Was it a drone? British airways flight

pomonabill220 · Apr 20, 2016

m0j0 said:
Well it's a sketchy unproven incident until they produce some evidence that the plane actually struck a quad. I won't accept it as true until the release some...any... Credible evidence that it a quad.

Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

Like I said, this happened at 1700 feet, the aircraft was traveling at about 500 mph, that's 8 mpsecond.
Spotting and confirming a quad at that speed would take no more than 400 feet which would mean he had milliseconds (that is 0.001 second) to identify it (highly unlikely), and it is "suspected" and not confirmed!
I would like to see the pilot interviewed and hear the cockpit voice recorder.
I really doubt it was a quad since there is no damage to the aircraft either. A 2 lbs. plastic item would leave a dent, and possibly scratches. The inspection found nothing!
Too bad the general public is so quick to blame! Too bad they don't read and understand that news can be over dramatized.

sar104 · Apr 20, 2016

pomonabill220 said:
Like I said, this happened at 1700 feet, the aircraft was traveling at about 500 mph, that's 8 mpsecond.
Spotting and confirming a quad at that speed would take no more than 400 feet which would mean he had milliseconds (that is 0.001 second) to identify it (highly unlikely), and it is "suspected" and not confirmed!
I would like to see the pilot interviewed and hear the cockpit voice recorder.
I really doubt it was a quad since there is no damage to the aircraft either. A 2 lbs. plastic item would leave a dent, and possibly scratches. The inspection found nothing!
Too bad the general public is so quick to blame! Too bad they don't read and understand that news can be over dramatized.

Your numbers and calculations are incorrect. At 1700 ft on approach, the aircraft will be doing less than 200 kts, or 100 m/s. If we take your estimate of 400 ft (122 m) as reasonable, then the pilot will have a little over 1 second to identify the object.

And 500 mph is 0.14 miles per second.

pomonabill220 · Apr 20, 2016

should have been 8.33 mpminute....

pomonabill220 · Apr 20, 2016

We also don't know where the supposed quad was in relation to the pilot's line of sight... was he above/inline/below the quad? That would make a big difference as to the visibility and identification of the quad, IF it was in fact a quad!
Even the pilot wasn't positive it was a quad!

ftttu · Apr 20, 2016

Drone manufacturers work to combat growing terror threat | Fox News

Here is a little more on the story.

Erised · Apr 21, 2016

Dailymail (today)
'Don't overreact,' says transport minister as he dismisses concerns that a drone hit a BA jet and says it could have been a plastic bag

LuvMyTJ · Apr 21, 2016

Erised said:
Dailymail (today)
'Don't overreact,' says transport minister as he dismisses concerns that a drone hit a BA jet and says it could have been a plastic bag

Then why did they leak it as such and allow the media to run wild for the last week or so calling it a drone? Thanks for all the un-needed negative press Robert Goodwill!

750r · Apr 21, 2016

LuvMyTJ said:
Then why did they leak it as such and allow the media to run wild for the last week or so calling it a drone? Thanks for all the un-needed negative press Robert Goodwill!

Come on you know why truth don't sell . Creat fear make laws

Meta4 · Apr 21, 2016

Interesting to see that piece on the Transport Minister's comments.

Robert Goodwill plays down fears and said authorities had not yet confirmed whether it was a drone
He says it would be much easier for terrorists to attack airports on the ground with rucksacks or car bombs
He insists current rules governing drone use are strong enough

But at the same time, the hysteria is giving us this ...
This time the near miss with an airliner was supposed to be at 2300 metres
Aer Lingus plane reportedly dodges collision with drone over Paris - Independent.ie

The British Airline Pilots Association has been telling their members and the press that drones are a real menace and that a crash is inevitable.
So their pilots are seeing them everywhere now.

soulphantomflyer · Apr 21, 2016

Just limit all personal quad transmitter range to max of 300m

Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

Fallguy · Apr 21, 2016

Place your Meme's here .

p fandango · Apr 21, 2016

LuvMyTJ said:
Then why did they leak it as such and allow the media to run wild for the last week or so calling it a drone? Thanks for all the un-needed negative press Robert Goodwill!

jez & people were slating the media for putting a negative twist on things, nothing was "LEAKED" they were "REPORTING" on a near miss/investiagtion

mdowney58 · Apr 21, 2016

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

SamNetwork · Apr 21, 2016

What is ACTUALLY going on:
"A small object, like a UAV, possibly collided with a small two-engined Airbus. Minimal damage was reported. No injuries."
What everyone THINKS is going on.
"Breaking news. A drone with an onboard nuke guided by ISIS terrorists has slammed into a mega-freighter jumbo jet which exploded in mid-air and every died. Drones are evil yada yada yada..."

This is the news in a nutshell.

Shadow 81 · Apr 22, 2016

The saga continues ...........

US mulls tech to disable rogue drones near airports - BBC News

b0dyr0ck2006 · Apr 22, 2016

'Drone' That Hit British Airways Plane Could Have Just Been A Paper Bag

Mmmmm perhaps they jumped on the scaremongering bandwagon too soon as I predicted

Stuart Bishop · Apr 22, 2016

Shadow 81 said:
The saga continues ...........

US mulls tech to disable rogue drones near airports - BBC News

What's even more crazy though is Richmond Park where the bag hit it is 5 miles from the airport. I'm totally ok with drones being controlled around an airport but what's the range going to be. Again they're thinking of it as a terrorist issue, which you can understand now the news as given every terrorist the idea to do it but only an idiot would fly their drone near an airport, no one wants to see their pride and joy smashed to pieces let alone cause an accident.

sar104 · Apr 22, 2016

Stuart Bishop said:
What's even more crazy though is Richmond Park where the bag hit it is 5 miles from the airport. I'm totally ok with drones being controlled around an airport but what's the range going to be. Again they're thinking of it as a terrorist issue, which you can understand now the news as given every terrorist the idea to do it but only an idiot would fly their drone near an airport, no one wants to see their pride and joy smashed to pieces let alone cause an accident.

Why is that crazy? The relevant area around airports is the area in which aircraft are maneuvering at altitudes and speeds that may put them at risk of collision with UAVs. With the current altitude limit on Phantoms of 500 m, an exclusion area (or at least additional altitude restriction area) extending out 5 miles from an airport, seems completely appropriate. Operating closer than that should legitimately require ATC clearance and coordination.