Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dallas midair tragedy: New videos show startling change in flight path of p-63

planeandpilotmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 118 posts

Re: Dallas midair tragedy: New videos show startling change in flight path of p-63

#51

Post by ClumsyPilot »

Alupis wrote: post #46
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A swan can weigh 8 kilos, a goose can weigh 6, and DJi phantom weighs 1.2 kilos. Multiple planes crashed with fatalities vecause of birds, as far as I am aware none have done so because of a drone. The fear of drones had led to pilots reporting drone sightings at 10,000 feet in the middle of the Ocean, thousands of miles from shore. "Several commenters noted that the AMA analyzed those reported ‘incidents’ and found…

What's the point you're trying to make? Just because we don't yet have a confirmed kill from a DJI Phantom means it's impossible? We do have confirmed strikes from drones, and the damage has been devastating. We do have confirmed strikes with fatalities from birds. There is not much difference between a bird and a drone when an aircraft strikes it at speed... These drones are often operated by folks with zero trainin…

> What's the point you're trying to make? Just because we don't yet have a confirmed kill from a DJI Phantom means it's impossible?

Anything is possible, there is a guy that was killed by his beard, shot by a dog and every year several people die from being tangled on bedsheets. Lets keep things in proportion.

I, for one, am unclear why we immediately jumped to regulating drones, but when Tespa autopilot kills people, nobody seems to care?

The real point is that people in this thread are too quick to blame drones, when geese outnumbet them 1000 to one. I live near an airport and a huge flock of geese is constantly here. When I see people with real drones, they tend to know whay they are doing.

The only people I see fooling around are people who buy a tiny drone for $50 on Amazon and the worst those drones can do is get aruck in your hair while filming nudes.

Re: Dallas midair tragedy: New videos show startling change in flight path of p-63

#52

Post by Alupis »

someweirdperson wrote: post #34
Alupis wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most (practically all) aircraft do not have bullet-proof windshields (including military), for starters, and secondly a several pound meat ball travelling at closing speeds anywhere between 60kts (GA) to 200+ kts (jets/airliners/mil) is going to do a number on the aircraft regardless if it incapacitated the pilot. Doubly-so if it's a several pound metal ball... You don't want to hit anything in an aircraft, ever.

> Most (practically all) aircraft do not have bullet-proof windshields (including military) The P-63 did (example picture [0]), like many others that were designed to attack bombers and/or ground targets. [0] https://www.flickr.com/photos/23057174@N02/3031666813

The person in the picture is speculating it's a bullet proof windshield, and he's mistaken (particularly from the P-39 aircraft mentioned in the link). If you look at both a P-63 and P-39 you will not find any windshield or window that is even remotely shaped like what is held in the image.

Regardless, modernly speaking, very few (if any) aircraft have bullet proof windshields. They are impractical for a number of reasons, including weight, size, thickness (distortion of picture), and efficacy. If a pilot is within small-arms distance they generally are already in trouble...

Re: Dallas midair tragedy: New videos show startling change in flight path of p-63

#54

Post by Alupis »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #51
Alupis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point you're trying to make? Just because we don't yet have a confirmed kill from a DJI Phantom means it's impossible? We do have confirmed strikes from drones, and the damage has been devastating. We do have confirmed strikes with fatalities from birds. There is not much difference between a bird and a drone when an aircraft strikes it at speed... These drones are often operated by folks with zero trainin…

> What's the point you're trying to make? Just because we don't yet have a confirmed kill from a DJI Phantom means it's impossible? Anything is possible, there is a guy that was killed by his beard, shot by a dog and every year several people die from being tangled on bedsheets. Lets keep things in proportion. I, for one, am unclear why we immediately jumped to regulating drones, but when Tespa autopilot kills people…

Well, I don't disagree on any of these points.

But these points don't mean it's any less fatal to hit a drone in a small plane than a goose.

Hitting things in aircraft isn't a recipe for a good time... ever.

Re: Dallas midair tragedy: New videos show startling change in flight path of p-63

#55

Post by mlyle »

Alupis wrote: post #46
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A swan can weigh 8 kilos, a goose can weigh 6, and DJi phantom weighs 1.2 kilos. Multiple planes crashed with fatalities vecause of birds, as far as I am aware none have done so because of a drone. The fear of drones had led to pilots reporting drone sightings at 10,000 feet in the middle of the Ocean, thousands of miles from shore. "Several commenters noted that the AMA analyzed those reported ‘incidents’ and found…

What's the point you're trying to make? Just because we don't yet have a confirmed kill from a DJI Phantom means it's impossible? We do have confirmed strikes from drones, and the damage has been devastating. We do have confirmed strikes with fatalities from birds. There is not much difference between a bird and a drone when an aircraft strikes it at speed... These drones are often operated by folks with zero trainin…

> We do have confirmed strikes with fatalities from birds.

Yup.

> There is not much difference between a bird and a drone when an aircraft strikes it at speed...

Open to debate.

Even if true: There's a whole lot more birds near airports than illegally operating drones. So even if there's some tiny, absolute risk, the relative risk appears low.

Re: Dallas midair tragedy: New videos show startling change in flight path of p-63

#56

Post by MerelyMortal »

leetrout wrote: post #6

The Blancolirio channel covered the preliminary report and it says the air boss ordered them to change flight paths. Nothing was mentioned about a drone. https://youtu.be/IRVqg-pCb6o

Here's a short article that does a much better job at relaying the information while being more considerate of the viewer's time:

https://simpleflying.com/preliminary-ntsb-report-dallas-cras...

(Seriously, the first 54 seconds of the video linked in the parent comment was just talking about local weather and a video of some trees.)

Re: Dallas midair tragedy: New videos show startling change in flight path of p-63

#57

Post by salamandars »

Alupis wrote: post #48
salamandars wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you source this? I can't find any information on fatalities due to aircraft-drone collisions, topic of this article notwithstanding.

You don't need a source. An object striking an aircraft in flight is devastating, and can be very fatal. Just because the object was made in China vs. hatched out of an egg doesn't really matter... the results will be the same.

Well, according to wikipedia, only between 11-15% of bird strikes result in damage to the aircraft. Apparently large birds like geese are the main danger.

I imagine a similar distribution with drone strikes, as most drones do not weigh as much as a goose, at least of those in the hands of a typical idiot (who would fly in the path of a plane).

That's why 'very high fatality chance' doesn't seem right to me, but I can't find any statistics on it.

Re: Dallas midair tragedy: New videos show startling change in flight path of p-63

#58

Post by clamprecht »

akiselev wrote: post #44
thrill wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're talking civilian, then about all I could recommend is to take your time and let the experience build instead of trying to do too much at once. Most civilian pilots I know that have learned to fly fast jets tend to have to cram all their training into limited free time, and that makes it harder to keep a consistent training attitude. the military of course has a very formal and long tested training process,…

Yep, civilian. How many hours of training did you receive before flying without a more senior pilot with you? The L39 type rating requirement is a thousand hours but it won't be in the jet itself. I plan to do aerobatic training and everything but last I checked the Jet Warbird Training Center program was under 20 hours over a few days which terrifies me. Is that really enough training?

Once you have 1000 hours of real experience (hopefully in different types, not all in the same Cessna 172), 20 hours should be plenty for an L-39 type. Guys with previous military experience may only need 10 hours. I had no military experience, I did my L-39 type rating in 2020 and it took about 20 hours. Before that, about 500 hours of my experience came from a Columbia 400, which is a fairly fast, slippery piston single. I also did about 4 aerobatic lessons in a Mudry CAP-10B. Here's my first day of L-39 training, if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DN_vMq-l9w

Matt Guthmiller also has some recent videos on getting an L-39 up and running, and his first flights in it.

Re: Dallas midair tragedy: New videos show startling change in flight path of p-63

#59

Post by sio8ohPi »

Alupis wrote: post #50
sio8ohPi wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bulletproof windshields were very common during this period, although 43-11719 doesn't appear to have been fitted with one, likely because the F variant never advanced beyond the prototype stage. https://warbirdsnews.com/warbird-restorations/caf-bell-p-63f...

I may have missed it, but I don't see anywhere in that linked article that mentions bullet proof windscreens... and Wikipedia for the aircraft also makes no mention. Plus, we're not just talking about this particular aircraft in this incident, but generally all aircraft. But, I would not be surprised it was tried, particularly with WWII era machines. There's very little actual benefit to having one on any aircraft, e…

Look at the 12th photo in the gallery, which shows the cockpit from the right-hand door. No armored windscreen.

There's no particular reason for wikipedia to mention it because it was a very common feature in this era. It would be like mentioning that it had self-sealing fuel tanks. It was also a feature that could be present or not between different models, and could even be retrofitted to a plane once it was in service.

Regarding the wreck-finder below: he likely does know exactly what it was because he likely started by looking up the crash report (and based on his claimed date, it's probably s/n, 44-2031)

This is exactly what a typical armored windscreen looked like in this era (e.g. https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/armored-windscreen-for...)

Re: Dallas midair tragedy: New videos show startling change in flight path of p-63

#60

Post by Alupis »

mlyle wrote: post #55
Alupis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point you're trying to make? Just because we don't yet have a confirmed kill from a DJI Phantom means it's impossible? We do have confirmed strikes from drones, and the damage has been devastating. We do have confirmed strikes with fatalities from birds. There is not much difference between a bird and a drone when an aircraft strikes it at speed... These drones are often operated by folks with zero trainin…

> We do have confirmed strikes with fatalities from birds. Yup. > There is not much difference between a bird and a drone when an aircraft strikes it at speed... Open to debate. Even if true: There's a whole lot more birds near airports than illegally operating drones. So even if there's some tiny, absolute risk, the relative risk appears low.

There is no debate.

The claim was, hitting a drone has a high chance of being fatal - the same high chance hitting a bird has... particularly in vulnerable stages of flight. Nothing you, or anyone else has offered counters this claim, because it's just reality. Hitting things in aircraft is never a good thing, and is always a significant cause for concern.

We've been lucky so far more idiots haven't flown drones closer to airshows or airports. There are plenty, and there have been collisions with devastating damage but luckily no fatalities (perhaps yet). There are plenty of pictures on the internet if you want to compare damages to bird strikes.

Post reply on HN