the owner. It may not stop all reckless flying, but once a few people get prosecuted it could decrease the amount substantially.

Here in Ireland it is mandatory, but after a recent data breach it was revealed that 2000 registrations were exposed I presume that represents the total of owners that registered here, however I have read someplace that up to 4000 drones could be owned here thats only 50% take up, with I no way of identifying these.

Id agree that a broadcast ID would be useful, but again people will disable them and or not register and remain outside the whole regulatory area.

I think the issue of Drones vs Aircraft is in most case way overblown. Most people have zero clue about modern aircraft and modern jet engines and their ability to withstand debris or bird strikes

read this Do Consumer Drones Endanger the National Airspace? Evidence from Wildlife Strike Data | Mercatus (http://mercatus.org/publication/do-consumer-drones-endanger-national-airspace-evidence-wildlife-strike-data)

It's also wrong to say "nefarious pilots" are "never caught" - see Man fined after flying drones over Premier League stadiums - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-34256680) . Point is it takes time for law enforcement to catch up with new problems - just think back to mobile phone usage whilst driving a car, and how many accidents happened before legislation?
I didn't say nefarious pilots are never caught. I said the pilots of these drones that have so many "near-miss" encounters with full-size aircraft are never caught. Seems like we have no problem busting these guys outside football stadiums or in national parks, but put one near an airport and they are practically camouflaged.
Some time ago there were incidents with people shining laser pointers at aircraft. This is a device the size of an ink pen held by someone standing in a fenced backyard sometimes miles from the airfield. They arrest those guys regularly. We can find someone holding a device powered by a watch battery miles from a runway, but someone flying a drone in a landing pattern of a major airport that only has a 20 minute flight time that literally will guide you directly to it's owner... this is just too elusive a device to follow?

To be clear, I'm not arguing that it doesn't ever happen, hasn't ever happened, couldn't happen. I'm not arguing against legislation (in fact, a little common sense legislation could go a long way here). I just don't see how someone could look at this situation and not see a little exaggeration with the drone-panic.

Hi there
I can see the regulations in many countries following the line France has taken for a while now.. basically banning the use of drones outside of private property, and then making it illegal to use any footage or photos taken.
For use in public places, there are so many restrictions, red tape, and hoops to jump through, that it is for all intents and purposes, unrealistic to want to shoot drone footage for a private or low budget project.
A shame when you see how awesome the pictures are, but with incidents like the one in, and the real possibility of weaponising these machines or using as spy cameras, one can understand France's position.
cheers
Gareth

"I think the issue of Drones vs Aircraft is in most case way overblown. Most people have zero clue about modern aircraft and modern jet engines and their ability to withstand debris or bird strikes"

I understand the concern is the battery and such harder components, currently there seems to be pressure from the pilots' unions for tests to be run on drone strikes. The experence from F1 cars and tyre debris suggests that damage can be caused by hard opjects. With airliners the interest is centred on the cockpit windows and the emgines.

When flying a light plane you are aware of nearby birds and airliner approach speeds aren't so fast that you'd be unaware of similar sized objects coming at you (Drones are bright coloured).

Most people have zero clue about modern aircraft and modern jet engines and their ability to withstand debris or bird strikes


You mean like this little birdy that flew into the jet engine? Looks like the size of a drone to me.

Bird flies into jet engine on take off - YouTube

Our current regulations state that you cannot fly within 5.5kms from any airport so obviously that doesn't apply in the UK ... We live probably around that distance from our local small aircraft runway so even flying in the area around home is illegal. This applies to not only commercial drones pilots but also to private ones and applies to UAV's under 2kg flown privately ..the regulations for larget vehicles is much tougher!!

Some time ago there were incidents with people shining laser pointers at aircraft. This is a device the size of an ink pen held by someone standing in a fenced backyard sometimes miles from the airfield. They arrest those guys regularly. We can find someone holding a device powered by a watch battery miles from a runway, but someone flying a drone in a landing pattern of a major airport that only has a 20 minute flight time that literally will guide you directly to it's owner... this is just too elusive a device to follow?
As just one example, this was the case of somebody jailed recently in the UK for just such an offence - Cardiff man jailed for shining laser pen at planes | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/22/cardiff-man-jailed-for-shining-laser-pen-at-planes) . The following excerpt should give an idea of how he was caught:
A police helicopter was sent to identify the source of the laser in eastern Cardiff and the pilot realised it was coming from a top-floor flat.

Officers were sent to the address and could see Chadwick moving about inside the flat. The prosecutor said he had taken three minutes to answer the door.

“He denied knowing anything about it, but they found parts of a laser pen which had been taken apart,” Lloyd-Nesling said.
In other words, it was relatively easy to trace the beam back and see exactly where it was coming from, certainly from a police helicopter. You could plainly see the source.

But obviously the control of a drone doesn't light itself up in so obvious a fashion, so yes, it will be more difficult to trace. But.... it really depends on the resources the police are prepared to commit. And I suspect now that an aircraft has actually been hit it's likely to receive much more attention. Do we really now have to wait until there's a strike which causes serious damage before it really gets serious?

To be clear, I'm not arguing that it doesn't ever happen, hasn't ever happened, couldn't happen. I'm not arguing against legislation (in fact, a little common sense legislation could go a long way here). I just don't see how someone could look at this situation and not see a little exaggeration with the drone-panic.
It was on the news in the UK again today, including a pilots leader calling for research into what exactly would be the outcome if a drone got sucked into the engine intake, or hit the canopy.

I believe engines are built to normally withstand an average bird strike (even if such is very undesirable) but as was explained, the flesh and bones of a bird are one thing - the metal and plastic of a drone quite another, especially with a lithium battery. It was suspected the results would be catastrophic - but hence the call for research.

Let me put a question to you. If the test called for a drone to be deliberately flown into the engine of a plane in flight, and all drone owners who considered the situation "exaggeration with the drone-panic" were invited to be passengers to observe the test from on-board the plane - would you happily go along? Seriously? Are you so sure the damage would be minor that you'd happily go along? Because I certainly wouldn't.

As just one example, this was the case of somebody jailed recently in the UK for just such an offence - Cardiff man jailed for shining laser pen at planes | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/22/cardiff-man-jailed-for-shining-laser-pen-at-planes) . The following excerpt should give an idea of how he was caught:

In other words, it was relatively easy to trace the beam back and see exactly where it was coming from, certainly from a police helicopter. You could plainly see the source.

This is on an item that shines literally a pinpoint of light and shuts off completely and immediately the instant you stop pressing the button. Compared to a drone, a 1.5ft wide object that has to fly from the point of the "near miss" directly back to it's operator. Seems like it would be easier to chase the drone, yes?

If the test called for a drone to be deliberately flown into the engine of a plane in flight, and all drone owners who considered the situation "exaggeration with the drone-panic" were invited to be passengers to observe the test from on-board the plane

Your example is a good one, it's easy to have an opinion about this when you are standing safe on the ground and watching the news afterwards about any casualties.

I don't have anything against drone operators but anyone flying a drone deliberately into the flying path of planes at a airport is no better then a terrorist setting of a bomb in the departure hall of that same airport.

This is on an item that shines literally a pinpoint of light and shuts off completely and immediately the instant you stop pressing the button. Compared to a drone, a 1.5ft wide object that has to fly from the point of the "near miss" directly back to it's operator. Seems like it would be easier to chase the drone, yes?

Not if the guy keeps pointing on the laser into the night sky after the incident. You need to have a handy police helicopter at the time the drone is around to follow it.

I wonder how many camera operators flying drones have considered whether their business liability policy would cover their "assets" in the event of an unfortunate mishap? Most policies have clauses with various exclusions if proper safety practices aren't followed.

One thing that made me laugh, another video blog mentioned a drone manufacturer insuring the drones they sell. When I read further, they'll replace the drone if it gets damaged. There's no coverage whatsoever regarding liability of the owner.

This is on an item that shines literally a pinpoint of light and shuts off completely and immediately the instant you stop pressing the button.
No. A pinpoint of light is not what such a laser looks like from a position just off the beam - it has the appearance of a line, and it points back exactly to where it's coming from. Take a photograph or video, and even if it gets turned off quickly, there's then evidence to trace exactly where it's coming from. Try looking at this clip : Green laser pointer shone at police helicopter - YouTube

In that case, the problem was one person amidst a large crowd, and not enough police on the ground. But do it from a garden or balcony and it's relatively easy to direct police to a specific address. Which I believe is how the arrest was made in the example I linked earlier. (And others.)
Compared to a drone, a 1.5ft wide object that has to fly from the point of the "near miss" directly back to it's operator. Seems like it would be easier to chase the drone, yes?
If a police helicopter happened to be in the vicinity of the near miss at the time, and they were altered about it immediately, then yes, maybe. But that's pretty unlikely, isn't it?

It also assumes the drone is actually under control, and a lot of assumptions are that the violations are deliberate. Maybe, but maybe also some near misses may result from a loss of control? In which case chasing the drone wouldn't lead back to the owner anyway.

Latest reports suggest it might have been a plastic bag! I think we will see a crack down on plastic bags quite soon!

Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/drone-believed-to-have-hit-british-airways-flight-may-have-been/)

Latest reports suggest it might have been a plastic bag!
A plastic bag at 1,700 feet? Hmm, a bit unlikely that? It hasn't even been very windy in London for the past week or so.

You mean like this little birdy that flew into the jet engine? Looks like the size of a drone to me.

Always helps to check what the actual story is instead of simply a YouTube video title.

The aircraft's engines are designed to cope with bird strikes but because this case involved two very large birds being sucked in at once there were problems.

A rather special case.

But clearly, people are dying and drone manufacture and sales needs to be banned altogether. Is it really worth the cost of a single life just to have an aerial shot? That's a first world luxury, not a necessity.

Latest reports suggest it might have been a plastic bag! I think we will see a crack down on plastic bags quite soon!

Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/drone-believed-to-have-hit-british-airways-flight-may-have-been/)
This is clearly impossible. The pilot saw that it was a drone, and the pilot must never be questioned.

Latest reports suggest it might have been a plastic bag! I think we will see a crack down on plastic bags quite soon!

Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/drone-believed-to-have-hit-british-airways-flight-may-have-been/)

That's a politician speaking, saying it "MAY have been a plasrtc bag", is him or one of his staff speculating. Wait for the official report, the article says they haven't yet confirmed what hit the aircraft. Light objects do get carried up into the air, so that can be a possiblity.

Appeal following incident with aircraft - Metropolitan Police (http://news.met.police.uk/news/appeal-following-incident-with-aircraft-160468)

That's a politician speaking, saying it "MAY have been a plasrtc bag", is him or one of his staff speculating.
Indeed, and it smacks a little of wanting it not to be a drone - because if it was, it's likely to mean a lot of extra work and expense for their department......

If it WASN'T a drone, I'd find a helium balloon a far more likely alternative than a plastic bag. There's been a high pressure system over most of the UK for the last week or so, and not much wind (at least round London) - it was a perfect sunny day last Sunday. I think a flying saucer is actually more likely than a plastic bag at 1,700 feet........
Wait for the official report, .......
And again, indeed. Though in the meantime the pilot's impression (he was there) should be given more weight than speculation from an anonymous politician (who wasn't there)?

As the Earth heats rising columns of air known as thermals can provide upward lift for objects thousands of feet into the air, so it's possible that a plastic bag caught a ride.

It's hard to make things out against the ground clutter when you are at low altitude making "see and avoid" a problem for pilots, so I agree that there seem to be an inordinate number of drone near misses simply because the things should be so hard to see.

At low altitude I would guess the jet should have been doing about 250 knots so if it was a drone seems like there should be a ding on the leading edge of the wing or other surface that was impacted, unless that surface was more parallel than orthogonal to the flight path.

Published 3 days ago ... The Civil Aviation Authority have drawn up some codes for drone operators to follow.

Drone rules: Everything you need to know to fly domestic drones legally | UK | News | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/drone-rules-everything-you-need-to-know-to-fly-domestic-drones-legally-a6994291.html)

"Using drones for professional purposes requires permission from the CAA, and a license granted after completing a training programme"

Seems odd though that they don't specifically mention airports or other aircraft.

Dave

The source, rather than a newspaper:

https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Model-aircraft-and-drones/Flying-drones/

Just read this article. I think it hits the nail on the head. I wish people would quit fanning the flames of fear and paranoia.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a320-plastic-bag-collision-highlights-publicity-pe-424908/a320/

-gb-