How Vulnerable are Trains to Drone Attack?

[EM2]

I assume in the case of this happening, the airline concerned would be invoicing the airport for the cost of a replacement engine, seeing as the airport would be at fault?

 

[gsnedders]

How is hitting a drone any different to hitting a 7kg swan on final approach ?

Swans have a much larger amount of soft tissue than a drone.

 

[TRAX]

Single engine destructions (resulting from ingestion or surges for example) have brought down planes in the past.

 

[14xxDave]

The Queen would be upset if one of her swans (they all belong to the monarch) had been killed - do they have to report such things to the palace?

They don't all belong to the Monarch. Only unmarked mute swans on open water do. But it's a "mute' point! )

 

[edwin_m]

Can stand, yes. But it is not an ideal situation and would mean the aircraft would have to make an emergency landing at the earliest possible moment. IE: it would take off, get hit in the engine, then land at the airport within minutes. That's utterly pointless.

It would also scatter bits of engine and drone all over the runway, making it unusable until examined and all foreign objects removed. So as Gatwick has only one runway plus the taxiway that can be used as a runway but would be in use for taxiing, it would have to go to another airport.

Perhaps more of a concern is that an industrial drone could carry explosives. A small bomb against the fuselage might not be catastrophic at low altitude where the cabin isn't pressurised, but one next to a wing that penetrated the fuel tanks could be. Until the authorities capture a drone or an operator they can't be sure they aren't dealing with that sort of situation.

 

[randyrippley]

Biggest risk is likely to be to the drivers nerves if a drone appears low in front.........back in the 1970's there were anecdotal tales of brown trouser moments when RAF Buccaners used the WCML to navigate down the Lune Gorge at low level.
A Bucc at 50 feet AGL head-on must have been quite disturbing for the driver

 

[furnessvale]

Biggest risk is likely to be to the drivers nerves if a drone appears low in front.........back in the 1970's there were anecdotal tales of brown trouser moments when RAF Buccaners used the WCML to navigate down the Lune Gorge at low level.
A Bucc at 50 feet AGL head-on must have been quite disturbing for the driver

Two Phantoms at zero height just below the speed of sound when you are on your own trackwalking at Shap Wells nearly did for me. My life passed before me in an instant as I thought I had missed an express approaching!

 

[randyrippley]

Two Phantoms at zero height just below the speed of sound when you are on your own trackwalking at Shap Wells nearly did for me. My life passed before me in an instant as I thought I had missed an express approaching!

you're lucky the shockwave didn't knock you down

 

[robbeech]

But all the talk is of ingestion into engines and I have just been told modern aircraft can stand losing an engine at takeoff.

That would imply zero time between V1 and V2.

 

[randyrippley]

But all the talk is of ingestion into engines and I have just been told modern aircraft can stand losing an engine at takeoff.

from a power point of view yes, but possibly not from an uncontained breakup of the engine, resulting in damage to the wing

 

[HowardGWR]

They don't all belong to the Monarch. Only unmarked mute swans on open water do. But it's a "mute' point! )

Abbotsbury swans don't belong to the Queen either. OT but let's get it right.

 

[broadgage]

Fair point, but all aircraft going into gatwick would be multi engine, so a single engine failure/fire (worst case scenario) is no big deal. Expensive maybe but from a safety viewpoint, nothing catastrophic.

Indeed, but in the case of deliberate attack rather than carelessness, one must consider the possibility that TWO drones could be flown, one into each engine.
That would almost certainly bring down the aircraft.

Trains are far less vulnerable to drones whether flown carelessly, or as a deliberate attack.
A large and heavy drone might damage the windscreen, or the pantograph, but I doubt that anyone would be hurt.

 

[silverfoxcc]

The Queen would be upset if one of her swans (they all belong to the monarch) had been killed - do they have to report such things to the palace?

Not ALL the swans
By prerogative right, the British Crown enjoys ownership of all unmarked mute swans in open water. Rights over swans may, however, be granted to a subject by the Crown (accordingly they may also be claimed by prescription.)[1] The ownership of swans in a given body of water was commonly granted to landowners up to the 16th century. The only bodies still to exercise such rights are two livery companies of the City of London. Thus the ownership of swans in the Thames is shared equally among the Crown, the Vintners' Company and the Dyers' Company.
And each year on the Thames there is the ceremony of Swan Upping where ownership is established
HTH

 

[edwin_m]

So if a swan is ingested into an aircraft engine does somebody have to work through the resulting mincemeat to work out what species it was and whether it was tagged, so that HRH can be humbly advised accordingly?

 

[squizzler]

Indeed, but in the case of deliberate attack rather than carelessness, one must consider the possibility that TWO drones could be flown, one into each engine.
That would almost certainly bring down the aircraft.

Even for those of us jaded by highly choreographed stunt scenes from modern action movies it strikes me as implausible that someone would be able to fly a pair of drones so precisely.

 

[johnnychips]

Do you think HM is at this moment picking through the bones of a swan leg before settling down to watch herself on TV?

Merry Xmas to all on the forum!

EDIT: oops forgot the rules
HM - Her majesty
TV - Television

 

[philthetube]

Do you think HM is at this moment picking through the bones of a swan leg before settling down to watch herself on TV?

Merry Xmas to all on the forum!

EDIT: oops forgot the rules
HM - Her majesty
TV - Television

Xmas - Christmas

 

[railneighbour]

So if a swan is ingested into an aircraft engine does somebody have to work through the resulting mincemeat to work out what species it was and whether it was tagged, so that HRH can be humbly advised accordingly?

Mostly, yes. Irrespective of the bird, every incidence of a bid struck by an aircraft at an airfield has to be catalogued and details sent to the Civil Aviation Authority. If identifiable, the species has to be listed on the Mandatory Occurrence Report, to allow the Authority to track which birds are causing the biggest problems at airfields. Between 2012 and 2016, according to published data, "swans, geese and ducks" accounted for about 100 reported bird strikes or near misses.

 

[choochoochoo]

Even for those of us jaded by highly choreographed stunt scenes from modern action movies it strikes me as implausible that someone would be able to fly a pair of drones so precisely.

My thoughts exactly

I may be cynical here, but I think it's got very little to do with public safety, and more to do with Gatwick's owners not wanting to fork out on expensive repairs on any damage caused by a drone.

 

[al78]

Effect of bird strikes on vehicles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike

Yes they can cause significant damage although the risk is low, and a drone is likely to be similar in effect.

With drone related disruption, it is likely to be due to the financial cost if a drone does hit an aircraft and causes damage, and even if the risk is very small, why take the risk if you don't have too. It is like leaving people stuck on a train overnight in freezing temperatures instead of trying to get them out, they are at lower risk in the train that outside in a remote area at night when it could be icy.

 

[krus_aragon]

Rights over swans may, however, be granted to a subject by the Crown (accordingly they may also be claimed by prescription.)

I'll have to ask my GP for one. :P

 

[oversteer]

Obligatory “drone and train” video, just in case you haven’t seen it before

Haven’t seen a WCML version just yet, doubt we will after Gatwick

FPV drone, so flown with headset..

 

[HaggisBotherer]

Two Phantoms at zero height just below the speed of sound when you are on your own trackwalking at Shap Wells nearly did for me.

Zero height? Just below the speed of sound? Crikey, you must have had (a) remarkably fast reflexes and (b) some specialist equipment on you to record the speed with that degree of accuracy and (c) also been unique in witnessing them taxying down the M6 at a speed no other jet in history has taxied at before?

That or maybe there's just a little exaggeration and supposition in the tale? But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story...

 

[hooverboy]

Zero height? Just below the speed of sound? Crikey, you must have had (a) remarkably fast reflexes and (b) some specialist equipment on you to record the speed with that degree of accuracy and (c) also been unique in witnessing them taxying down the M6 at a speed no other jet in history has taxied at before?

That or maybe there's just a little exaggeration and supposition in the tale? But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story...

Not exaggeration at all. That absolutely is part of a training exercise going that low at that speed(quite common to witness them screaming through the valleys in scotland and the lake district)
ok zero height is bending the truth a bit, but 50-100m above ground level is quite normal.

the planes do have range finding equipment that monitors distance to ground and adjusts the planes altitude to avoid upcoming obstacles.

 

[Grumbler]

What has always concerned me about Gatwick is the possibility of a plane undershooting or overshooting the runway and so landing on the railway. Could a reinforced concrete roof be built over the line capable of taking the weight of an airliner?

 

[edwin_m]

What has always concerned me about Gatwick is the possibility of a plane undershooting or overshooting the runway and so landing on the railway. Could a reinforced concrete roof be built over the line capable of taking the weight of an airliner?

Gatwick and other airports where a railway crosses the end of the runway have "tripwire" systems that cut the power and put the signals to danger if anything hits them. There is also an emergency phone line between the control tower and the relevant signaller to get trains stopped if a plane is in difficulty. Building a structure over the railway would raise the height of the obstruction, making it more likely that a plane coming in low would crash rather than making it across.

 

[furnessvale]

Zero height? Just below the speed of sound? Crikey, you must have had (a) remarkably fast reflexes and (b) some specialist equipment on you to record the speed with that degree of accuracy and (c) also been unique in witnessing them taxying down the M6 at a speed no other jet in history has taxied at before?

That or maybe there's just a little exaggeration and supposition in the tale? But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story...

Try getting off your backside onto a live railway and experience it before you come out with smart comments. Have YOU witnessed low flying exercises in the Cumbrian valleys, the planes are often below you.

Of course true zero height would be wheels down crossing the fields. It wouldn't be the M6 which wasn't even built then.

 

[gsnedders]

Not exaggeration at all. That absolutely is part of a training exercise going that low at that speed(quite common to witness them screaming through the valleys in scotland and the lake district)
ok zero height is bending the truth a bit, but 50-100m above ground level is quite normal.

the planes do have range finding equipment that monitors distance to ground and adjusts the planes altitude to avoid upcoming obstacles.

250ft (76m) min to terrain (in any direction, not just vertical) is pretty regular, and 100ft (30m) is practiced. And while normally they aren't that fast that low (too much changing terrain and tight manoeuvring), given a clear straight run they absolutely can get up some pretty high speeds.

I remember being on a Pendolino sometime earlier this year (near Shap?) and having a Hawk fly at maybe 250ft across the railway and motorway before disappearing into another valley was… quite something. Not quite as dramatic as the times I've seen them while out walking, but much less warning given ambient noise on the train!

 

[GusB]

Not exaggeration at all. That absolutely is part of a training exercise going that low at that speed(quite common to witness them screaming through the valleys in scotland and the lake district)
ok zero height is bending the truth a bit, but 50-100m above ground level is quite normal.

the planes do have range finding equipment that monitors distance to ground and adjusts the planes altitude to avoid upcoming obstacles.

250ft (76m) min to terrain (in any direction, not just vertical) is pretty regular, and 100ft (30m) is practiced. And while normally they aren't that fast that low (too much changing terrain and tight manoeuvring), given a clear straight run they absolutely can get up some pretty high speeds.

My dad has a timeshare place by Loch Rannoch, and the first time I stayed there it was slightly alarming to see Tornados pass almost at eye-level.

 

[Grumbler]

Gatwick and other airports where a railway crosses the end of the runway have "tripwire" systems that cut the power and put the signals to danger if anything hits them. There is also an emergency phone line between the control tower and the relevant signaller to get trains stopped if a plane is in difficulty. Building a structure over the railway would raise the height of the obstruction, making it more likely that a plane coming in low would crash rather than making it across.

Would there be enough time to stop the trains? And what about the trains underneath when a plane comes down? The carnage would be horrific.