There's speculation because bird strikes occur constantly (>13,000 reported to FAA in 2014) and they aren't newsworthy, but a hypothetical drone strike will light up social media. And Bloomberg has no journalistic integrity.
It could be that because they didn't find bits of bird it makes it more likely to be a drone. I'd expect (and I have no experience here so someone with more please say if this is wrong) there to be bits of gooey, squishy or sticky bird still stuck to the plane.
The nose cone of passenger jets would have to be fairly thing / weak I guess? Because that's where the forward-looking radar is right?
If a bird hit anywhere else on the plane the cross sectional area of the impact zone would be fairly small in comparison to the nose cone, and probably a fair bit stronger, so we could probably expect to see less damage on a wing or tail fin as at 700 odd kilometers per hour the bird would probably be cut in two by the leading edge of a wing or tail fin?
Do you mean this in an ironic way or in an actual "construction of a Boeing 737" way? Because while larger airplanes do have seats directly in the front of the plane (with the cockpit being on a higher floor) the Boeing 737 doesn't.
The Academy of Model Aeronautics has done some amazing research on pilot interactions with drones using FAA data [1].
One of the things they found was that only 3% of drone reports from pilots are actual "close calls", the rest are observations of drones operating legally below 400 ft or cases where done is used as a catch all term (weather baloons, etc).
Another interesting thing I read from them (my bookmark is 404ing now, will try to find the link), is that of the actual incidents they investigated of drones acting recklessly in controlled airspace, all of the offending drones were operated by the military or DHS.
Front shot of the dent shows no signs of small/sharp sub-dents or deep scratches within the main dent that would've been caused by hard object such as drone. Which kind of steers thinking toward heavy and soft object that planed collided with.
The electronics for your typical GA transponder are primitive by modern standards and can be very small, but it would probably need to be paired with a radar reflector or else it would either remain undetected or appear as noise.
After watching a Defcon talk about the idea that transponders self-indicate their position without signature, so it would be possible to clutter ATC and make the panic, I was under the impression that rogue transponders couldn’t safely be dismissed, just in case it were actually the 747 it claims to be.
This was at the Tijuana airport which is right next to the US border. While drones have been know to be used to smuggle contraband across the border, looking at this flight path for landing [1], the plane actually circles around over the US and then back into Mexico. It's possibly that the the strike occurred in US airspace. yikes
Note: I'm not certain that this is the flight in question. The other approach is solely in Mexico airspace. I'm also not trying to rope in drones/contraband to an already unclear situation.
Could someone correct me if I'm wrong: but I assume this is why we have altitude restrictions on consumer drones, right? Other than the technological challenges of going that high up, but it's also so we don't become burdensome on the air traffic.
Do not overestimate the technological challenges of going high up. An autonomous drone that can work at all in Denver, must also be able to operate at a mile high in Los Angeles.
I just want to throw out there that you're not wrong but keep in mind that there's a pretty big difference between operating 100ft off the ground in Denver and operating 1 mile above Los Angeles.
Know why?
You need enough battery/fuel to climb 0.99 miles minus 435ft in L.A. (and presumably safely descend) through progressively thinner atmosphere, in Denver you need need enough battery/fuel to climb 100 ft in thinner atmosphere.
The amount of planes flying 100ft above the terrain is considerably less than those that are operating between 100ft and 0.99 miles above the terrain.
DJI drones all have altitude restrictions, but even those can be overcome without a lot of modification.
It is easy to purchase or even build a drone without any altitude or other restrictions. The vast majority of cheap drones do not have altitude restrictions.
Readit News
At jet speeds, you don't need a man-made object to explain a huge hole. Here's an example of a bird strike in a 737: https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/97238940/mass...
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/23420/how-many-...
Boeing 737 Passenger Jet Damaged in Midair UFO Collision
Clickbait. If it's being talked about here, that article has likely (or likely will be) shared all over social media.
If a bird hit anywhere else on the plane the cross sectional area of the impact zone would be fairly small in comparison to the nose cone, and probably a fair bit stronger, so we could probably expect to see less damage on a wing or tail fin as at 700 odd kilometers per hour the bird would probably be cut in two by the leading edge of a wing or tail fin?
I'm not aircraft engineer, though.
One of the things they found was that only 3% of drone reports from pilots are actual "close calls", the rest are observations of drones operating legally below 400 ft or cases where done is used as a catch all term (weather baloons, etc).
Another interesting thing I read from them (my bookmark is 404ing now, will try to find the link), is that of the actual incidents they investigated of drones acting recklessly in controlled airspace, all of the offending drones were operated by the military or DHS.
1. https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/UASSightin...
"Is goose going to be okay?"
Can I voluntarily strap a transponder to my own drone if I buy one? How small can transponders be?
Deleted Comment
Note: I'm not certain that this is the flight in question. The other approach is solely in Mexico airspace. I'm also not trying to rope in drones/contraband to an already unclear situation.
[1] https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AMX770/history/20181213/...
Know why?
You need enough battery/fuel to climb 0.99 miles minus 435ft in L.A. (and presumably safely descend) through progressively thinner atmosphere, in Denver you need need enough battery/fuel to climb 100 ft in thinner atmosphere.
The amount of planes flying 100ft above the terrain is considerably less than those that are operating between 100ft and 0.99 miles above the terrain.
It is easy to purchase or even build a drone without any altitude or other restrictions. The vast majority of cheap drones do not have altitude restrictions.