Drone hits commercial airliner in Canada, no injuries

[webfact]

Drone hits commercial airliner in Canada, no injuries

Reuters Staff

 

(Reuters) - A drone hit an airplane landing at a Quebec City airport this week, the first time an unmanned flying object has collided with commercial aircraft in Canada, Transport Minister Marc Garneau said on Sunday.

 

No injuries were reported in the incident, which happened on Thursday at Jean Lesage International Airport and involved a plane belonging to Quebec-based Skyjet Aviation.

 

“I am extremely relieved that the aircraft only sustained minor damage and was able to land safely,” Garneau said in a statement.

 

There were six passengers and two crew members on board the airplane at the time of the collision, according to local news media reports.

 

Drones are not allowed within 5.5 km (3.4 miles) of Canadian airports, helipads and seaplane bases. Operators who put aircraft at risk face steep fines and jail time under Canadian law.

 

Drone usage has soared in North America, Europe and China, raising privacy concerns and fears of collisions with commercial jets, and prompting the United Nations’ aviation agency to back the creation of a single global drone registry.

 

There have been 1,596 drone incidents reported to Transport Canada so far this year, with 131 of them deemed to be aviation safety concerns.

 

In November 2016, a Canadian airliner with 54 passengers on board had to swerve to avoid an unmanned flying object near Toronto, slightly injuring two cabin crew.

 

Reporting by Julie Gordon in Vancouver; Editing by Jonathan Oatis

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-10-16

[Jonmarleesco]

12 hours ago, webfact said:

In November 2016, a Canadian airliner with 54 passengers on board had to swerve to avoid an unmanned flying object near Toronto, slightly injuring two cabin crew.

 

And still authorities are faffing around with exerting control over them. They're a blatant hazard, being 'piloted', no doubt, by people with a degree in idiocy. Certainly not in any kind of aviation skill.

[attrayant]

Also seen flying around airports:
 

 

I wonder when these are going to be banned.

 

You'd think a 550 ton aircraft wouldn't be fazed by a 1.2 Kg drone bumping into it.

Edited October 16, 2017 by attrayant

[timendres]

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

Also seen flying around airports:
 

 

I wonder when these are going to be banned.

 

You'd think a 550 ton aircraft wouldn't be fazed by a 1.2 Kg drone bumping into it.

Unless it gets sucked into an engine...

[Enoon]

4 hours ago, attrayant said:

Also seen flying around airports:
 

 

I wonder when these are going to be banned.

 

You'd think a 550 ton aircraft wouldn't be fazed by a 1.2 Kg drone bumping into it.

 

Hitting a 1.2 kg object while travelling at 462kmh/287mph (max climb speed of Airbus A320) is not "bumping into it".

 

(Less than 1mm aluminium alloy skin thickness on many airliners in service)

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2017 by Enoon

[attrayant]

21 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

Hitting a 1.2 kg object while travelling at 462kmh/287mph (max climb speed of Airbus A320) is not "bumping into it".

 

(Less than 1mm aluminium alloy skin thickness on many airliners in service)

 

From the aircraft's perspective, it is almost nothing.  From the drone's perspective, it's total annihilation.  Using your numbers, a drone delivers less than 9N of force to the aircraft, while the aircraft gives the drone a 4 million Newton smacker.  Also, drones being made mostly from plastic are quite elastic, whereas aircraft are comparatively rigid.  The drone loses every time with the aircraft taking zero damage (okay maybe a scratch on the paint).  For those unfamiliar with Newtons as a measurement of force, hold a standard 1 Kg bag of sugar in your hand.  It exerts a downward force of 10 Newtons.

 

Aircraft-grade aluminum (alloy 61S) is not the soft sheet metal we're familiar with, that can be cut with tin snips.   Many birds are heavier than most common personal drones.  Aircraft need to be able to withstand such impacts (although I see news reports of very large birds like Canadian geese infrequently causing significant damage, sometimes forcing emergency landings).

 

 

23 hours ago, timendres said:

Unless it gets sucked into an engine...

 

Fun fact: almost for as long as jet engines have been made, they have been using a chicken gun to test them (as well as other vulnerable parts of the airplane):

 

"Whole, dead, standard-size chickens, as would be used for cooking, are thought to accurately simulate a large, live bird striking a plane in flight."

 

 

Now having said all that, I agree that drones should stay well away from airports.  Just because an aircraft can take a hit, doesn't mean we should keep trying to hit it.

[Stargeezr]

It is time to get serious about drones!  A lot of them need to be registered.

 It is also time to jail the people who are caught flying drones where they are

not supposed to. These people need to lose their right to own a drone or RC

after they have been caught as well . Enough is enough, ewspecially in Quebec.

Geezer

[attrayant]

Related: Trump Signs Memo to Accelerate Drone Use

 

 

Quote

 

The UAS Integration Pilot Program will give state and local governments the go-ahead to allow drone flights at night and over people.

 

"This program will open the skies for activities such as delivery of life-saving medicines and commercial packages, inspections of critical infrastructure, support for emergency management operations, and crop surveys for precision agriculture applications. American aviation is on the verge of an unmanned revolution," the White House said, adding that drones could add "tens of billions of dollars" to the economy, create "tens of thousands" of new jobs, and improve quality of life.

 

 

 

[overherebc]

On 17/10/2017 at 11:05 PM, attrayant said:

 

From the aircraft's perspective, it is almost nothing.  From the drone's perspective, it's total annihilation.  Using your numbers, a drone delivers less than 9N of force to the aircraft, while the aircraft gives the drone a 4 million Newton smacker.  Also, drones being made mostly from plastic are quite elastic, whereas aircraft are comparatively rigid.  The drone loses every time with the aircraft taking zero damage (okay maybe a scratch on the paint).  For those unfamiliar with Newtons as a measurement of force, hold a standard 1 Kg bag of sugar in your hand.  It exerts a downward force of 10 Newtons.

 

Aircraft-grade aluminum (alloy 61S) is not the soft sheet metal we're familiar with, that can be cut with tin snips.   Many birds are heavier than most common personal drones.  Aircraft need to be able to withstand such impacts (although I see news reports of very large birds like Canadian geese infrequently causing significant damage, sometimes forcing emergency landings).

 

 

 

Fun fact: almost for as long as jet engines have been made, they have been using a chicken gun to test them (as well as other vulnerable parts of the airplane):

 

"Whole, dead, standard-size chickens, as would be used for cooking, are thought to accurately simulate a large, live bird striking a plane in flight."

 

 

Now having said all that, I agree that drones should stay well away from airports.  Just because an aircraft can take a hit, doesn't mean we should keep trying to hit it.

There is also the story from one country that tried it for the first time on the front screen of a test plane and were horified to see the chicken smash through the windscreen, damage the pilots seat and badly damage the rear flight deck bulk head.

On analysis of all the data it was found, after calling the gun/launcher company, that defrosting the chicken was required. ?

[impulse]

30 minutes ago, attrayant said:

adding that drones could add "tens of billions of dollars" to the economy, create "tens of thousands" of new jobs, and improve quality of life.

 

If there were a net creation of jobs, why in the world would they do it?  That defies business logic. 

 

They'll create some jobs while putting hundreds of thousands of delivery folk out on their keesters.  Not to mention all the sales clerks at the brick and mortar stores who will be displaced by online sales (automated warehouses) just like they have been for decades- only faster.   And drive down the wages of others whose jobs can be threatened with redundancy if they don't agree to work for peanuts.

 

It's just another way to take money from the masses and pile it into the pockets of the 1%.  All dolled up as consumerism- cheap crap at lower prices.

 

[MaxYakov]

How long before a done carrying a high-explosive payload hits an aircraft?

[attrayant]

4 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

How long before a done carrying a high-explosive payload hits an aircraft?

 

My gosh you're right!  We'd better draft a law that says No Bombing of Aircraft with High Explosives.  I am sure terrorists are very honest and will dutifully follow such laws without question.

[MaxYakov]

On 10/27/2017 at 12:24 PM, MaxYakov said:

How long before a done carrying a high-explosive payload hits an aircraft?

 

21 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

My gosh you're right!  We'd better draft a law that says No Bombing of Aircraft with High Explosives.  I am sure terrorists are very honest and will dutifully follow such laws without question.

So can we depend you to run along and take care of that for us?