12 ms·
Lufthansa flight has near-miss with drone near Warsaw
- snissn 11y agoDo drones really pose that large of a threat to a commercial aircraft?
- rmxt 11y agoIf a bird strike can do this [1], I don't see why a drone could be any "better" for an aircraft to hit. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549
- sp332 11y agoThat's a whole flock of birds though.
- mikeash 11y agoIt only really takes one to whack an engine. The "flock" bit was particularly interesting there because it got both engines at once. A single drone would presumably only take out a single engine. The airplane would likely survive the encounter, since they're built to survive an engine failure. But it would still do a hefty amount of damage (I bet the drone owner doesn't want to be on the hook for the cost of a new engine!) and survival, while likely, is far from guaranteed in the event of a single engine failure.
- melling 11y agoThe fact that people need to be convinced to keep drones away from planes is a little disconcerting. People just aren't going to be convinced until there's an accident. I wrote the apology a couple days ago. Bookmark it: https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/07/19/dangerous-drones-daily/ https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/07/19/dangerous-drones-dai... We're discussing it again 2 days later as the #1 HN story. Has everyone seen Groundhog Day?
- astrodust 11y agoA whole "flock" of drones is not hard to imagine.
- nicklaf 11y agoTry birds, for starters.
- simcop2387 11y agoThey can. From what I've read the real problem is much like birds. If they get sucked into the jet engine then they can do a huge amount of damage. More than a bird even because of the fact that you've usually got a good bit of metal and a lithium battery or two. That's enough to take out the engine just like a bird but with the lithium battery that's going to get splattered around there's an increased chance of fire starting that could make even losing one engine a really bad prospect. Combine that with the fact that the plane is likely to be at a low altitude and it's unlikely that the plane will be able to glide somewhere it can safely crash land at either an airport or long stretch of road.
- kordless 11y ago> More than a bird even A lithium battery is going to get chopped up and spit out the rear of the engine - if it manages to get in the intake to begin with, which is a huge if. There's ZERO chance any of that lithium would stick around long enough to cause a 'fire', whatever that means. It's not called a 'jet' engine for nothing.
- Phlarp 11y agoHow much experience do you have with the lithium polymer batteries commonly used on hobbyist drones? I've been flying for a little over a year now and personally seen some pretty gnarly LiPo failures in that time. I would _not_ want to be flying on a plane with one of those hitting the turbines. Would you?
- astrodust 11y agoI think the worst thing is not the fire, but what happens if the wiring gets gummed up on some blades and unbalances the engine. These things turn at a crazy number of RPM, so even a small amount of weight off-balance could cause them to vibrate and self-destruct catastrophically if it hit the right harmonic.
- simcop2387 11y ago
- ezyang 11y agoYes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- positr0n 11y agoBird strikes have taken down commercial aircraft, so I would guess that yes drones are a threat
- melling 11y agoWonder if we should create an FAQ for drone questions? It's only been two days since the last HN discussion: https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/07/19/dangerous-drones-daily/ https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/07/19/dangerous-drones-dai...
- foobar2020 11y agoIt is a criminal offence to operate any flying device in a controlled airspace in Europe without prior authorization from the appropriate air space control (EASA regulations). It does not really matter whether it is a Cessna, a paraglide, a Chinese lantern, or a UAV drone. I bet a similar law is in effect in the US. The responsible guy will probably avoid jail, but will surely be convicted.
- dmitrygr 11y agoYes. Here are some examples: 1. they distract the pilot during the most critical phase of flight 2. In an airport environment, planes are closer to each other than elsewhere in space, so if a pilot has to suddenly deviate to miss a drone, he might hit another plane 3. If a drone gets in the way of one side of a LOC or a GS signal, it might mess up the plane's ILS approach, possibly causing it to crash. Birds (being radio-transparent) do not.
- silveira 11y agoYes, compared with what a bird can do. This is what a single bird (vulture) did in to a a small airplane in Brazil recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICbWN3XTcig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICbWN3XTcig (strong images). This was what another bird did to a large airplane a few years ago also in Brazil: http://g1.globo.com/rio-de-janeiro/noticia/2013/08/aviao-da-tam-tem-bico-amassado-por-impacto-em-voo-de-bh-para-o-rio.html http://g1.globo.com/rio-de-janeiro/noticia/2013/08/aviao-da-... (article in pt-br).
- thedangler 11y agoSo did they hit? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKdvTecYAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKdvTecYAM
- VT_Drew 11y agocame here to say this.
- CONTRARlAN 11y agoIf only there were some way for you to upvote his comment. It's official: HN is now Reddit. Oh, it's done a year or two of grad school, but it's still Reddit.
- mikeash 11y agoOh shit, the contagion is spreading. "Near miss" means "a miss which was near." It does not mean "nearly missed." It's not an incorrect phrase, it's not a contradiction, and the only thing that's silly about the phrase is how people keep on pointing this out. (Carlin makes it funny, I must admit. But you're not him.)
- mahouse 11y agoI don't hear the libertarian anti-regulation fanboys around now... Where are they? :?
- dmitrygr 11y agoJust like laser pointers in cockpit - find the culprits and charge them with $MANY counts of reckless endangerment. This endangers the lives of every passenger and lots of people on the ground!
- b_emery 11y agoCouple months ago, I was looking out the window on approach to LAX and spotted a metallic helium balloon, maybe 200-400 meters past the end of the wing. As far as I can tell it was not a threat, and I've not been able to find an instance of one causing engine problems, but it was a bit unnerving.
- mikeash 11y agoI've spotted a few balloons at altitude while flying. Once I saw a red and blue balloon tangled together which had somehow got to spinning. From a distance it looked like a strobing light. Neat effect. Anyway, I definitely wouldn't worry about those. They'll shred to pieces before they cause any damage. A couple of pounds of heavier-than-air drone hardware is a different matter.
- tbabb 11y agoThis article needs to be more specific about what they mean by "drone". I thought this meant a military drone until about halfway through the article, and I only inferred that it was talking about a quadcopter or hobby RC/UAV plane from context.
- jonchang 11y agoPro tip: Whenever you read "drone" in a news article you can almost always safely replace it with "unmanned aerial vehicle" with no loss of information. Journalists currently do not make the distinction between (semi-)autonomous military "drones" and hobbyist "drones".
- ethanbond 11y agoDoes anyone make that distinction in a reliable or consistent way?
- privong 11y ago> Pro tip: Whenever you read "drone" in a news article you can almost always safely replace it with "unmanned aerial vehicle" with no loss of information. I don't think that replacement _adds_ any additional information, though. As someone who doesn't follow drone/UAV stuff too closely, your suggested substitution does not really clarify the identity of the subject for me.
- baddox 11y agoYeah, the article never does specify what type or size of aircraft was involved. The mention of commercial drones for aerial photography makes me assume they're talking about a small remotely-piloted multirotor, but it's not even clear if the article's author knows what type of aircraft was involved in this incident.
- lukev 11y agoI wonder why "drones" have recently gained so much mindshare. It is true that autonomous drones are a new thing. But 90% of the reporting I see on "drones" is about small radio-controlled aircraft, which have been around since well before the computer. Is it just that the possibility of a "smart" drone is drawing attention to the other kind, as well? Or is there something specifically about quadcopters that captures the public imagination?
- mikeash 11y agoTraditional RC aircraft are extremely niche. They're expensive and hard to fly, so you need some dedication to get into that. Quadcopters, on the other hand, can be purchased for $40 and flown by somebody with no experience. Obviously a $40 quadcopter won't be threatening airliners, but it's representative of a big change all over the spectrum.
- eterm 11y agoA large part of it is their ability to keep themselves stable. That opens up a huge range of uses that weren't there previously, as well as reducing the chance you'll break it the first time out flying it.
- jameshart 11y agoI was thinking about this recently; seems like affordable consumer quadcopters are a consequence of the availability of cheap, lightweight solid-state accelerometers. Why are accelerometer chips cheap? Because they're ubiquitous in phones. Why are they ubiquitous in phones? Because Steve Jobs wanted the original iPhone to be able to tell which way up you were holding it. (also, due credit to laptop hard drive 'freefall sensors' as another contributor). Combine that with the cheap lithium battery and digital radio communication chipsets, also driven by phone volumes, and that's why 'radio controlled helicopters' are no longer a niche hobby, and instead a danger to aviation.
- jjwiseman 11y agoChris Anderson talks a lot about the smartphone-drone connection here: "How I Accidentally Kickstarted the Domestic Drone Boom" http://www.wired.com/2012/06/ff_drones/ http://www.wired.com/2012/06/ff_drones/
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Aldo_MX 11y agoThis is strange, in my country you are forbidden by law to fly a drone near an airport (which I find as an appropriate law).
- callesgg 11y agoEngines on planes are made to chuck a flock of birds without exploding, i think the plane would have been "fine" (aka no human casualties) even if it did hit the drone. Assuming it was a quad-copter not an actual military drone.
- nly 11y agoSpeaking of which, why do we keep calling hobbyist quadcopters and such "drones"? Using the same word for unmanned military bombers and (relatively) harmless toys seems a bit counter-productive.
- mikeash 11y agoSame reason my 550lb glider and a 100-ton B-52 are both "airplanes." It's a general word that encompasses a lot. The problem isn't so much the use of the word "drones" but the lack of any further qualifiers on it. Sometimes it's evident from context (an article about military drone strikes isn't talking about a 2lb quadcopter, for example) but sometimes it's not, and I think writers need to be a little more careful with it.
- baddox 11y agoThe word "drone" means an aircraft without a pilot. That's been the case since militaries began testing anti-aircraft weaponry with unmanned aircraft, around World War II. The reason it is used specifically for small RC multirotors (as opposed to RC fixed wing planes or single-rotor helicopters) is that more specific terms like "multirotor" or "quadcopter" are less well-known.
- dmitrygr 11y agoBirds do not come with exploding lithium batteries or large metal bodies like brushless outrunner engines do! I do not think you understand how tight the tolerances are in a modern turbofan engine. Birds are relatively soft and get chopped up by the blades. Metal bits (like a drone will have) can break off or bend a blade. The imbalance of a broken blade will cause damage to the turbine instantly, which will cascade into further damage. (clearances are MILLIMETERS, if that, so any bending is a serious issue)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- baby 11y agoHow can a commercial drone take down a plane? Isn't that sensationalism?
- ethanbond 11y agoExactly how lasers and birds can take down planes: very rarely. I'm sure that answer would be of no comfort to anyone whose plane's turbine got struck by someone's toy though.
- mikeyouse 11y agoModerate sized birds can take down airplanes and helicopters and have done so in the very recent past. Why is everyone so loathe to admit that flying these near aircraft is insanely dangerous?
- mikeash 11y agoI personally think it's an over-reaction to the over-reaction to 9/11. We were presented with, "Terrorism is unbelievably dangerous! The slightest provocation can take down an airliner. We're all gonna die unless we take extreme measures!" A lot of people pushed back so hard the other way that they got to, "Air travel is totally safe no matter what and there is never any danger from anything." For someone without much domain knowledge, "We need to keep drones away from airports so an airliner doesn't get brought down in a collision" probably sounds about the same as "We need to ban all liquids in containers larger than 3.3oz, unless it's contact lens solution in which case it's totally cool."
- astrodust 11y agoThings flying into the engines of operating aircraft, especially during take-off and landing, is an extreme hazard that has been documented in many, many cases. Anything airborne poses a serious hazard to aircraft, even tiny particles of ash. This is nothing at all like the threat posed by liquids. That's a response to binary explosives and is misguided at best. Powder mixtures can do just as much damage and they don't screen for those at all.
- chmike 11y agoIs it possible to get a description of the drone ? It's size, behaviour, speed, etc. I was very surprised to learn that the "drone" seen above nuclear power plants in France has been discribed by a witness as to be ~7 meter in diameter, flowing at an altitude of ~200 meter, at slow speed and silently.
- anigbrowl 11y agoThere are firms that build them specifically for industrial inspection purposes, eg Blue Bear Research Systems in the UK. Unless the witness was qualified (eg a pilot or surveyor or similar) I would take size/height estimates with a giant pinch of salt, most people are awful at estimating those things.
- jrockway 11y agoRemember the Penny Arcade comic where "normal person + anonymity + audience = total fuckwad" [1]? I think what we have here is "normal person + anonymity + airplane = airspace incursions". [1] http://www.penny-arcade.com/S=0/comic/2004/03/19 http://www.penny-arcade.com/S=0/comic/2004/03/19 Drones take away the risk of consequences for your actions. It's kind of like bicycle/car accidents. Driver hits a bicyclist. Bicyclist leaves the scene of the accident in a body bag. Driver drives away with some scratches on the car. With that kind of outcome, there isn't much incentive for the driver to drive safer -- his ass is not on the line. Drones are the same way. Crash your drone into an aircraft and kill 300 people you've never heard of? Oh well, you just walk away. Much easier than learning the rules for navigating controlled airspace.
- bargl 11y agoThere are also very few regulations on drones, and there are no licenses/permits required to learn the rules in order to fly them. https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/
- leesalminen 11y agoThe same goes for bicycles being used on roadways. No education, licensing, etc (at least in the U.S.). Do any countries have licensing for biclysists?
- bargl 11y agoYou can't compare the regulations/education on cars to those on airplanes, just like you can't compare the regulations/education on bikes to drones. Airspace is not a road way, it can't be compared to one. I'm specifically talking about the USA (Hence FAA regulations) but this does affect every country. Edit: added /education
- craig131 11y agoIt's funny that you say that now after agreeing with, and adding to the comparison of drones = cars and planes = bicycles. Now when someone flips the comparison, equating drones to bicycles, the comparison is apples to oranges?
- anigbrowl 11y agoBy the way, although 100 meters may sound like a comfortable margin bear in mind that at 100 knots (just around stall speed for a small jet coming in to land) that distance will be closed in under 2 seconds.
- ajuc 11y agoPolice caught the guy. Probably. He admited to fly his drone in that region at the time, but had no idea he was so close to the airport. The uav has gps and logs position and time, so they will know for sure eventually. It's illegal to operate drones there, the guy can go to prison for up to 8 years. Source (in Polish) http://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/news-incydent-z-dronem-zatrzymano-mezczyzne-ktory-prawdopodobnie-,nId,1856592 http://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/news-incydent-z-dronem-zatrzymano-...