Unauthorized drone - what else do you figure? Somebody where they shouldn’t be…
Hi Russ, wasn’t talking about your headline, it was the article by Amelia Walsh… “CL-415 Hits Drone” that caught my eye…
If I am standing in the middle of railroad tracks when the train comes by, the train hits me. I don’t hit the train.
But yes, the train had the right of way. I was stupid and wrong for being there.
1 Like
A hell of a lot easier for you to move than stop a train. But hey, if you want to stand at the end of my driveway and not get out of the way, I will be happy to run you over. And the drone was not likely or did not have to be stationary, and someone was operating it and hit the plane. Wasn’t a freakin weather balloon…
First off, model airplanes and toys are not “drones”; we need precise language.
As far as more rules, we’re talking CA here; they cannot even control the unchecked growth of terrestrial law infractions.
There should be a mandatory prison sentence for anyone caught operating a drone in the vicinity of an emergency on the ground, or, in or near the flight paths at an airport. This reckless conduct indicates that the drone operator is willing to kill people in order to have some “fun.”
Drone is heading due north at 30 knots.
Air tanker is south of the drone and heading due north at 130 knots.
Air tanker comes up on the drone and the two make contact.
Did the air tanker hit the drone or did the drone hit the air tanker?
Stall speed of CL-415 68 kn…hmmm - if they had been able to see the drone, they could have tried to match its speed, and would have quickly lost altitude, so that might have worked. But the drone’s impact was 3/4 of the way down the leading edge of the wing, a “very visible” area of the plane from the cockpit, especially when the have their trailering mirrors on .NOT. The point is, who’s at fault? The drone. The emphasis should have been the the drone hit the 415, not the other way around. The headline makes it sound, esp to lay people, that the pilots could have done something about it but instead they willfully beat up on that poor little unauthorised drone. They don’t call a Bird Strike a “Plane Engine Gobbled the Geese Event”. The damn birds hit the plane… like the drone did.
OK. Got it.
Japanese Coast Guard airplane taxi’d onto an active runway without clearance. The Coast Guard airplane hit a JAL airliner attempting to land.
Jeju Air landed long with gear up and flaps up. Causing a berm to hit the Jeju Air airliner.
FAA defines a bird strike as a collision between between a bird and an aircraft while it is flying, taking off or landing. “It” presumably being the aircraft. Blame to one or the other is not assigned. No mention of one or the other hitting the other.
The bird has every legal right to be where it is. No laws (that I know of anyway) that prevent the bird from being where the bird is. Doing what birds do. The bird could very well fly into and “hit” the airplane or the airplane could fly into and “hit” the bird. No ones fault. An act of God they say.
You are right on the first one - the person responsible for the accident hit the party who could do nothing about it. Speed, size, etc. has nothing to do with it. Do you have car insurance? Check out what happens when something hits you as opposed to you hitting it, and what Fault is. And a berm is inanimate, and was not in the wrong for being there, and with gear and flaps up one would expect long, but the only thing that was moving was the 737-800, unfortunately (terrible crash, seriously) so it hit. There are situations where the fault is mechanical, which is not a living thing, but is has an operation or a movement, not like a berm. You and I are sitting is a big bucket of Semantics and Pedantic - not really worth the time it takes to type, but I type fast so no bother to me. We’ve only got another couple of days before this closes, if admins don’t consider this too ridiculous to begin with and shut the conversation down. What is important here is the perceived reputation of the person/company operating the thing that was hit. “Plane hitting a drone” implies pilot error, “Drone hitting a plane” points more clearly to the guilty party. Perception, public opinion and the clarity to the lay person are what are important here, and with truth, accuracy and objectivity they all from the basis of good news reporting. I already knew about the incident, but when I saw it put that way I thought “What??” … be clear folks, and use the nuances of any language you are communicating in appropriately.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.