Industry Condemns Video of Drone’s Close Encounter with Frontier Aircraft

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
A drone video posted on YouTube has gotten both the UAV industry and hobbyists livid: it shows a very close encounter with a passenger plane; everything in the footage implies the operator was flying illegally and recklessly. The FAA has launched an investigation.

The 27-sec.video clip starts airborne above Las Vegas. How high the drone is flying is not clear, but it appears obviously above the altitude limit set by the FAA as a large white object moves into frame. The camera turns to track the object, which is revealed to be an Airbus in Frontier Airlines livery. The camera pans around as the aircraft passes underneath.
 
So has anyone started testing the survivability of jet engines from a drone strike?
 
TAP said:
So has anyone started testing the survivability of jet engines from a drone strike?
Click to expand...
I think it's safe to assume not great. They can chew up a bird, but even a few birds have taken out engines.

Edit: lol rapid fire response to this question. And as stated above a single bird as large as a Canadian Goose can take one out with soft tissue and tiny bones.
 
While I don't condone this particular behaviour. I do think people are slightly over reacting in relation to the threat of drones to commercial aircraft. I agree contact with an engine could be devastating but the radome experiment on the link above was kind of a farce. Drones in their current forms are no more or less of a threat than birds have been for years.
 
Seems like this person likely know the flight path of the planes and wanted to do this, it wasn't some complete coincidence, but still dam dangerous, idiot.
 
Now we have to worry about planes commin down in somebodys neighborhood because some inexperienced drone pilot missed his youtube fame opportunity and got sucked into an engine.

I see Laser topped fuselage's after too many incidences.
 
Zareek said:
While I don't condone this particular behaviour. I do think people are slightly over reacting in relation to the threat of drones to commercial aircraft. I agree contact with an engine could be devastating but the radome experiment on the link above was kind of a farce. Drones in their current forms are no more or less of a threat than birds have been for years.
Click to expand...

....gotta remember folks at times want to "one up" another.....for youtube fame.

I can do it better.

I can do it even better than that.

Huh, watch this........and soon drone pilots will know the flight path of incomming jets at every airport and fight among themselves for the primo photo-op.

Captain pilot: you wont believe this but I just saw 10 drones thinking I was Kim.K in a bathing suit.

....we gotta nip this in the bud B4 everyone thinks that texting while driving is alrite.
 
Looks more like an RC aircraft than a quad rotor type drone. Look at the way it pitches down and dives.
 
Zareek said:
While I don't condone this particular behaviour. I do think people are slightly over reacting in relation to the threat of drones to commercial aircraft. I agree contact with an engine could be devastating but the radome experiment on the link above was kind of a farce. Drones in their current forms are no more or less of a threat than birds have been for years.
Click to expand...

Except that birds generally dont TRY to fly into aircraft. People flying drones, like this idiot, will try to do stupid things like get in their way, get too close, or try to bring them down...

No3DaleFan said:
Looks more like an RC aircraft than a quad rotor type drone. Look at the way it pitches down and dives.
Click to expand...

Its hard to say since there was no altitude data but it looked to me like it was descending after the aircraft passed under it. If it descended enough that twirl at the end might have been in getting caught in the jet wash.
 
TAP said:
So has anyone started testing the survivability of jet engines from a drone strike?
Click to expand...
fucked is the word your looking for

and losing an engine on take off or landing is bad news
 
Elios said:
fucked is the word your looking for

and losing an engine on take off or landing is bad news
Click to expand...

No. You can lose ALL your engines on landing and land perfectly fine. In fact its required to be able to land within -0 +200 feet of a designated point without engine power to get a commercial pilots license.

For take off - its bad but its not the end of the world. Just land straight ahead if it was your last engine. If you're in a jet you can *probably* climb out as long as you planned ahead enough to be able to avoid terrain. Most likely the same for a small twin as well - just with tighter tolerances.

Oh and in case you want to question my creds: I am a commercial pilot with a certified flight instructor certificate so you could say I am a pedagogical expert in the subject...
 
Considering they seem to be in the glide path for McCarren, if the drone should hit an engine, it could be VERY bad. Not a good time to have a sudden loss of power, combined with the sudden yaw from the other engine. Morons like this are, indeed, why we can;t have nice things, at least without government registration. To deliberately fly in a known controlled airspace, AT altitudes used by commercial aircraft (notice in the beginning the drone rises - good thing he did) is the epitome of careless stupidity.
 
Megaslug said:
Considering they seem to be in the glide path for McCarren, if the drone should hit an engine, it could be VERY bad. Not a good time to have a sudden loss of power, combined with the sudden yaw from the other engine. Morons like this are, indeed, why we can;t have nice things, at least without government registration. To deliberately fly in a known controlled airspace, AT altitudes used by commercial aircraft (notice in the beginning the drone rises - good thing he did) is the epitome of careless stupidity.
Click to expand...

Uh what? Bad in that they would just glide in and land?
 
kju1 said:
Uh what? Bad in that they would just glide in and land?
Click to expand...

even with healthy engines occasionally they require another pass, sudden power loss in one would probably mess up the current path, not enough time to be adjusting at that point. even if they manage to stick the landing preserving 200-500 lives, the engines cost millions
 
Putz said:
even with healthy engines occasionally they require another pass, sudden power loss in one would probably mess up the current path, not enough time to be adjusting at that point. even if they manage to stick the landing preserving 200-500 lives, the engines cost millions
Click to expand...

So what? You seem to doubt the skills of the pilots who are fully certified and trained in this type of operation. A go around occasionally does not mean that when you lose an engine you will be screwed. Do you even know why pilots go around?

Engine costs? Whats your point? It has nothing to do with the safety of losing an engine on take off or landing. Nobody said the drone taking out the engine was a good thing - I just said its not a big a deal as you all make it out to be.

Think about it from a physics perspective. If you lose the engines do the wings stop providing lift? No. So what happens? You turn into a big glider. That means you adjust your airspeed via pitch attitude to establish best glide - which is a different airspeed than the approach speed. Then you vary pitch and flight configuration to make the intended point of landing. All easily doable without engines and moreso with at least one working engine!
 
You're all missing a vital point, one which I saw from the pointy end of a KC-135 for 20 years. Stuff hits the jet wherever it will hit, and not just the engines are critical.

Try the cockpit. Try the radome. Imagine those little motors nailing the windshield glass at over 220 kts. Might not penetrate, but it could be enough to damage the outer pane. Hell, getting whacked with the battery pack in a DJI or Typhoon would be enough to shatter the glass.
 
kju1 said:
Uh what? Bad in that they would just glide in and land?
Click to expand...
this is like saying if the landing gear fails "just land on the belly, so what? They're trained for this". Yeah we get it, pilots are trained for emergencies like engine failure, that doesnt mean we want to go around practicing that with 200+ people on board even 1% more of the time than necessary. Besides, there's a big difference between a simulated emergency and a big one. Acting like you'd just casually land with 1 surprise engine failure as if it's any other day when you arent expecting it is absurd. A pilot would be very nervous to lose an engine on final, and they dont need the added stress clouding their judgement while landing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elios
like this
Strikemaster said:
You're all missing a vital point, one which I saw from the pointy end of a KC-135 for 20 years. Stuff hits the jet wherever it will hit, and not just the engines are critical.

Try the cockpit. Try the radome. Imagine those little motors nailing the windshield glass at over 220 kts. Might not penetrate, but it could be enough to damage the outer pane. Hell, getting whacked with the battery pack in a DJI or Typhoon would be enough to shatter the glass.
Click to expand...

Id be worried if it penetrated. I can safely land with a cracked window (even it its impossible to see out of) as long as it doesnt break.

nysmo said:
this is like saying if the landing gear fails "just land on the belly, so what? They're trained for this". Yeah we get it, pilots are trained for emergencies like engine failure, that doesnt mean we want to go around practicing that with 200+ people on board even 1% more of the time than necessary. Besides, there's a big difference between a simulated emergency and a big one. Acting like you'd just casually land with 1 surprise engine failure as if it's any other day when you arent expecting it is absurd. A pilot would be very nervous to lose an engine on final, and they dont need the added stress clouding their judgement while landing.
Click to expand...

Are you a pilot? Do you know how pilots react? This is not the same thing as losing the gear. Ive lost engines, its not a big a deal to land without them as youre making it out to be.
 
kju1 said:
No. You can lose ALL your engines on landing and land perfectly fine. In fact its required to be able to land within -0 +200 feet of a designated point without engine power to get a commercial pilots license.

For take off - its bad but its not the end of the world. Just land straight ahead if it was your last engine. If you're in a jet you can *probably* climb out as long as you planned ahead enough to be able to avoid terrain. Most likely the same for a small twin as well - just with tighter tolerances.

Oh and in case you want to question my creds: I am a commercial pilot with a certified flight instructor certificate so you could say I am a pedagogical expert in the subject...
Click to expand...


Could you pull off landing in the Hudson following a double bird strike? :p
 
now they just need to take the next step and mount a laser pointer on one so they can then fly the drone close enough to point the laser at the pilots and then capture on video their reactions

that should get TONS of views on their facebook/youtube page !!


dont let me down youtubers!!!
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Could you pull off landing in the Hudson following a double bird strike? :p
Click to expand...

You wouldnt believe how many times I have been asked that. The short answer: probably assuming I made the decision to land in the Hudson.

Long answer:

Landing in the river was a judgement call by the Pilot in Command (PIC). The PIC has ultimate responsibility and decision making authority in that situation. I would like to say I would make the same decision given all the training I have had but there is always the lure of "but there is an airport". I am really good about not being focused on making it back to the airport but instead on making it safely to the ground so I would say the likelihood of me picking the river is "high".

I would also caveat that my decision would be based on my proficiency in that aircraft at the time. Which could be good or bad. I have stretched performance to the maximum in making safe landings in some cases because I've flown for over a hundred hours in a single plane and I know exactly what that specific plane can do. In an unfamiliar plane I might be more conservative and chose something "easier" unless I have no options - which from what I understand is exactly what the situation was with Sully.

Landing in the water is dangerous (for a non seaplane) and I would've been focused on getting the plane stabilized and slowed down enough to touch down with minimal damage. Landing w/out hurting anyone would be dependent on my proficiency (see above) in that aircraft.

While he did a great job he was by no means the first pilot to do something along those lines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_751 Nor will he be the last...

katanaD said:
now they just need to take the next step and mount a laser pointer on one so they can then fly the drone close enough to point the laser at the pilots and then capture on video their reactions

that should get TONS of views on their facebook/youtube page !!


dont let me down youtubers!!!
Click to expand...

Now that would be outright illegal and would get you arrested. Pointing a laser at an aircraft IS a major safety issue.
 
Zareek said:
While I don't condone this particular behaviour. I do think people are slightly over reacting in relation to the threat of drones to commercial aircraft. I agree contact with an engine could be devastating but the radome experiment on the link above was kind of a farce. Drones in their current forms are no more or less of a threat than birds have been for years.
Click to expand...
And people like you are the reason the FAA is going to shut down the hobby. Because you’re not taking it seriously enough.

kju1 said:
No. You can lose ALL your engines on landing and land perfectly fine. In fact its required to be able to land within -0 +200 feet of a designated point without engine power to get a commercial pilots license.

For take off - its bad but its not the end of the world. Just land straight ahead if it was your last engine. If you're in a jet you can *probably* climb out as long as you planned ahead enough to be able to avoid terrain. Most likely the same for a small twin as well - just with tighter tolerances.

Oh and in case you want to question my creds: I am a commercial pilot with a certified flight instructor certificate so you could say I am a pedagogical expert in the subject...
Click to expand...
I don’t believe you. Not at all.

As someone who was an F-15 mechanic and has verified that on here several times, I’m calling complete and total bullshit on your post.

The biggest reason I’m calling bullshit is because even though I wasn’t a pilot, I know how slow approach speed is, how close that speed is to stall speed, and how rapidly the aircraft loses speed without propulsion.
 
OEM said:
And people like you are the reason the FAA is going to shut down the hobby. Because you’re not taking it seriously enough.


I don’t believe you. Not at all.

As someone who was an F-15 mechanic and has verified that on here several times, I’m calling complete and total bullshit on your post.

The biggest reason I’m calling bullshit is because even though I wasn’t a pilot, I know how slow approach speed is, how close that speed is to stall speed, and how rapidly the aircraft loses speed without propulsion.
Click to expand...

Great good for you with a single airframe thats in no way the same category or class as a transport class aircraft. It is not the same for other aircraft.
 
kju1 said:
Great good for you with a single airframe thats in no way the same category or class as a transport class aircraft. It is not the same for other aircraft.
Click to expand...
Yup, you’re right about airframes, but I still know how low approach speed is in relation to stall speed. And, a bigger airplane will slow faster than a small one will, especially a heavy one.

Plus, the arrogance of you thinking you could land on the Hudson...something isn’t right here. I’ve never talked to a single pilot who thought they could land on water safely. There are plenty of videos that show what happens when an aircraft lands on water, and what happened on the Hudson that day was in the minority of results. It usually ends much, much worse.

Something isn’t passing the smell test here.
 
OEM said:
Yup, you’re right about airframes, but I still know how low approach speed is in relation to stall speed. And, a bigger airplane will slow faster than a small one will, especially a heavy one.

Plus, the arrogance of you thinking you could land on the Hudson...something isn’t right here. I’ve never talked to a single pilot who thought they could land on water safely. There are plenty of videos that show what happens when an aircraft lands on water, and what happened on the Hudson that day was in the minority of results. It usually ends much, much worse.

Something isn’t passing the smell test here.
Click to expand...

What you call arrogance I call confidence. I spend ~40 hours a week in the air. Did you not read this statement:

"Landing in the water is dangerous (for a non seaplane) and I would've been focused on getting the plane stabilized and slowed down enough to touch down with minimal damage. Landing w/out hurting anyone would be dependent on my proficiency (see above) in that aircraft."

Pretty honest opinion of how bad it could go if you ask me...

Also you know how low it is for the aircraft youve maintained. Thats not the same as all other planes. A 737 is a category C aircraft for approaches which means it fall sin the range of 115 - 160 kts. Remember VREF varies based on weight and configuration but its Vso x 1.3. Which means youre flying ~30% faster than stall speed.

As to the smell test....yeah I probably need a shower ;). Two eight hour jobs is not a great thing...(the other one is NOT flying...I am vary anal about the regs).
 
Last edited:
I just don’t see how a pilot is so nonchalant about drones on the final approach not being such a big deal, or think losing your engines and being “perfectly fine” for landing.
 
OEM said:
I just don’t see how a pilot is so nonchalant about drones on the final approach not being such a big deal, or think losing your engines and being “perfectly fine” for landing.
Click to expand...

i dont either... its big deal things happen fast your getting check lest trying to restart the engine and the that runway is getting BIG in the windows if you can even see it on top of that your decent rate is now 200 to 300 feet a min faster... and to act like you could pull this off PERFECTLY not unless your another Sully not going to happen this isnt like simulated ones where you ready for it

your going to spend at lest 1-2min trying to figure out what the hell happend then digging out the check list then running the list.... and EVEN IF you land that aircraft if you didnt follow SOP your done and never getting hired by another airline
 
Elios said:
Kju1 im calling BS on you flying tubes post your type ratting cert or gtfo
Click to expand...
pilot_noPII.jpg

Your turn.
9
 
Elios said:
Kju1 im calling BS on you flying tubes post your type ratting cert or gtfo
Click to expand...
View attachment 53075

Your turn.

OEM said:
I just don’t see how a pilot is so nonchalant about drones on the final approach not being such a big deal, or think losing your engines and being “perfectly fine” for landing.
Click to expand...

Never said I was nonchalant about drones on final. Just not as worried about losing an engine on landing as you all are. You non pilots seem to think its the end of the world and OMG everyones gonna die!!!! BS....
9
 
Considering it's a requirement that once a multi-engine civil transport aircraft hits V1, you can lose an engine and still take off, it won't be a disaster unless the pilot fails somehow.

Below V1, you must have brakes capable of stopping within a certain distance. Hopefully your runway is not short. :)

Will it be a good thing? No. Will it necessarily end in disaster? No. Will it likely end in disaster? No. *Might* it end in disaster? Yes, but it is very low probability unless there are other extenuating circumstances.

The FAA, JAA, and EASA - along with the engineers and manufacturers - got your back.

BB
 
  • Like
Reactions: kju1
like this
kju1 said:
View attachment 53075

Your turn.



Never said I was nonchalant about drones on final. Just not as worried about losing an engine on landing as you all are. You non pilots seem to think its the end of the world and OMG everyones gonna die!!!! BS....
9
Click to expand...

thats not hard to get and thats still just a CPL not an ATP also no PIC endorsement at best you sit right seat
 
Elios said:
thats not hard to get and thats still just a CPL not an ATP also no PIC endorsement at best you sit right seat
Click to expand...

Did I say I was an ATP? No. I dont need an ATP for the flying I do. I still have more experience in the air than you do. Post your cert or gtfo.
 
kju1 said:
Are you a pilot? Do you know how pilots react? This is not the same thing as losing the gear. Ive lost engines, its not a big a deal to land without them as youre making it out to be.
Click to expand...
I took about 30 hours towards my PPL, did my XC solo and so forth. Granted this was a single engine Cessna so the idea of losing an engine on final is indeed terrifying, especially for a newbie, but something tells me even a 10,000 hr 747 pilot isnt exactly thrilled at the prospect of losing an engine, ever. How many times has this happened to you for real? And how many times under a critical phase of flight?
 
yes, let's fly in restricted zones and endanger 150+ people's lives. i hope this drone pilot is caught by FCC
 
nysmo said:
I took about 30 hours towards my PPL, did my XC solo and so forth. Granted this was a single engine Cessna so the idea of losing an engine on final is indeed terrifying, especially for a newbie, but something tells me even a 10,000 hr 747 pilot isnt exactly thrilled at the prospect of losing an engine, ever. How many times has this happened to you for real? And how many times under a critical phase of flight?
Click to expand...

Thrilled? No. Terrified? Definitely not. As you gain experience, especially with a particular aircraft you become more confident. At some point in your experience things will just gel - youll get why your instructor told you to do certain things one way and not another. And maybe you will disagree with your instructor and be able to explain why your way works better (instructors are just humans after all, even we have preferences that may not work for you).

How many times have I lost an engine? Three that I can remember (almost four but I dont count the one as failure).

  • One time in IMC (very heavy rains) over the mountains. In retrospect that was scary but at the time it quit I just dealt with it. There wasn't any panicking involved, my training kicked in before I even really realized what was happening to me. In other words: I never realized how dangerous it was until after the fact.
  • One time on take off at 100 feet, I landed straight ahead without running off the runway.
  • One time en route - landed at a nearby airport with no incident.

The one time I dont count was when the engine spewed oil all over the windshield taking off when I was just about to turn crosswind (this was in a 172) and the engine basically stopped producing any useful power. It was still running but pretty rough and at idle.

Ive had far worse situations...for example

  • Landing gear failed to deploy and the emergency gear extension failed. Luckily after performing the entire procedure three times and jerking the yoke a bit they came down. That was actually scarier than losing an engine...because I had no idea if the gear were locked or not. I.E. they could've collapsed on me on landing or one couldve etc.
  • Flap asymmetrical deployment. Demonstrating a maneuver to a student and we deployed flaps. Only one side came down. Not fun.

Ive had plenty of other things break over the years. Even ended up inverted once in a really bad IFR flight in a little plane.

I am not the type of person to panic. I am also constantly evaluating my options all of the time anticipating failures. Thats why I carry two sets of charts (one electronic, one paper), two flashlights, two head sets, a portable radio, a PLB, and a small survival kit for every flight. I *always* have food and water in my bag and a jacket. Even if its just a flight in the pattern.

spacecowboy863 said:
yes, let's fly in restricted zones and endanger 150+ people's lives. i hope this drone pilot is caught by FCC
Click to expand...

I think you mean FAA. Also I think you meant controlled airspace. A restricted zone has a different set of rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top