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.

6 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. This study ignores the obvious . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This study ignores the obvious . . . by Robotbeat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Shouldn't the "obvious" thing be that in spite of people losing their minds over drone "near misses," no drones have been hit by aircraft, yet EVERY SINGLE DAY bird strikes occur?

      If we diverted aircraft for bird sightings like we do for drone sightings, we'd never be able to fly anywhere.

      Heck, more turtles have been hit than drones!
      http://mashable.com/2015/12/18...

    2. Re:This study ignores the obvious . . . by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While actual impacts may be zero, the real issue is the effect of a near miss on the pilot. I would not want to be on final and all of a sudden have a drone come into view. A pilot is busy enough without getting distracted by a dreone and having to make a split second decision on what to do to avoid a collision. Reasonable regulations to limit such occurrences is good, te problem is defining reasonable.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  2. they may not be a 'problem' now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  3. Drones CAN be a danger... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  4. Re:drones evolve faster than birds by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think a drone could fly into the rear of a jet engine. Lots of air moving real fast coming out of there. The front of the engine, however ...

    I would expect that there are a number of folks in the Middle East devoting some of their spare time to working out how to do that. My guess is that in a contest between a $1000 drone and a $60,000,000 jet aircraft, both lose.

    Then there's the broader problem of remotely controlled Molotov cocktails.

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey