UFO impact: drone a suspect
A collision between a training aircraft and an unidentified flying object that could have ended in tragedy in the skies above Germiston last week has raised more questions than answers.
The Cessna 172 training aircraft, owned by the Johannesburg School of Flying (JSF), was taking off from Rand Airport, just south of Germiston, on Tuesday last week when the student pilot heard a loud bang from the plane’s right wing.
The pilot returned to the airport and landed safely. An inspection of the aircraft immediately revealed a sizable dent in the wing.
Pictures posted to local aviation forum Avcom showed a deep dent to the wing’s leading edge along with gouges and scrapes on the upper and lower surfaces of the wing. Forum users immediately began speculating as towhether the plane had collidedwith a large bird such as a hadeda, or a drone.
By law, a drone may not be operated within 10km of an active airport runway, unless the operator has a licence to do so and Air Traffic Navigation Services (ATNS) has been informed. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) rules say drones weighing more than 7kg may also not be operated without official permission.
Though collisions with birds are relatively common at low altitudes, the absence of “blood and guts” on the wing appeared to rule that out, leaving an aerial drone as the most likely culprit.
People the Sunday Times spoke to at the JSFwould only say the incident had been reported to the CAA and ATNS and that an investigation was under way.
The CAA confirmed the collision had occurred at about 8.30am when the student, who was on “a solo flight from Rand Airport”, heard the bang.
“Upon later inspection, a dent was found on the wing, but there was no evidence of a bird strike,” said CAA spokesperson Martha Mole. “There was also no evidence of a drone strike.”
Despite the flying school’s claims, the CAA said on Friday that it would not be investigating the incident.
The Commercial Unmanned Aircraft Association of Southern Africa (CUAASA) said it could not be immediately assumed a drone was to blame for the collision. “Initial unconfirmed accounts indicate that con
siderable wing damage to the training aircraft led to the suspicion that an aerial drone was responsible for the collision,” it said.
“While bird strikes are usually synonymous with visual clues like blood and feathers, they can cause substantial damage to an aircraft.”
The association warned that drones could pose a serious risk to aircraft. “A drone ingested into an engine could cause a catastrophic accident,” it said.
CUAASA president Sean Reitz said there was no evidence that the plane had hit a drone. “There’s no debris so it’s all speculative right now.”
The JSF had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.