Missed the plane at Auckland airport but got a smaller one instead

[DavidN747]

I’ve had a pilot’s licence since 1976, and an airline transport pilot licence since 1978, and some 28,000 odd hours under my belt in both big aircraft and small, in everything up to and including 747’s, and I call total BS on this.
And yes, I’ve had plenty of birdstrikes and even had to shut down a badly damaged engine in a 737 after a birdstrike, (luckily not two engines like Sully.)

Sounds like a great excuse for a major stuff up by the pilot. If there was indeed a bird involved, which is of course quite possible, (FAR more likely than a drone), they’ll find some evidence of it. Likewise if it was a drone, there will be evidence of that as well.
Maybe even there was no airborne impact, just a bit of low flying which ended very badly and needed a bloody good excuse for the insurance company.
I’ll be way beyond surprised if a drone was in any way involved.

Cya

 

[RAI NZ]

Im with BigA107 on this, I live in NZ and that was a pure piece of summation on the pilots part to take the heat off himself.

 

[sar104]

Im with BigA107 on this, I live in NZ and that was a pure piece of summation on the pilots part to take the heat off himself.

And that's just complete speculation. While I also doubt the drone impact hypothesis, if the windshield failed either spontaneously or due to bird/drone impact, he didn't need a further invented excuse for why it failed, since that doesn't affect the outcome.

 

[Nick Mendocino]

Story I read said he was at 1600 to 1700 ft. MSL. That's too high for most birds and drones, and either one of those would leave stuff inside if it crashed through the windshield. In any case, there is zero basis for the pilot's speculation that it was a drone strike since he didn't see a drone or have any other evidence to support his wild guess. And shame on the newspaper for reporting the pilot's wild guess in the headline or subhead when there was no evidence for it.

 

[v8juice]

FYI.....For about a year now it has been quite easy to edit the firmware in DJI drones including but not limited to the following settings, max speed, rate of ascent and descent..........disabling max altitude setting.

 

[BillyBottle]

If he's planning to give that 'Drone activity' speech to his insurance company as mitigation of, or prime cause of the crash, then he should go to Vegas or buy lottery tickets, because his luck may be in!
The drinks are on him folks!!

Oh, and BTW, modern safety glass, even of the laminated variety, can spontaneously crack from stresses not fully relieved in manufacture or acquired upon fitting. I have had a car side windows implode spectactularly on two occasions, and have seen many locomotive windscreens crack right across, and only hold in place due to the lamination membranes presence. FWIW all Americam made loco screens (NASG). Auto glass was French.
But anyones glass equally be as suspect, but I have no personal experience of that as yet.

 

[MikeyP]

Have you seen that airplane? How would a drone get through that spinning prop? And then that tempered plastic shell?

 

[gingerbloke]

Now you're just using facts and logic to make your point. Where's the fun & hysteria in that?

As a 28 year pilot and a drone operator, I question the whole story. I’m disturbed by his leap to causation so quickly with absolutely zero evidence to support a drone strike. The reality is, his injuries are the result of a poorly executed off field landing. I feel for a legitimate case of a drone strike, but aircraft windows a very durable, sloped and at the speeds that plane cruises (90 kts), it would have to be 1 in a million strike. Further the plane has a 28 Kt stall speed, no reason whatsoever he couldn’t set that down in the prevailing wind at ground speeds of 15 to 20 kts. Hardly a scenario to turn it upside down. I fear he’s a journalist spinning the story for maximum effect regardless of the truthin order to cover a poorly executed emergency procedure. Call me harsh but there’s nothing supporting a drone strike.

 

[BigAl07]

Have you seen that airplane? How would a drone get through that spinning prop? And then that tempered plastic shell?

The same way birds are able to impact windshields on similar airplanes. Coming in at an angle, bad luck, partially cut into pieces . . . . We could "speculate" all day long but that does no good what so ever.


Here is exactly how an object can come into contact with an aircraft's windshield regardless of the prop up front:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[joeyjan19]

It shouldn't be too difficult for the investigators to distinguish a bird strike from a UAV strike, or from some other cause of catastrophic windshield failure. Let's hope it wasn't a UAV.

As I said before “A drone caused it syndrome “ is coming. IT is the perfect CYA protection. Run out of fuel...a drone took it. Get lost, a drone was using the GPS signal. Land on the wrong runway, a drone was on the other one. Crash the airplane because of incompetence or just plain stupidity, blame it on the drone. The perfect out.

 

[sar104]

As I said before “A drone caused it syndrome “ is coming. IT is the perfect CYA protection. Run out of fuel...a drone took it. Get lost, a drone was using the GPS signal. Land on the wrong runway, a drone was on the other one. Crash the airplane because of incompetence or just plain stupidity, blame it on the drone. The perfect out.

Maybe - but how is that any more of an out than "a bird caused it"? That one's been available for years without much indication of misuse.

 

[joeyjan19]

Maybe - but how is that any more of an out than "a bird caused it"? That one's been available for years without much indication of misuse.

Instructing hovering in a helicopter and you hit a tree. You or the student made a mistake and YOU are completely responsible. No ands if’s but’s about it. Sound familiar? It’s on this forum but if a drone “ appeared or suddenly appeared something like that “is put into the equation we have a out. “I reacted to avoid the drone and hit the tree”Every aviation attorney out there is smiling. This above accident, who knows he may have simply stalled the airplane,I don’t know, the windshield would have broken on impact so it would have to be inspected if a bird was impacted I guarantee bird juice on the remains of the windshield. If it were a drone the plexiglass will be marked. My point is this is only the beginning.

 

[sar104]

Instructing hovering in a helicopter and you hit a tree. You or the student made a mistake and YOU are completely responsible. No ands if’s but’s about it. Sound familiar? It’s on this forum but if a drone “ appeared or suddenly appeared something like that “is put into the equation we have a out. “I reacted to avoid the drone and hit the tree”Every aviation attorney out there is smiling. This above accident, who knows he may have simply stalled the airplane,I don’t know, the windshield would have broken on impact so it would have to be inspected if a bird was impacted I guarantee bird juice on the remains of the windshield. If it were a drone the plexiglass will be marked. My point is this is only the beginning.

Fair point on the helicopter incident. But in general pilots are not going to get much of an out from just saying there was a drone nearby and, as you point out, if there is actually a collision then the evidence will be there. I think you are being overly pessimistic. Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic.

 

[joeyjan19]

Fair point on the helicopter incident. But in general pilots are not going to get much of an out from just saying there was a drone nearby and, as you point out, if there is actually a collision then the evidence will be there. I think you are being overly pessimistic. Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic.

How about this situation,Your driving down the road and you are talking on your cellphone. The other person tells you something so funny you lose control of the car and crash into a tree. When the police arrive they ask you “ what happened”. “Well I was talking on the phone lost control of the car and hit the tree” is your response. Or “a deer ran in front of me and I veered to miss it. I missed it but hit the tree,it was so quick I never had time to hit the brakes,it happened so fast”. No other proof, “ask the deer if you don’t believe. “Oh he gone,believe me this drone excuse is going to get bear more than a redhead stepchild.

 

[sar104]

How about this situation,Your driving down the road and you are talking on your cellphone. The other person tells you something so funny you lose control of the car and crash into a tree. When the police arrive they ask you “ what happened”. “Well I was talking on the phone lost control of the car and hit the tree” is your response. Or “a deer ran in front of me and I veered to miss it. I missed it but hit the tree,it was so quick I never had time to hit the brakes,it happened so fast”. No other proof, “ask the deer if you don’t believe. “Oh he gone,believe me this drone excuse is going to get bear more than a redhead stepchild.

If you are suggesting that "the deer made me crash" is a common defense in motor accidents, then are there data to support that?

 

[joeyjan19]

If you are suggesting that "the deer made me crash" is a common defense in motor accidents, then are there data to support that?

Stop,stop, what I’m saying is people will use a excuse if they can to save their butt. In western New York deer are killed all the time being hit by cars, and there are many accidents trying to avoid them. Avoiding a deer, no violation and no insurance increase. Tell the police you were texting on your phone and see what happens. The drone made me do it is as flimsy as an excuse can be in this case but it’s better than I was texting my girlfriend and stalled the plane. I’m sure it will all come out in the wash, I would like to hear the outcome if the originator could watch it.

 

[sar104]

Stop,stop, what I’m saying is people will use a excuse if they can to save their butt. In western New York deer are killed all the time being hit by cars, and there are many accidents trying to avoid them. Avoiding a deer, no violation and no insurance increase. Tell the police you were texting on your phone and see what happens. The drone made me do it is as flimsy as an excuse can be in this case but it’s better than I was texting my girlfriend and stalled the plane. I’m sure it will all come out in the wash, I would like to hear the outcome if the originator could watch it.

Real accidents with deer and real accidents due to attempted deer avoidance do not support your cause for concern. I understand that someone could make such a false claim, but it only makes sense as suggestive evidence for your drone theory if it is actually happening. Hence my question - are they doing that? If not, or if you have no data to support that, then the imaginary deer scenario and the imaginary drone scenario are baseless speculation.

 

[WV. Rootman]

Narcissism is so prevalent in today's society. No one likes to take the credit for their own mistakes. I can see the point, but of course it would be very difficult to prove putting the blame on something that isn't there. Human Nature as a child to adulthood, it has been proven, we inevitably place the blame elsewhere.

 

[joeyjan19]

Real accidents with deer and real accidents due to attempted deer avoidance do not support your cause for concern. I understand that someone could make such a false claim, but it only makes sense as suggestive evidence for your drone theory if it is actually happening. Hence my question - are they doing that? If not, or if you have no data to support that, then the imaginary deer scenario and the imaginary drone scenario are baseless speculation.

You are incorrect, one small community that a friend of mine lives in had over 330 REPORTED auto/deer incidents, Two years ago one was fatal. That was in Pennsylvania. Back to drones, in my humble opinion there is and will continue to be a all out war against drones that will continue to grow.

 

[sar104]

You are incorrect, one small community that a friend of mine lives in had over 330 REPORTED auto/deer incidents, Two years ago one was fatal. That was in Pennsylvania. Back to drones, in my humble opinion there is and will continue to be a all out war against drones that will continue to grow.

You are completely missing my point, deliberately I suspect. I'm not saying that deer accidents don't occur - we have plenty here. I asking if you have any evidence that drivers are inventing deer avoidance incidents to cover up the real reason for other accidents.

And the opportunistic use of the drone excuse would not be part of a "war on drones", because banning drones would remove that opportunity. This is a silly discussion at this point.