***********************************************
Air France flight 4590 on Tuesday, July 25, 2000, departed from Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport near Paris, France, for John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, United States. On that day, the French Concorde had an accident when taking off, crashing in Gonesse, France. It was the only accident of a Concorde, ending almost thirty years of impeccable track record of the famous supersonic aircraft.
The Concorde passed over the metal part at a speed greater than V1 and broke the tyre on wheel 2 which exploded. A part of the tyre (about 4.5 kg) hit the lower part of the left wing of the plane at more than 300 km/h. This impact sent a pressure wave that would eventually break from inside the number 5 fuel tank at its weakest point, just above the landing gear. The fuel contained in that tank began to spill on the wing, going up in flames in the following seconds.
One hundred passengers of the plane and nine crew members died, as well as four civilians on the ground.
***********************************************
Unfortunately, it is one of the most famous accidents in civil aviation. When I saw the report on the causes of the accident, or the accepted causes of the accident, I was very surprised to learn that such a small piece, in proportion to the size of the aircraft, could have caused the death of 113 people.
It is true that they were an accumulation of situations that is very difficult to reoccur in the same sequence, but it does not matter. If it can happen again, it would mean that we would not have learned anything.
Returning to drones, the chances of a Phantom drone knocking down a large passenger plane are small, but they do exist. As the size of the plane decreases, the chances increase. All agree. I know we're focusing on this case, but isn't it true that the underlying problem is that never should a drone, which is an unmanned aircraft and therefore there are no lives at stake with it, collide with a passenger aircraft?
This type of studies are necessary, more or less scientifically proven to show that it is true, that for years they have been studying the impacts produced by birds, that with drones there is a real danger, that it is always necessary to avoid that a drone is in the trajectory of an airplane and this should not be discussed or questionable.
DJI in this case tries selfishly, as any company whose sole objective is to earn money without caring about anything else, clean their image and prevent the authorities from taking measures that result in a lower number of sales of their products. But even this, which all the big companies do, is really the underlying problem? I think not, it's the human factor. We as pilots are always the ultimate responsible for what our drones do or with our piloting we provoke.
Honestly, I think a drone can shoot down an airplane, even the biggest in the world? Yes, without a doubt, history says that it is possible, how many accidents have to occur for this to happen? I don't care, one time is enough. Air regulations are so strict because in the event of an accident and falling 99.9% of the time means certain death.
Whatever DJI or another big company of drones says, I turn it around quickly. You are guilty of putting in the hands of irresponsible people objects that can cause deaths by taking advantage of the existing legal vacuum in this matter. They would be deprived of the desire to talk nonsense and, in the end, of the importance of a more or less accurate study of the danger posed by drones in the wrong hands, even unintentionally in the right hands.
What a way to wake up on a Saturday
I hope everything I want to say is understood