stevewhite
Member
JetBlue flight reports striking drone while landing at JFK
External Quote:
ATC audioExternal Quote:
External Quote:
Last edited:
JetBlue flight reports striking drone while landing at JFK
- Thread starter stevewhite
- Start date
Mendel
Senior Member.
https://abcnews.com/US/jetblue-flight-hits-drone-landing-jfk-officials/story?id=134313280
External Quote:
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Mendel
Senior Member.
https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/JBU948/history/20260630/0709Z/KLAS/KJFK
The aircraft was going about 200 mph at the time, so the pilots would hardly have gotten a good look at it.
For all we know, it could've been a party balloon, reflecting the early morning sunlight.
If it was a drone, hitting the aircraft at 200 mph would've at least left some scratches in the paint and rendered the drone inoperable.
The aircraft was going about 200 mph at the time, so the pilots would hardly have gotten a good look at it.
For all we know, it could've been a party balloon, reflecting the early morning sunlight.
If it was a drone, hitting the aircraft at 200 mph would've at least left some scratches in the paint and rendered the drone inoperable.
RobertBillyBob
Senior Member.
Mendel
Senior Member.
I stand corrected.
In my defense, the article actually leads with that information:
Far more information from the pilots is needed.
Did they hear an impact, or feel it?
Where did the drone impact the aircraft? Did it hit the windshield directly in from of them or at a wingtip?
Or was this a case of "it appeared we would hit it" but they did not actually see it impact some part of the aircraft? If they did see it hit they could have told the FAA where to look on the aircraft for the evidence of impact, so I would guess not. Of course the FAA may not be revealing all details.
Trying to figure out incidents like this from early reports in the media is a guessing game.
I would not be surprised if they saw/hit a drone given the location, some fool looking for exciting video to post on-line.
Did they hear an impact, or feel it?
Where did the drone impact the aircraft? Did it hit the windshield directly in from of them or at a wingtip?
Or was this a case of "it appeared we would hit it" but they did not actually see it impact some part of the aircraft? If they did see it hit they could have told the FAA where to look on the aircraft for the evidence of impact, so I would guess not. Of course the FAA may not be revealing all details.
Trying to figure out incidents like this from early reports in the media is a guessing game.
I would not be surprised if they saw/hit a drone given the location, some fool looking for exciting video to post on-line.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Just FYI:
According to personal communications with a knowledgeable drone pilot, licensed and registered and all, this has led to a situation where anything other than a flimsy toy drone but one not up to pro standards wants to weigh an eyelash under 250 grams, to be as substantial as possible but not require registration.
For comparison, a baseball weighs a bit over 140 grams, an iPhone 17 Pro is about 206 grams (without case) and a can of Campbell's tomato soup weighs about 350 grams (unsure if that includes the weight of the can. A drone would spread the mass put a bit more than any of those, and presumably the blades and shafts out the the rotors would act as "crumple zones" to help diffuse the energy of the collision.
Still, I'm a bit skeptical that one could strike a plane in flight and not leave a pretty noticeable ding.
An example:
Not sure how to compare the speed of this plane when hit to the JetBlue case -- the Super Scooper flies at varied speeds during firefighting operations...
https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/register_droneExternal Quote:
According to personal communications with a knowledgeable drone pilot, licensed and registered and all, this has led to a situation where anything other than a flimsy toy drone but one not up to pro standards wants to weigh an eyelash under 250 grams, to be as substantial as possible but not require registration.
For comparison, a baseball weighs a bit over 140 grams, an iPhone 17 Pro is about 206 grams (without case) and a can of Campbell's tomato soup weighs about 350 grams (unsure if that includes the weight of the can. A drone would spread the mass put a bit more than any of those, and presumably the blades and shafts out the the rotors would act as "crumple zones" to help diffuse the energy of the collision.
Still, I'm a bit skeptical that one could strike a plane in flight and not leave a pretty noticeable ding.
An example:
https://abc7news.com/post/californi...oper-aircraft-flying-palisades-fire/15792412/External Quote:
The FBI released new photos of a damaged water-dropping super scooper firefighting aircraft that collided with a drone over the Palisades Fire.
According to officials, the plane collided with a privately-owned drone, causing significant damage to it. The drone put a 3x6 hole in the aircraft, causing a 20- to 30-minute delay in the aerial firefight.
...
The pilots were unaware they hit the drone until they landed at Van Nuys Airport and the maintenance staff noticed a "fist-sized hole," according to officials.
Not sure how to compare the speed of this plane when hit to the JetBlue case -- the Super Scooper flies at varied speeds during firefighting operations...
FatPhil
Senior Member.
I'm only familiar with motorsports where they try to punch as small a hole through the air as possible, but large passenger aeroplanes travelling at about the same speed (low 300s km/h) don't have that luxury. The report I read implied that the pilots saw something in front of them, so one possibility could be that it was simply pushed out of the way by the bow wave. However, even if contact was made, I suspect a typical consumer drone, with most outer parts made of plastics, would be unable to put a scratch on a plane even if contact was made. Perhaps it could leave a smear if the polymer's pliable enough?
JMartJr
Senior Member.
On the other hand...
The battery(s) are a hard little dense packet of mass. A glancing blow might not leave a noticeable mark, but I'd think a direct hit would be a problem.
Pictures of bird strikes on planes show noticeable damage pretty frequently -- some of them specify that the plane was descending to land, some that it was doing something else, some are vague, and few tell you much about the mass of the bird!
FatPhil
Senior Member.
The LiPos, and most other things, are behind the aerodynamic elements. Also, I've seen footage of a LiPo destroyed so quickly by an impact that it simply unravelled like a couple of streamers. (By a weapon whose tip speed was probably comparable to the speed of the aircraft - 250mph. This April's NHRL event, IIRC.)
Mendel
Senior Member.
At the speed the aircraft was traveling, if the drone was small, they wouldn't have had much of a chance to see it.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Interesting. I've never seen that, my only experience with them is taking one that had swollen up and so was not safe to attempt to use any more, setting it on the driveway and dropping a cinder block on it from the upper deck, on the grounds that if it was going to burst into flames it would be better to do it at the time and place of my choosing.
It was anticlimactic, I managed to mangle it a bit but nothing exciting happened...
Of course, my cinder block was moving slower than a plane!
Mendel
Senior Member.
Compare:
Article: A Delta Air Lines plane carrying 52 passengers and six crew members was hit by fireworks as it prepared to land at a Chicago airport on Saturday night.
Delta flight 1076 took off from Atlanta at 19:51 EDT (00:51 BST) and landed in Chicago at 20:33 CDT (02:33 BST).
"We just had a firework hit our plane," a pilot told air traffic control, a recording of the incident shows. The pilot said it had occurred at about 200ft (61m).
"We're just hoping it was just a mortar that went off underneath but definitely felt a big bang."
The BBC has contacted city officials regarding the report of fireworks being set off from homes near the airport. The Chicago Police Department told the BBC the aircraft "was struck by an unknown object" and that it caused "minor paint damage".
The Federal Aviation Administration said the incident happened around 20:30 CDT, according to CBS News, the BBC's US partner.
The Airbus A319 was inspected after landing with no damage found, according to the airline.
Kyle Ferriter
Senior Member.
That is JBU948 from 2026-06-30, not the 2026-06-29 one:
https://www.flightradar24.com/2026-06-29/11:15/1x/JBU948/406a4cca
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/b6948#406e637d
The ATC audio is from the "Tower" feed, 17:12 into the 11:00-11:30Z liveatc recording (when liveatc says 11:00 it means around that time, not exactly, I've seen it seemingly be off by a couple minutes). mp3 file attached. There may be minor issues in the file so I also attached a re-encoded copy.
The tower employee then contacts the pilot again at 18:21 into the liveatc recording (not included in the tweet by fl360aero), and the pilot says it happened as they were performing that final big turn about 10 miles outside ASALT, over "that part of land of new jersey", which I think is intending to refer to the Sandy Hook area, and the north part of the Atlantic shore of NJ.
Using the ASALT coordinates 40º 31' 39.320" N, 73º 57' 50.180" W from https://www.globalair.com/airport/fixdetails.aspx?fix=asalt, that looks about right.
3000ft is pretty high for a consumer grade quadcopter, but possible. That location is under Class B airspace but the Class B only starts at 3000ft, coincidentally (or not).
https://aeronav.faa.gov/visual/05-14-2026/PDFs/New_York.pdf
(archive: https://web.archive.org/web/2026070...v.faa.gov/visual/05-14-2026/PDFs/New_York.pdf)
And the FAA UAS map shows no additional restrictions for that area. (This doesn't show the Class E airspace which starts at 700ft because it's intended for people flying drones without explicit plans pre-approved by the FAA, and those flights are limited to 400ft).
https://faa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9c2e4406710048e19806ebf6a06754ad
It's possible it was a "Part 107" drone pilot who had a waiver authorizing them to fly up to 3000ft (staying just below Class B), but if it was approved, then ATC should have been aware of it and I hope would not approve a situation where a drone was authorized to fly that close to where they were routing approaching planes through (and which is a common approach route).
It'd be nice to know more info about why the pilot thought it was a drone, specifically, and not a balloon. If only planes had dash cams with like a 30 day video retention so exterior video could be pulled into investigations if needed. It would probably help with investigations like this, and cases of laser hits, illegal drone activity, and others incidents like crashes, runway incursions, near misses. I don't think this would cost very much money for airlines to do.
Similar threads
