Drone is found not guilty in recent airline incident due to the aircraft's own structure failure
Turns out LAM Flight didn't hit a drone; the "drone strike" was actually a structural failure within the aircraft's nose. I get frustrated with these types of incidents because the media states a plane hit a drone in a breaking news headline. Without any actual proof, the media uses "drone" as a buzzword in the same sentence with "airline" and "collision", etc. This type of journalism is just scary. You're increasing public paranoia for no reason. Imagine the amount of people that saw headlines stating the drone did hit the plane versus headlines. If you're a drone enthusiast ask yourself which version did you see more while scrolling on Facebook. Here are some sources that we're sure a drone made contact with a commercial airliner LOL.
When in fact, the Aviation Herald didn't say this. They said LAM thought it could be, not that it was. There are UAS that conduct surveys within close proximity to the airport currently but a robot wasn't at fault here. Maybe if a robot put the now of the LAM aircraft together? IDK?
When in fact, the Aviation Herald didn't say this. They said LAM thought it could be, not that it was. There are UAS that conduct surveys within close proximity to the airport currently but a robot wasn't at fault here. Maybe if a robot put the now of the LAM aircraft together? IDK?
I'm not sure what to make of all this. It's very frustrating when this type of incident occurs. Drones to blame, well, actually it's the user. Yes, there are catastrophic disasters with drones that are out of our control such as a bird diving into the UAS, a battery malfunction, or a shotgun blast.
