Incident: KLM E190, F70 and Easyjet A319 at Amsterdam, flock of drone

Gaoth Laidir · 01-04-2016 09:51PM #1

From Avherald. It was bound to happen.

Incident: KLM E190, F70 and Easyjet A319 at Amsterdam on Apr 1st 2016, flock of drones

By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Apr 1st 2016 14:16Z, last updated Friday, Apr 1st 2016 14:27Z

A KLM Embraer ERJ-190, registration PH-EZE performing flight KL-1904 from Hanover (Germany) to Amsterdam (Netherlands), was on final approach to runway 18C when the crew reported a drone to their right at about 1000 feet just passing about 100 feet underneath their aircraft. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 18C.

A KLM Cityhopper Fokker 70, registration PH-KZM performing flight KL-1986 from Basel/Mulhouse (Switzerland/France) to Amsterdam (Netherlands), was on final approach to runway 18C when after tower advised of the previous aircraft reporting a drone at about 1000 feet the crew reported drone in sight, the drone was now on their left hand side at about 900 feet. The Fokker 70 continued for a safe landing on runway 18C.

Tower runway 18R checked the area with his binoculars but couldn't spot any drone.

An Easyjet Airbus A319-100, registration G-EZEV performing flight U2-7926 from Nice (France) to Amsterdam (Netherlands), next on approach to runway 18C, was advised of the previous two arrivals sighting a drone to which the crew reported they were seeing three drones about 2.5nm out causing a perplexed reaction by the controller "You are seeing THREE drones?" The aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 18C.

The next arrival for runway 18C, being advised of the three previous flights sighting drones, reported they could not see any drones joking this might be because of their bad eyes.

No further drone reports were submitted by pilots.

As we currently have April 1st 2016, the Aviation Herald certifies that this is not an April fool's story.

Irish Steve · 03-04-2016 01:25AM

I'd be very much in favour of a test being carried out using a time expired engine to see what the real effect of a drone going through the engine would be, my personal opinion is that there is a very real risk that a drone going through an engine would result in the failure being uncontained, due to the extra mass and density of a drone compared to a bird.

Unfortunately, these things represent a very real risk to aircraft, and the technology in use on them means that they can be positioned to a specific location and altitude with very great and repeatable accuracy, as they are using GPS systems that are well able to operate to very high levels of precision, and unlike model aircraft, they can be hovered in a fixed location and at a fixed height very easily.

Regulation is a nice theory, but the reality is that there are so many ways to acquire the necessary parts to construct a drone, even if they are completely banned, it will still be very easy to build something that can replicate the capability and performance of a drone.

Then there is the very real problem of locating the operator, the person operating a drone in this sort of situation could be anywhere within a 5 to 10 mile radius, and while the strongest radio signal will be obtained outdoors, there is nothing to prevent an operator from being indoors, and using an aerial array that will mean there is no visible presence out doors for a surveillance operation to locate, and it would be very easy for two people to co operate in the launch of such a device, so the operator could be very much remote from the launch site.

Unfortunately, it's only a matter of time before an aircraft will have an airborne collision with a drone, what the outcome of that collision will be is going to depend entirely on where the aircraft is impacted, and the damage that results from that collision.

The worst case scenario is unfortunately the very real risk that the aircraft will be brought down. .

I don't fly drones, while they have some appeal, the cost is at the moment prohibitive for the type of machine that I would want. I do however fly radio control model aircraft and helicopters, and the largest of the helicopters has a MTOW of over 7 Kg, and a rotor diameter of over 1.5 metres. if one of them were to go through the core of a jet engine, I would not want to be in the vicinity of the engine when it happened, as the damage would be considerable.

ED E · 03-04-2016 03:05AM

There will always be irresponsible operators, same way we can't exterminate birds drones are going to be a constant. The pragmatic response will be countermeasures.

- Birds of prey to hunt them (somebodys done this)
- Anti drone drones (firing nets, in testing phase)
- Wideband interference on unreg frequencies: consumer grade drones use open use spectrum that airports could gain permission to disable when safety is threatened. Killing FPV would impact Wifi in homes near the airport (2.4Ghz, 5ghz)
- High energy lasers: Currently a mill spec technology but has been used in missle defence systems for a long time, practically adoptable by an aerospace company

Not perfect, but mitigation is possible. Treat it very seriously like the laser pointer issue.