Polish Air Force F-16 jet collided with drone
- Thread starter wali
- Start date
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,351
- Reaction score
- 9,293
Next to no details given.
The official version of the incident, given by major Dariusz Rojewski of the Krzesiny AB, is that the jet collided with an unknown aerial vehicle; damage assessment highlighted that the overlay of the Viper‘s fuselage and fuel tank (probably the CFT) were damaged. The Air Force refused to provide any further information.
So they've got some damaged paintwork but nothing in the story to say what they hit or where it was when hit.
I'd like to have a lot more to go on than that.
The official version of the incident, given by major Dariusz Rojewski of the Krzesiny AB, is that the jet collided with an unknown aerial vehicle; damage assessment highlighted that the overlay of the Viper‘s fuselage and fuel tank (probably the CFT) were damaged. The Air Force refused to provide any further information.
So they've got some damaged paintwork but nothing in the story to say what they hit or where it was when hit.
I'd like to have a lot more to go on than that.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2015
- Messages
- 328
- Reaction score
- 130
- Age
- 67
..thinking about it, the same thing happens' with bird strikes. But, no, not a sensational as a 'drone'!
N017RW
Premium Pilot
It's kind of disaapointing that so many [here] have lost their objectivity.
It's easy to determine if it was tissue or other material that collided with the a/c.
Aviation mechanics have the experience to determine, or at least rule-out, what the type of material it was that came into contact with the a/c.
Because you're drone enthusiasts you ridicule reports and dismiss the possibility and the dangers???
As the number of UAS in the hands of [ignorant] people and in the sky increase, so do the chances of collisions.
Bird strikes MAY be unavoidable, civilian UAS (drone) strikes definately are.
It's easy to determine if it was tissue or other material that collided with the a/c.
Aviation mechanics have the experience to determine, or at least rule-out, what the type of material it was that came into contact with the a/c.
Because you're drone enthusiasts you ridicule reports and dismiss the possibility and the dangers???
As the number of UAS in the hands of [ignorant] people and in the sky increase, so do the chances of collisions.
Bird strikes MAY be unavoidable, civilian UAS (drone) strikes definately are.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2015
- Messages
- 328
- Reaction score
- 130
- Age
- 67
You're right. We should accept any and all media reporting about drone operator misbehavior as fact and never question anything.
This is the third case this year that I've seen of a suspected UAV collision with an airplane and about the same level of (sarcasm here) "catastrophic" damage, despite the fact that a jet fighter is always flying quite fast. It lands faster than most GA aircraft cruise. I have to say that this report is a little odd in that it was discovered by ground crews inspecting the aircraft: "The mid-air impact, whose evidence was discovered by ground crews during the post-flight checks..." The pilot didn't report anything?
In most risk assessment methods, probability and severity are factored in along with mitigating measures. The actual severity of drone collisions seems to be getting less and less with each report/data point (if they are indeed UAV collisions).
In most risk assessment methods, probability and severity are factored in along with mitigating measures. The actual severity of drone collisions seems to be getting less and less with each report/data point (if they are indeed UAV collisions).
N017RW
Premium Pilot
You telling me I'm right is worrisome.
I said the loss of objectivity is disappointing.
To avoid the risk of misinterpretation again, here's what I was referring to:
Objective: existing independent of mind; belonging to the sensible world and being observable or verifiable especially by scientific methods; expressing or involving the use of facts; derived from sense perception.
You previously said: "They offer no evidence that it was even a drone..."
You're right.
Being objective one would surmise they (maintenance personnel) are very familiar with damage created by organic materials such as birds since we know they collide with aircraft quite regularly (Mr. Steve Mann can provide you the historical statistics about that) and that what they discovered was inconsistent with damage caused by tissue or organic materials.
This does not determine it was a drone per se but what else would be in the air of a non-organic nature?
Meteor, falling space junk, kite, balloon, model aircraft, etc..... again, be Objective.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2015
- Messages
- 328
- Reaction score
- 130
- Age
- 67
Thank you for your edict.
So, based on what you are saying, we should just accept vague statements such as these:
"According to the reports published by several Polish media outlets, on Sept. 15 a Polish Air Force F-16 fighter stationed at Krzesiny Airbase, near Poznan, collided with a small drone."
as fact...
Please note that no sources are cited other than "According to the reports published by several Polish media outlets". For all I know, a Polish media outlet is a guy living in his mother's basement blogging about the evils of drones.
There is nothing in that article that inspires confidence in the reporting. The story could be spot on. It could be a pack of lies. I have no way of knowing and these journalists do not even cite a credible source.
So, you have my perspective. I will be interested to understand what part of my posting is subjective in your opinion.
Last edited:
N017RW
Premium Pilot
"For all I know, a Polish media outlet is a guy living in his mother's basement blogging about the evils of drones."
How does thus exemplify objectivity?
Your position would seem to be there a bias on this 'guy's' part.
To use your words in-part: "There is nothing in that article that" suggests this.
But hey I'm more of a skeptical and tech-y kind a guy so this is no fun for me and I'm not good at it.
It was a fun exchange.
Please don't interpret this as 'taking my ball and going home', it's just run it's course for me.
Cheers!
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2015
- Messages
- 328
- Reaction score
- 130
- Age
- 67
It's a supposition. Kind of like what you are doing with the ground crew's abilities.
I enjoy a good debate. I enjoy have my perspective altered. Sorry you are going
debating aside, we should take the opportunity to read and get as much information about these collisions and educate non-drone owners (and owners) about responsibility and state that many of these stories have important information missing.
Bird strikes have taken down aircraft. They usually don't, because most aircraft have multiple engines. See Captain Sully for what happens when both engines ingest a bird. A single bird into a single jet engine aircraft could take it down. Smashing into the wing, windshield, etc? Not so much.
Insert drone into that sentence, and you can expect similar results.
Insert drone into that sentence, and you can expect similar results.
It's a supposition. Kind of like what you are doing with the ground crew's abilities.
I enjoy a good debate. I enjoy have my perspective altered. Sorry you are going
I do too. But some can't handle when others have opposing valid points of their own.
Don't be sorry. If he doesn't agree with you or you disagree with his perspectives, he tends to put you on his ignore list. We all can be wrong....which is why my ignore list is and will remain empty. Keeping an open mind is important to the learning process.
Thanks for your opposing viewpoints B. Scene Films.
If YOU see that as your only option, please follow it.
For the rest of us, I say keep an open mind. As has been said above, with the increase in drones and a huge expected in increase this holiday season, logic tells us it is only a matter of time.
Regardless of what was hit, none of us should be flying stupid, nor should we immediately dismiss every report making the news, anymore than we should take each report as fact.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2015
- Messages
- 328
- Reaction score
- 130
- Age
- 67
I am guessing my tone did not convey my intent for you. This should do it tho:
sar·casm
ˈsärˌkazəm/
noun
- the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
Similar threads
