Lufthansa jet and drone nearly collide near LAX
latimes.com
latimes.com
The pilot of the aircraft, a Lufthansa A380-800, reported seeing the drone above him. The reported near miss distance of 200 feet is very close for an aircraft with a 260 foot wingspan and a tail tip 60 feet above the pilot.
WTF is someone doing flying a drone at 5000 feet over downtown LA in the LAX approach path? That drone operator needs to be found and arrested.
"near miss" means coming up on 200 meters distance between two objects if > 400 meters up, otherwise it means whatever the tower decides it means (and presumably for them it means being in controlled airspace at all, e.g. having a drone above the airport building itself)
Los Angeles has already effectively criminalized flying drones in most of the city. In October 2015 the city passed an ordinance that requires drone pilots to get "express authorization" from all airports within 5 miles[1]. This was done despite the fact that it is stricter than the FAA's requirement/advice for drone pilots to "notify" all airports within 5 miles[2] (Two months later, in December 2015, the FAA published a fact sheet trying to discourage local drone regulations that could result in a patchwork of confusing laws around the country[3].)
In January 2016, LA charged two drone pilots under the new ordinance for flying drones within 5 miles of _heliports_[4], indicating that they considered heliports to be equivalent to airports. The pilots are facing misdemeanor charges that could result in a fine and up to 6 months in jail.
The thing about heliports in LA is that they're everywhere! Probably 80-90% of LA is within 5 miles of a heliport. And not just one--if you wanted to fly your drone in the field next to the Silver Lake Reservoir, you'd probably have to get authorization from 7 or 8 heliports. It is, effectively, a ban.
[2] http://fromwhereidrone.com/can-you-fly-your-drone-within-5-m...
[3] http://www.faa.gov/uas/regulations_policies/media/UAS_Fact_S...
[4] http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-city-attorney-dr...
it truly is "the motherboard". people who have never flown in before are shocked to see it. it's something else. the only thing that compares in the US is probably chicago, but it's not the same scale, and LA also has geography which adds to the visual drama. tokyo is similar but not quite the same kind of approach. i don't recall any airport in europe even approaching the visual appeal of the LAX approach. i've never flown into mexico city, from looking at maps it's probably close, but physically it's nowhere near as large as the LA metro (including IE, OC, etc.). LA is huge. yuuuuuge.
it is bounded by office highrises, datacenters, hotels, and housing. in my opinion it's likely the most dangerous airport in the US in terms of potential damage from a non-terrorist crash. i can't think of any airports in the US that are quite the same. it's currently the global #5 volume airport but the insane amount of traffic from asia will probably make it #1 within a few years. there is a major expansion and renovation project happening right now.
The Canadians already did. https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/3h2e8t/for_all_o... you want to fly a drone here in Vancouver, you better get a permit. The fines start at $1000 and they are finding people.
It depends on the size of the drone and where it hits.
I am not sure how large these drones are, but if they have the mass of a flock of large seagulls, say, it could disable an engine (like the US Airways jet).
A collision with a wing could cause substantial damage to the wing which would change the aerodynamics, and that could be potentially dangerous at low altitudes because of the neighborhoods underneath. Debris could fall from the sky and injure or kill someone. I doubt it would come close to tearing off a wing.
A collision with the fuselage could breach the cabin which is dangerous in itself, but would not cause a decompression at that altitude.
A collision with the windscreen of the flight deck would be dangerous for obvious reasons. In the minor case, it can blind the pilots temporarily. In the worst case, debris from the drone would incapacitate the pilot during the most dangerous phase of flight: landing or departure.
What is really dangerous is the speed at which the aircraft hits the mass of the drone. It may seem like the aircraft would just kill the drone, and that is probably the case with most drones, but if it has large mass, it wouldn't.
The most dangerous scenario is if a drone hits the control surface like the flaps (very important for landing), or the horizontal stabilizer in the tail, it could be disastrous.
Hitting the fuselage, or entering an engine is probably more realistic. Both would be expensive, but won't be a threat to the passengers. Maybe hitting the wingtips would be doable ... not sure.
Why would airflow around the wing keep a drone from hitting it but not a bird?
Would the pilots be sucked out even at a low altitude such as 5k feet? Whether they are our aren't, how will the plane be landed?
The aircraft operator will be looking for someone to stick with the repair bill. Each engine on the A-380 today costs about $13 million.
That's the good case. Here's a picture of an A-6E which crashed after an engine ingested a pencil-sized hex wrench.[1]
Not particularly relevant.
J52 engines weren't tested or certificated for bird-strike tolerance or turbine-blade containment.
The later civil derivative, the JT8D, shared a core but was a new design outside the hot-section and had to meet all the FAA-mandated requirements.
The latest jet liners A380 / 787 are made from composites, even their body.
Many other craft have composite wings.
Picture a 5-pound drone hitting a stationary plane at 250 miles per hour and ask if the damage would be "negligible".
Consider if you loaded the drone into a cannon and fired it at a stationary airplane, hitting at 250MPH. That's 366 feet per second. Like a low-velocity bullet. Into an aluminum airframe. A BB going that speed will puncture a pop can. A 5lb drone going that speed may puncture the skin of an airplane?
"Investigators into the Columbia accident have estimated that the dislodged foam was about 19 by 11.5 by 5.5 inches (48 by 29 by 14 cm), weighed about 26.7 ounces, or 1.7 lb (0.75 kg) and impacted the Shuttle at nearly 530 mph (850 km/h). For the sake of a rough comparison, this block of foam would be about the same size and weight as a large loaf of bread."
http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/space-disasters/columbia-...
One possibility is to limit the weight of the drones, which will limit the damage they can inflict.
That is not a hobby drone. I could never get mine to that height.
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report-watch-a-stupid-drone-...
[1] http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/11000ft-dji-drone-flight-record-att...
However, I think there are too many entitled asses that pretty much think they can do whatever they want. You wouldn't believe th number of drones they now have flying at cars and coffee events. I'm also fairly certain that none of these drone operators have insurance so imagine the scenario of drone operator (likely without a whole lot of experience) + many expensive cars (but that's not the point). Not gonna end well.
Sooner or later, a drone strike will happen if left unchecked.
I'm not particularly pro-regulation, but this seems like a scenario where it seems quite necessary.