Slashdot Mirror
Study: Drones Present Minimal Threat To Aircraft (cio.com)
itwbennett writes: A study from George Mason University, which estimates danger from consumer drones, suggests that rules around private drone use could be relaxed without endangering general aviation. [Researcher] Eli Dourado [coupled] data on bird strikes with aircraft, with an estimate of the number of birds in airspace and the average weight per species of bird, and concluded that "a two-kilogram drone would cause an injury once every 187 million years of continuous operation."
Dourado admits there are some limitations to his estimate. While drones are crafted with plastic and metal, birds are generally softer and more likely to get squished on impact with an aircraft. However, birds are likely to be flying in flocks, where the danger of having several sucked into the engines is greater. US Airways flight 1549 was a prime example of this as the aircraft encountered numerous bird strikes which took out its engines, causing it to land in New York's Hudson River. In addition, the research doesn't include the possibility of someone maliciously trying to hit an aircraft.
Dourado admits there are some limitations to his estimate. While drones are crafted with plastic and metal, birds are generally softer and more likely to get squished on impact with an aircraft. However, birds are likely to be flying in flocks, where the danger of having several sucked into the engines is greater. US Airways flight 1549 was a prime example of this as the aircraft encountered numerous bird strikes which took out its engines, causing it to land in New York's Hudson River. In addition, the research doesn't include the possibility of someone maliciously trying to hit an aircraft.
expect a heat-seeker drone. then expect a swarm of them.
that users (or should I say morons) have repeatedly been shown to fly their toys near airports, even in the flight path, where there is a higher likelihood of a strike occurring.
This limit sounds more in line with currentl regulations regarding weather baloons, etc.
If you relax the rules based on a "typical" drone, it may encourage jerks to put chemicals or explosives in one.
Table-ized A.I.
Just takes one getting sucked into the intake fan of 767 or similar to demonstrate fact over fiction.
Ha ha
but they WILL BE. best to reign them in now and set significant limits and restrictions on them while there's still a chance. once they''re ''out there'' is massive numbers, at will be a harder thing to do.
further, and ffs, it's NOT just about the dangers to real airplanes... its about keeping them from flying over private property. i surely don't want some nutjob flying over my farm or hunting grounds with a 'drone' .. and i'm sure the neighbor feels the same about his farm and his swimming pool. i wouldnt want them flying over PUBLIC lands either in many cases, especially residential streets and parks, parklands, recreational areas and forests.
R/C planes (very short range line of sight single purpose 'airplanes' and 'helicopters') are one thing. dual or multipurpose, or semi/non line of site operation, or semi or fully autonomous flight is all a completely different category.. those are the things that should be restricted to hell and back.. true R/C planes i could care less about provided they're on (or over) their owner's private property or a public space designated for their use.
Drones are hard and often hover, unlike birds. This makes them hard to see, hard to avoid and dangerous to hit. I doubt most pilots would be able to even evade.
It appears there is nothing in the study accounting for the fact that the battery of a 'drone' is much denser than any bird. Last time I looked at a DJI the battery was 0.9 lbs. That is more than enough to destroy a propeller which strikes it. Remember, the prop tips are doing over 400 mph.
... drones not so much.
Feb 19th 2016
An Air France Airbus A319-100, registration F-GKXT performing flight AF-1149 from Barcelona,SP (Spain) to Paris Charles de Gaulle (France), was on approach to CDG's runway 26L descending through 5500 feet while on downwind about 17nm eastsoutheast of CDG Airport, when the first officer spotted a drone at their 11 o'clock position, disconnected the autopilot and initiates an evasive maneouver calling out the drone to the captain. The captain sighted the drone, too, and estimated the drone passed about 5 meters/15 feet underneath their left hand wing.
Sep 30th 2015
A British Airways Airbus A319-100, registration G-EUOC performing flight BA-361 from Lyon (France) to London Heathrow,EN (UK), was on final approach to Heathrow's runway 09L descending through 500 feet MSL about 1.7nm before touchdown when the crew noticed a drone helicopter passing about 20-30 yard (18-27 meters) to the left of the cockpit and about 20-30 feet above the aircraft. The crew reported they had no time to react, the aircraft continued the final approach for a safe landing on Heathrow's runway 09L.
Sep 25th 2015
An Air New Zealand Airbus A320-200, registration ZK-OXB performing flight NZ-542 from Christchurch to Auckland (New Zealand) with 166 people on board, was climbing through 6000 feet out of Christchurch, about 10nm northeast of Christchurch between the villages of Kaiapoi, Woodend and Rangiora, when the crew spotted a red drone at their altitude passing close by.
Sep 22nd 2015
A British Airways Boeing 777-200, registration G-YMMF performing flight BA-273 from London Heathrow,EN (UK) to San Diego,CA (USA), was climbing through 2000 feet out of London Heathrow's runway 27R when the captain caught glimpse of a drone for about 1 to 2 seconds passing the aircraft at the same altitude within a wing span (25 meters) to the right of the aircraft.
Sep 19th 2015
A Finnair Embraer ERJ-190, registration OH-LKP performing flight AY-855 from Helsinki (Finland) to Hamburg (Germany) with 80 passengers and 4 crew, was on final approach to Hamburg's runway 23 descending through about 800 feet AGL when the crew reported passing a drone at same height and about 100 feet horizontally from their position. The aircraft continued for a safe landing.
Sep 13th 2015
A BA Cityflyer Embraer ERJ-170, registration G-LCYD performing flight BA-2284 from Geneva (Switzerland) to London City,EN (UK) with 76 people on board, was on approach to London's City Airport descending through 2000 feet when the crew was advised of a helicopter ahead below them, which soon triggered a TCAS traffic advisory. While looking out for the conflicting traffic and acquiring visual contact the crew also sighted an object believed to be a balloon about half a mile ahead. The object passed slightly below the left hand side of the aircraft and, as it came nearer, was identified as a silver drone with a balloon like body and 4 rotors on each of its corners (quadrocopter).
Jul 31st 2015
A Delta Airlines McDonnell Douglas MD-88, registration N907DL performing flight DL-407 from Orlando,FL to New York JFK,NY (USA) with 154 passengers and 5 crew, was on a VOR approach to runway 13L when the crew reported they had an encounter with a drone just to the southwest of "that abandoned airfield" (referring to Barren Island), the drone was flying about 100 feet below them at their right wing. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 13L about 2-3 minutes later.
Jul 20th 2015
A Lufthansa Embraer ERJ-195, registration D-AEBD performing flight LH-1614 from Munich (Germany) to Warsaw (Poland) with 108 passengers and 5 crew, was on final approach to Warsaw's runway 33 descending through 2500 feet at ILS DME 6.5nm when the crew reported in quite aggravated/shocked tone that they had just had a near collision with a drone, definitely a drone, at DME 6.5nm at 2500 feet, the drone passed in about 100 meters distance, th
While I'm sure they exist... all the ones that I've ever seen wouldn't have the range to fly above even the minimum "navigable airspace" altitude except in areas very close to an airport.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
" estimated the drone passed about 5 meters/15 feet underneath their left hand wing."
I call BS! Jetblast would be much too strong for a small UAV to come anywhere close to 5 meters behind a jet.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I work directly with commercial and military pilots. Drones scare the shit out of them. Most of these guys have advanced degrees in an assortment of engineering areas.
A goose or a drone hitting the fuselage is not much of an issue for a big slow moving jet, but as we know, ingesting geese can bring a jet down. As well, a smaller, faster moving jet will experience much higher structural damage. I have myself seen, as an Air Force fire fighter, fighters come back with huge parts of their leading edge wing missing, and taking the cable because of hydrolic systems loss. On one occasion, many years ago, we lost a jet due to ingestion, though the pilot "punched out".
Drones *are* a serious issue to aviators.
A bigger question might be why to morons fly drones in the approach path of airports?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Birds aren't made of metal that are going to hit a window or airframe at 500+mph. Then there's the speed of a metal fragment going through the engine and either hitting the engine (causing the engine to rupture) or go through the wing/body.
Organic material is much much softer than drone material.
Forget about the liklihood of damage, look at the difference in behaviour.
Birds don't fly high, most of the time. They stay near food, near home, and near safety. Drones go as high as possible for the best vantage point.
Birds would, on their own, attempt to stay away from large noisy planes. Drones won't.
They are not comparable at all.
I assume that 187 million drones will result in one catastrophic air disaster a year, right? This study is mostly worthless, although they correctly identify some of it's weaknesses. I'm a pilot. I've hit a lot of birds over the years, probably at least a dozen, all resulting in exactly zero damage, including ones down the motor. Jet engines are pretty resilient and eat birds smaller than ducks up pretty well. Hard plastic, metal and batteries, not so much. The study also does not (and admits) that they don't really look at flight paths. Commercial airliners are going to encounter consumer grade drones during takeoff or landing, which happens to usually be near large population centers, which is where lots of people live, which is where the drones are.
Pretty obvious why drones are actually being banned/controlled.
Has nothing to do with the danger to average persons, and everything to do with danger to the elite who can be surreptitiously tracked or killed by civilian drones with little defense against them.
That's what all this legislation is actually about. The rest is just pretext to justify it because they can't come out and state the actual reason.
I'm an r/c pilot. I'm not interested in flying automated drones. It's rare but collision between RC and full sized "real" aircraft is not just a theoretical possibility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoZD9pczEVs
I'm all for SENSIBLE rules, not banning or heavily restricting unmanned amateur and commercial aircraft.
Heck Geese can go higher than many commercial aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_by_flight_heights
Sorry but you've just lost all credibility. Someone that knows this little about flight shouldn't have a say.
" the research doesn't include the possibility of someone maliciously trying to hit an aircraft."
Herein lies the crux of the issue.
People generally are willing to accept act of "god" type incidents (bird strike, bad weather etc.) at levels of risk much higher than act of man type incidents (acts of terrorism etc.).
Firstly, they don't fly near airports because the software doesn't let them.
If you consider the reasons for flight:
1) transport jets, these are way above drone airspace and so not a problem. Airports are tackled by exclusion zones in the software around the airport.
2) Aerial photography, helicopters and planes used to take pictures. These should be banned now, nobody should be flying a helicopter when a drone taking the photographs would be a lot safer.
3) Fun, hobby flyers. Again they should get their kicks using a drone, their plane is far more of a danger to people below than a drone, so if there is any risk associated with collisions, then the leisure airplane should be the thing that is banned.
We don't allow horse and carriages on the freeways these days, its time to move forwards, ban the big dangerous leisure aircraft and all play with drones instead.
Drones have a tiny payload. Basically they're just enough to carry the battery.
But you obviously want to fantasize excuses to ban drones, do you think if you made "rules" that your terrorist drone would obey them?
How about some sort of frigging laser? They might be armed with weapons on mass destruction, or cyber something or other... oh won't somebody think of the children!
Birds have very advanced collision avoidance systems and path planning. Aside from quick reflex.
Drones on the other hand barely have quick reflex and nothing of the above.
GA, Hangglider, and drone pilot here. Even if it's not currently an issue, it will be an issue sooner rather than later. There's lots of commercial interest that could ramp up volume quickly. On the hobby side, there are many people flying drones that don't have understanding of airspace or existing rules, and with forms of FPV commonly used, it's more tempting than ever to fly them farther and higher than one would have flown model aircraft previously.
It may be that no significant regulations are needed for the smallest drones. However for larger drones that could really cause damage, some basic education should be needed, and in the case of drones that will one day be allowed to fly autonomously, outside of line of sight, some kind of avoidance system will need to be on-board.
Another complication with quadracopters is that if anything fails they turn into falling bricks, there's no redundancy, recovery, or safe way to land them. For safe autonomous operation, some kind of safety system will also need to be present (probably a parachute, air cushion, or something).
Most Birds don't have lithium batteries, which are likely to combust if they become embedded in the aircraft
They weigh the same as an apple, but not many people die from having apples thrown at them
http://www.airliners.net/aviat...
Just wait until people start kitting out their drones with high powered lasers (so they can be seen from the ground), and having a laser light show from a few drones flying in formation at night. I'm sure the aviation authorities would love that.
Ask me about repetitive DNA
I work directly with commercial and military pilots. Drones scare the shit out of them. Most of these guys have advanced degrees in an assortment of engineering areas.
Perhaps your pilot friends are geniuses, but there are plenty of not-so-genius pilots around:
Pilots are generally just regular people who are trained to fly planes. If anything the best ones I have met are the ones that are scared shitless of any new threat, regardless of how small that threat might actually be. It is this sort of pedantic attention to detail that makes them better pilots. Asking these types of pilots if drones are a big threat is like asking CEOs if they deserve more money.
If one drone means one accident in 187 million years of continuous operation what happens when we have 187 million drones out there up in the air at any given time? It's like 640k. People will perceive a need for more leading to hundreds of millions of drones some of which will be operating at any given time. Somehow one accident a year does not sound appetizing to me even if that's a world wide accident rate.
{^_^}
Look at the credentials of the researchers. Neither is an engineer. They are economics and polisci guys. How can anyone take this paper seriously?
" In addition, the research doesn't include the possibility of someone maliciously trying to hit an aircraft."
Why are we continuously discussing rules and regulations that will have zero impact on a malicious actor. If it's available to the general population but "regulated" only those bent on malicious actions will break those rules.
I'm all for reasonable rules; "don't fly your drones around an airport; don't discharge a firearm within city limits; drive on the proper side of the road; ..."
Will any of those rules stop someone from attempting to down an aircraft using a drone? Someone attempting to plow through a crowd using their car?
It would seem the things that give us the most freedom, aka liberty, are those things that are most regulated. A drone gives us a huge amount of freedom to do so many different things, including observe authority. It would seem those making the rules have a conflict of interest here...
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
Minimal *accidental* threat.
Because the pilot union wants to be important and insist that they get to tell everyone what goes up in the air.
This is no more than dick-measuring.
Once in 187 million man years. When there are 100 million drones? Everyone has a drone to go get milk or scout ahead while driving or hover over the house at night. Then you get one every 2 years or so. That is looking at a 2k drone, what about a 5 kilo one that can carry the milk? Drone parts are HARDER than bird parts. Ingesting an engine could be harder on the jet than bones.
I am in favor of fewer rules but worse punishment when they are broken.
Let me have a drone to watch over my house, but jail the idiot that wants to video the airport.
There are people who believe the government shouldn't regulate anything.
There are those people who fly aircraft, and don't want to be taken down by more crap in the air.
The study says a drone operating continuously for 187 million years. That is just absurd, they wear out way before then. A quicker way to get to the injury is to launch 187 million drones, then you should get an accident every year! Even at the 187 million year statistic, you never know if the year will this year or next, or the 187 millionth.
You read stories about once a month about people getting injured by quad copters at ski hills, marathons, and out in the park. They can be hard to fly, and are subject to all kinds of disturbances (IE weather). They crash all the time in racing.
Quad copters are not the most efficient devices out there, and their controls aren't 100% reliable. Sometimes they will do something unexpected and undesirable.
I've always been skeptical of pilot reports of Drones in the pattern.
When you are in the pattern or on approach, you are crazy busy. Check lists, settings, instruments, etc. Also, your typical airliner, on approach or in the pattern, is doing 150-200 mph. Given the small windows, the speed, and their already hectic routine, it seems unlikely that anyone could spot a less than 1 meter in diameter drone (Phantom size).
Sure, you may have some asshat with a 2-3 meter monstrosity they built up there, but that is illegal already. In fact, flying just an RC plane around an airport is illegal.
This is all an example of over reaction and over reach on the part of the feds.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
A buddy of mine uses a drone to tape his football team practices to better see the plays and I have a few friends in the real estate market that use drones for beautiful property photos. The drones were grounded during football games because of the risk to the crowd during the game? What? Worried about a light weight drone bumping into a crowd but not about a drone crashing into a plane. "Threat" is a scary word... minimal is nice but when I am in a plane flying across the country i would prefer zero threat to minimal.
Did he really just say that? http://ppseo.info
Drones don't kill people. People kill people.
More kids die in swimming pools everyday than hit by drones.
The Second Amend... wait.
OH, drones?! I was thinking of something else....
Aircraft are optimized for performance. When the Wright Brothers first flew, it was a marvel that they had an engine light enough yet with enough power to make a heavier-than-air vehicle practical. We've obviously come a very long way since then with modern powerplants providing an amazing amount of performance that makes things like airliners possible, and therefore makes it SEEM like small changes in performance are not important, but that's a bit deceptive. The combination of things like airline economics, government regulations, and other considerations mean that even slight reductions in engine performance have a big impact on the design of all mass-produced aircraft. Any slight loss of fuel efficiency on an airliner, for example, is a penalty paid on all the miles the plane will fly over its service life and the airline operators must take that into account.
This leads to the fluid mechanics issues; For many purposes, gasses and fluids behave the same way, Normal jet engines expect to gobble-up "free-stream" air (think of water smoothly flowing down the middle of a wide tranquil river. If you put a mesh or grid in front of the engine (particularly one strong enough to protect against a bird or a drone hitting with a relative velocity of 350mph) you introduce turbulence like you would see if you injected a gridded fence across the afore-mentioned tranquil river. The airflow into the engine would become very complex, with the induced complexity varying with altitude, airspeed, angle-of-attack, etc all of which MIGHT be resolvable but all of which is added complexity and potential hazard. This plays into the natural bias of engineers to say, well solve that problem another, simpler way: leave the excess junk off all the planes and just get the drones out of the way.
You do not need to take my word for it on the matter of a grid inducing turbulence and drag (and even shock waves). Military ordnance dropped from high-speed aircraft are sometimes stabilized with "grid fins" which are paddle-shaped meshes placed perpendicular to the airflow and steered in place of the sort of fins most people think of. Grid fins are light, yet work particularly well at high speeds because each vane generates shockwaves that meet the shockwaves of the other vanes and the seemingly-mostly-air surface becomes a nearly aerodynamically solid wall - they are a nifty drag-inducing control surface in certain applications (and as engine protection like you propose, would be drag-inducing vortex generators on the engine inlets). You can see this easily by looking at Elon Musk's recent Falcon 9 rocket flights - he has added grid fins near the top of the first stage to use for steering as the stage descends for landing.
Side note: There ARE some Russian combat aircraft with retractable engine inlet screens to help prevent FOD injestion on the ground on unprepared airfields, but that adds weight and complexity and they are not used in normal flight.
It's the same argument.
A completely neutral technology exists which can be used for great good, great evil, or simple recreation; it has no mind of its own, no morality of its own, and takes no action on its own (even an AI-equipped drone is still running a program). The vast majority of the population will either use it for good, for recreation, or not use it at all. A sliver of the population will use it for evil. A portion of the political slice of the population will try to use it to gain political support by trying to scare the non-using population that they are in danger by the "nuts & fanatics & criminals" who "irrationally cling" to it and the "evil, corrupt" industries involved in it.
Stupid people will tend to enable the luddites and demagogues, and beg to be saved from this spooky dangerous tech.
Choose your side, but please be consistent.
Side with the people who want to grab guns, ground drones, ban encryption, ban video games, ban texting, burn books, etc or side with liberty and personal responsibility.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” - Benjamin Franklin
The FAA already got their $5 out of me.