This won't be good for the hobby if true
- Thread starter Timinator
- Start date
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 . . .
This is the only warning . . .
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2016
- Messages
- 203
- Reaction score
- 130
- Age
- 124
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.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Similar threads
