Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

Boeing 737 Passenger Jet Damaged in Possible Midair Drone Strike

This was here in Mexico. Interestngly enough, this recent December 1st a new aviation law went in effect, which states uav operators require an actual pilot license to operate any uav over 2kg. Operating without a license could be punished with fines up to $400, 000mxn (about $20k usd).

As soon as this law was passed, media went nuts with headlines like "starting december flying your drone without a license will cost you a $400k fine" while using spark and phantom photos.(The typhoon H without RS has a takeoff weight of 1.95 kg)

Needless to say media loved the bunch of attention their misleading articles got. Few online news sites clarified this would only apply for uavs over 2kg but politicians were looking to push the takeoff weight to 250gr to require said license.

It would not surprise me if this "drone incident" was to be used to push on this new regulations
 
I am still if the opinion that they need to outlaw cell phone cameras, digital cameras, film cameras, video cameras, and security cameras, if I am not allowed to use the camera on my sUAS.

I don’t think there are that many sUAS Pilots that have the money to blow on a new aircraft when it gets obliterated by colliding with a larger manned aircraft.

I still think most of this stems from big business wanting to takeover the airspace below 500 feet AGL that most General Aviation has set as their minimum AGL except for takeoff and landing.

The privacy card being touted by politicians is a farce, as they don’t apply it to any other form of photography/videography especially in state and national parks or your own neighborhood for that matter.

Common sense is out the window and only hype and hysteria prevail.
 
My judgement so far says a passing vehicle on the ground did this.

No, it was some spastic dude flailing those red flashlights, dancing to tunes on his earbuds... red plastic, my azz... :cool:
 
Guess they couldn't stick around long enough to take more pictures to see if any "Drone" parts were found embedded in the radar system or 737 parts from another aircraft
 


From the Article:

Despite rumours that the aircraft could have been hit by a drone, there is no confirmation or evidence yet that a drone strike actually took place. Cases are known of nose cone structural failures without any collision, such as to a LAM B737 in Mozambique in 2017.

This incident was initially and erroneously blamed on a drone strike.
 
Ok I’m sure the truth will come out. If it’s even legit at all.... for one thing, it looks like some decommissioned aircraft.
An intoxicated disgruntled employee probably rammed the building with it. Suddenly s story gets fabricated about a drone striking the plane.
No way. Unless it was a Volkswagen drone
 
Whatever it was (and they have not released any further findings yet) did internal damage to the Wx array. Most likely if it was a sUAS there will be some fragments left inside and hopefully something with a serial #.

Wx_ArrayDamage_Dec2018.jpg
 
Why not make the nose cone stronger? Even better install cameras constantly monitoring the front and sides, let's see some real proof.
 
So we are being led to believe a small drone was able to crush the lightly constructed fiberglass radome of a passenger jet without pushing through it while being deflected to the side to tear through the much tougher aluminum skin of the aircraft? To me it looks more like the jet ran into something on the ground (like air stairs) as was trying to turn away from it at the last second or that something was pushed into the aircraft while it was parked..
 
The radome has to be radar transparent. They are designed to be easily replaced in the event of damage, which occurs rather frequently.
The radome has to be radar transparent. They are designed to be easily replaced in the event of damage, which occurs rather frequently.
Yes Ive watched them charged on TV, very quickly, according to a retired pilot I know, it's more to do with cost, "Better systems are available" stronger composite materials? he said, we were having a drink at the time though. It's all anti drone at the moment.
 
Last edited:
So at last the results are complete. The nose cone was not struck by a drone. In fact, it wasn't struck by anything. It simply collapsed because of a bad previous repair job. Of course this will not make headlines or even a mention on national news.

 
The nose is fiberglass because the aircraft radar sits behind it. If it were metal it would be like putting a metal pie tin in your microwave oven. Give it a try if you don’t know what would happen. I think you get quite an education.

Gotta pull a Trump on this one - fake news! Without any proof a drone gets blamed for the damage. The press needs polish for their belt buckle so they can see where they are headed (think about it and it will dawn on you).


Less damage would be done just covering a drone GPS antenna with aluminum foil. One member has already done that and wondered why he couldn't get any satellites... Put a metal pie tin in a microwave and you'll need a new microwave. Did something like that when I was 19 years old and microwaves had just been introduced....
 
Yep or another tail got it and someone took a photo.
Scene 1.
"Is that the News Desk? I have a photo that will add to the Fairy stories you like to put out there"
"Where are you from Sir????"
"Sorry, no names-no packdrill"

:cool:
 
The drone claim was debunked a couple days ago. Our FAA inspected and analyzed the radome and determined the damage was induced by a poorly performed repair to the previously damaged radome.
 

New Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
20,955
Messages
241,599
Members
27,285
Latest member
hendrtiz