This won't be good for the hobby if true

Not discussing revenues.

My rhetorical question was "who stills buys a paper?"

In 1940 about 41 million Americans- with a U.S. population of 132 Million... About 1 out of 3.
In 2017 about 30 million Americans- with a U.S. population of 329 Million... About 1 out of 11.

This data comes from the site referenced in post #65.

I thank the moderators for tolerating this topic-shift and will cease here.

Sounds good to me. [emoji106][emoji41]
 
In case anyone is worried about a civilian operated drone striking a commercial aircraft and doing enough damage to bring it down need not worry.Those planes can sustain an incredible impact and still safely land.Does anyone remember the Hawaiian airlines incident many years back that aircraft lost about a third of its starboard fuselage and still made a safe landing.God bless superior American engineering.
Just to be clear, that was NOT Hawaiian Airlines, but Aloha Airlines Flight 243, a B737-200, April 28, 1988. It was the top of the fuselage, from just behind the cockpit back approximately 2/3 of the way to the wing leading edge. Tore off down to the floor stringers on the left side, not quite as far on the right. One flight attendant was lost. It was a heroic effort that brought that plane down safely.
The point of the post is true, however, in that a Phantom or Mavic would not be enough to bring down an airliner. That is just fear mongering. Even if a drone hit the windscreen, I doubt it would do any real damage. Drones are too frangible compared to aircraft.
 
Just to be clear, that was NOT Hawaiian Airlines, but Aloha Airlines Flight 243, a B737-200, April 28, 1988. It was the top of the fuselage, from just behind the cockpit back approximately 2/3 of the way to the wing leading edge. Tore off down to the floor stringers on the left side, not quite as far on the right. One flight attendant was lost. It was a heroic effort that brought that plane down safely.
The point of the post is true, however, in that a Phantom or Mavic would not be enough to bring down an airliner. That is just fear mongering. Even if a drone hit the windscreen, I doubt it would do any real damage. Drones are too frangible compared to aircraft.

I agree that airliners are probably robust enough to survive a hit, especially at low altitude. The windshields will probably crack but not fail completely. The metal components might be enough to take out an engine but they are all rated to survive one engine failing, even on takeoff and climb out. A collision could be quite costly in terms of repairs though, and very costly in its consequences for consumer drone regulation.

General aviation aircraft are another story altogether though.
 
Ok gang. Enough of the personal attacks and "digs". Let's get this thread back on topic and NOT personal in any way.

This is the only warning . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirkclod and 3rdof5
The original point was how quickly and easily the media "automatically" assumes its a drone impact, which needs to be addressed. Yes, I learned alot about how radar works on an airliner (which i was completely unaware of, so thanks to all for contributing that info). The bottom line Imo is we (as in the associated group of responsible pilots) need to do more to promote the POSTIVE aspects of what we do. How many times have you watched an advert on Tv and knew for sure it was a drone taking that video footage and not a manned AC? Where's the high fives for that? We can debate how structurally secure AC are forever. The media needs NEW positive stories and what our AC do and how well, safely, and professionally, that we do!
 
In my opinion, AeroMexico is the absolute scum of the entire airline industry. I flew with them to do a photo shoot in Cancun last August. When we landed at Guadalajara their customs people stole $1800 worth of my camera equipment from my suitcase. Because I couldn't get everything into my carry-on case, I packed some of my equipment into a suitcase set up for photo equipment. When I got to Cancun, I opened my suitcase in my room and discovered someone had gone Christmas shopping at my expense. The travel insurance I purchased only paid me $200. As far as I'm concerned, the plane struck an illegal alien skydiving into California.
 
In my opinion, AeroMexico is the absolute scum of the entire airline industry. I flew with them to do a photo shoot in Cancun last August. When we landed at Guadalajara their customs people stole $1800 worth of my camera equipment from my suitcase. Because I couldn't get everything into my carry-on case, I packed some of my equipment into a suitcase set up for photo equipment. When I got to Cancun, I opened my suitcase in my room and discovered someone had gone Christmas shopping at my expense. The travel insurance I purchased only paid me $200. As far as I'm concerned, the plane struck an illegal alien skydiving into California.
Sorry to read about your experience. Know that if it was customs, Aeromexico has no control over them at all. Even most baggage handling is contracted out to third parties and bag pilfering can be problematic. The only defense is a good insurance policy for high value goods.
 
This was terrible reporting by ALL news outlets. I saw the story on ABC last night. First it started off with Drone Strikes Commercial Plane, then it says maybe, then it says, they don't know, then the news does a story on how dangerous drones are, not knowing at all if this was a drone strike, not all bird hits leave blood or feathers. Addtionally news outlets in the US were all over this story, It happened in Mexica, in Tijuana, not in USA, not exactly in an area know for "strict" law enforcement. For this story to get any kind of traction in USA is sad and sucks. I work in the media, and already have an email not my sources at ABC and NBC. So maybe those of us on this board should stop debating and or promoting this "unconfirmed, story" every post on this site, is a google search for 'drones crashing into planes' including the one I just posted.
I stood in ABC's network news control room during World News Tonight and spoke face to face with the producer for that piece before it went to air.

I did not see/hear what you are stating.

Perhaps your local station coverage was different?

The wall graphic and subsequent lower third that I saw was "drone hits plane?". That question mark is important. The story was consistent with that.

Then there was the GMA coverage. I'll not make any judgmental cracks about the extent to which GMA does or does not constitute "news".... ;) But looking at that piece now, the consultant did mention it to be similar in appearance to a goose strike.

In our piece the take-home was that "IF it was a drone, this would be the first case of a large airliner being struck by a drone."

I even helped fact-check the producer on the matter of there having previously been a smaller commuter plane which did encounter a drone strike.

While I'm not entirely thrilled about a piece - any piece - running without all the facts being in place, this network didn't make up this news and we didn't invent the suspicion of it being a drone strike. The FAA and NTSB were indeed investigating. Developing news is still news.

Yes, while there are many "ifs", it's still important that consumers understand the potential dangers imposed by their gadgets - a point which unfortunately had to be repeatedly driven home with a mallet in the thread about the Phantom vs. Mooney video. Our piece did mention that there are about 200 reports per month of drone operators failing to obey the rules to stay away from airports, sending police and choppers trying to track down the illegal drones. And of course we mentioned the chopper strike in NYC. It's all right there in the script.

You may however be pleased to know that this story didn't make the cut for the online copy of the show.

Side note: In this day and age when the US -based TV networks are deservedly criticized for anemic coverage of what happens outside our borders, I'm not impressed with the inclination to chew out ABC for covering something that happened in northern Mexico. But you're welcome to your opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N017RW and sar104
When we think of a "drone" we think of our DJI's, etc. This was probably a drone strike, but I am guessing it was a military or Border Patrol drone of the smaller size, but about 3X the size of our DJI's. These would be made of light balsa, etc. The U.S. is undoubtedly flying inside Mexican airspace to observe illegal immigrants trying to enter, or gathering in Mexico. They could also be looking for the "Coyotes". Whatever they are doing they probably aren't clearing each flight with the Mexican government. There will be no "confirmation" the aircraft over ran a drone. To do so would open up a a can of worms. This is just my opinion, but having worked with drones in the middle east, it's my best guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Timinator
Balsa... You’re suggesting a fixed-wing aircraft?

Not unreasonable.
 
This could get messy. Foreign registered airliner operating on a domestic flight in a foreign country with a final approach at very low altitude over the USA in an area with increased border surveillance activity means the real story will likely never see the light of day.

Depending on how many resources the Mexican Air Transport investigative body wants to spend on this, all that can be done is wait for their final investigative report which may or may not draw a conclusion. What a mess.
 
This was terrible reporting by ALL news outlets. I saw the story on ABC last night. First it started off with Drone Strikes Commercial Plane, then it says maybe, then it says, they don't know, then the news does a story on how dangerous drones are, not knowing at all if this was a drone strike, not all bird hits leave blood or feathers. Addtionally news outlets in the US were all over this story, It happened in Mexica, in Tijuana, not in USA, not exactly in an area know for "strict" law enforcement. For this story to get any kind of traction in USA is sad and sucks. I work in the media, and already have an email not my sources at ABC and NBC. So maybe those of us on this board should stop debating and or promoting this "unconfirmed, story" every post on this site, is a google search for 'drones crashing into planes' including the one I just posted.
Fake news? Lmao
 
Fake news? Lmao

I agree, the pilot made it clear in his radio transmission with the tower that he did not see any “Birds or Anything”. Only the pilot and co-pilot were there and their statement was very clear. If they were to find any pieces of a drone in the nose cone then that would mean that the pilots were not looking outside. Pilots flying IFR or VFR are required under FAR 91.113 (b) to maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid other aircraft.

§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations. (a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an aircraft on water. (b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

Even though this is a Mexican Airline flying in Mexican airspace I would think they have same rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
Just because the crew state they didn't see anything doesn't mean there wasn't something there. I can think of a number of scenarios where flight crew may not see a small object in the path of the aircraft. A lot of general aviation mid air collisions happen at much slower speeds than a Boeing 738. Keep in mind the two general aviation aircraft are much larger than drones, have lights, yet still manage to collide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
Just because the crew state they didn't see anything doesn't mean there wasn't something there. I can think of a number of scenarios where flight crew may not see a small object in the path of the aircraft. A lot of general aviation mid air collisions happen at much slower speeds than a Boeing 738. Keep in mind the two general aviation aircraft are much larger than drones, have lights, yet still manage to collide.


Also the work load during approach to final is greatly increased (checklists etc). A lot going on and a sUAS could be missed easily.

This is NOT directed at anyone in this thread but I do find it ironic that in other discussions about sUAS being spotted (correctly or otherwise) from Manned aircraft it has been heavily stated, "You wouldn't see a small sUAS from a manned aircraft flying at speed".

It would be very easy to miss one unless you happened to be looking in the exact right area at the exact right time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Timinator
Just because the crew state they didn't see anything doesn't mean there wasn't something there. I can think of a number of scenarios where flight crew may not see a small object in the path of the aircraft. A lot of general aviation mid air collisions happen at much slower speeds than a Boeing 738. Keep in mind the two general aviation aircraft are much larger than drones, have lights, yet still manage to collide.

True, just because the pilot said that there wasn’t anything doesn’t mean there wasn’t something out there. It was what pilot said (being there) and what the reporter said, who was not there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
This one sure faded from the news. You'd have thought they could rule a drone strike in or out pretty quickly, based on marks on the nose and probable pieces of the drone inside the nose cone. This is one of those situations where you'll never hear anything more about it if it's ruled not to be a drone strike.
 
This one sure faded from the news. You'd have thought they could rule a drone strike in or out pretty quickly, based on marks on the nose and probable pieces of the drone inside the nose cone. This is one of those situations where you'll never hear anything more about it if it's ruled not to be a drone strike.
Keep in mind you won't hear anything until the Mexican Air Accidents Investigation Branch (or their equivalent) release an interim or final report.

They could very well have found parts and have just not released that info yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
Keep in mind you won't hear anything until the Mexican Air Accidents Investigation Branch (or their equivalent) release an interim or final report.

They could very well have found parts and have just not released that info yet.


And if they really are the NTSB counterpart this investigation could go on for several months. Often times even a seemingly simple accident can have a 6-month period from accident to report. If it's complicated that could easily double.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31