News and Commentary. Here we go again. Mea Culpa, even DRONELIFE thought the pictures showed evidence of a drone strike. The story seemed to add up: the pictures showing a torn radome of a passenger jet in Mozambique and crew reports of hearing a loud impact noise appeared to indicate that something heavier than a bird had hit the plane. The mining sites that surround the airport – and use commercial drones daily – seemed like a reasonable culprit. The Commercial Drone Alliance issued a statement (wisely couched in less than definitive terms about the incident) expressing their concern.
But none of it, it now appears, actually happened. As The Digital Circuit reports, that there was no drone involved. No drone, no bird, and no plastic bag. In fact, those widely circulated pictures of the damage to the radome of the plane indicate a structural fault in a second-hand radome. The Aviation Herald, the site which reports on aircraft incidents across the globe and which first reported the Mozambique incident, has updated the article to reflect the results of a press conference held by Mozambique’s federal agency:
“On Jan 10th 2017 Mozambique’s Civil Aviation Authority reported in a press conference in Maputo that they concluded the radome most probably failed as result of a structural failure caused by air flow pressure, contributing factors probably were a defective installation of the radome and inspection of the ribs. A foreign object damage was ruled out. The CAA added, that the radome had been purchased second hand through an American company supplying aircraft parts and components, the radome was installed on the aircraft during major maintenance in South Africa on Jun 27th 2016.”
By now we should have learned. Of the most widely reported drone incidents – including the one last year at Heathrow airport, which was later concluded to be a plastic shopping bag – not one has yet provided any real evidence of a drone collision. With any luck at all, there won’t be – as certification, airspace integration and communication methods move forward, certainly the technology is on the drone industry’s side to ensure safe operation.
Miriam McNabb is the Editor-in-Chief of DRONELIFE and CEO of JobForDrones, a professional drone services marketplace, and a fascinated observer of the emerging drone industry and the regulatory environment for drones. Miriam has penned over 3,000 articles focused on the commercial drone space and is an international speaker and recognized figure in the industry. Miriam has a degree from the University of Chicago and over 20 years of experience in high tech sales and marketing for new technologies.
For drone industry consulting or writing, Email Miriam.
This website uses cookies and third party services. By clicking OK, you are agreeing to our privacy policy. ACCEPT
Manage consent
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Mozambique Incident Did NOT Involve a Drone
But none of it, it now appears, actually happened. As The Digital Circuit reports, that there was no drone involved. No drone, no bird, and no plastic bag. In fact, those widely circulated pictures of the damage to the radome of the plane indicate a structural fault in a second-hand radome. The Aviation Herald, the site which reports on aircraft incidents across the globe and which first reported the Mozambique incident, has updated the article to reflect the results of a press conference held by Mozambique’s federal agency:
“On Jan 10th 2017 Mozambique’s Civil Aviation Authority reported in a press conference in Maputo that they concluded the radome most probably failed as result of a structural failure caused by air flow pressure, contributing factors probably were a defective installation of the radome and inspection of the ribs. A foreign object damage was ruled out. The CAA added, that the radome had been purchased second hand through an American company supplying aircraft parts and components, the radome was installed on the aircraft during major maintenance in South Africa on Jun 27th 2016.”
By now we should have learned. Of the most widely reported drone incidents – including the one last year at Heathrow airport, which was later concluded to be a plastic shopping bag – not one has yet provided any real evidence of a drone collision. With any luck at all, there won’t be – as certification, airspace integration and communication methods move forward, certainly the technology is on the drone industry’s side to ensure safe operation.
Miriam McNabb is the Editor-in-Chief of DRONELIFE and CEO of JobForDrones, a professional drone services marketplace, and a fascinated observer of the emerging drone industry and the regulatory environment for drones. Miriam has penned over 3,000 articles focused on the commercial drone space and is an international speaker and recognized figure in the industry. Miriam has a degree from the University of Chicago and over 20 years of experience in high tech sales and marketing for new technologies.
For drone industry consulting or writing, Email Miriam.
TWITTER:@spaldingbarker
Subscribe to DroneLife here.
See Also