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.
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.
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.
The biggest danger of a drone is the loose nut behind the controller.
A while back, RC helicopters were expensive and difficult to fly. Only serious folks did it.
Now, they are so cheap and easy to fly, that folks with too much money, and too little common sense can make a public nuisance of themselves.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
... drones not so much.
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.
You know the fun thing about what you just shared?
Not a single drone strike. NOT ONE.
We wet ourselves just because we SEE a drone. Yet there are over 10,000 bird strikes every frakking year. There are more bird strikes in a typical HOUR than ALL DRONE-AIRCRAFT COLLISIONS EVER.
http://www.faa.gov/airports/ai...
SorryNotSorry for the all-caps, but this point needs to be driven home.
Given there are more bird strikes in a typical HOUR than have ever occurred for drones, perhaps we should force people to register birds with the FAA. After all, you could theoretically train birds to attack aircraft, and you could even have the bird carry harmful chemicals or explosives. After all, the Allies tested this device during WWII: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Except we don't require registering your bird with the FAA because that'd be absurd. Have we become THIS dumb?
I saw a turtle once. He was coming right for me. I had to take evasive action.
...put chemicals or explosives in one.
Something like a battery. Like all drones already carry.
Depending on size and chemistry, a hot jet engine isn't going to a good place for it to get into.
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.
Youtuber promoting his channel.
There are no decapitations in the linked video.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
This logic you use sounds dangerous. What happens if it gets sucked into a jet engine?
The *moment* someone finally nuts up at a testing center and throws a Phantom 3 into a commercial jetliner engine, and it does *any* noticeable damage, then we can talk about how easily they will bring down a plane. At this point, with *NO* testing, these assertions come directly from the anal region. Sensible rules, away from approach paths of airports, and limited to 500 ft outside of those areas, unless licensed to do so. If you can't manage to lift your plane above 500 feet away from the airport, you have problems that 'drones' have no effect over. Christ, planes buzz the 400' tower attached to my work - and the damn thing is painted red and white and blinks, FFS.
There seems to be a thriving industry in scaring the feces out of people (for profit, I assume). Drones are what we are supposed to worry about in the daytime, after worrying about ISIS coming after us in our beds at night.
" 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.).
That's 187 million drone years to cause one (1) air to air injury. Taking the average mortality rate of being a human on planet earth of ~12/1000 you could expect 2 1/4 million of your drone pilots to die in the course of one year while only having a 50% probability of causing 1 commercial aircraft injury/fatality.
So that puts the expected score for the Deadly Drones of 0.5 to 2.25 million against.
That group of bovine standing over there appears quite portentous. That's right it's an ominous cow herd.
The biggest danger of a drone is the loose nut behind the controller.
A while back, RC helicopters were expensive and difficult to fly. Only serious folks did it.
Now, they are so cheap and easy to fly, that folks with too much money, and too little common sense can make a public nuisance of themselves.
That's always the problem. Idiots who refuse to follow reasonable rules designed to keep things safe wind up ruining it for everyone as regulations get written to deal with the random idiots and impact the reasonable hobbyists who want to enjoy their hobby without endangering others.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Oh really, try telling Chester Sullenberg about that.
Most Birds don't have lithium batteries, which are likely to combust if they become embedded in the aircraft
It's enforcement that's the issue, not so much regulations. If drones are seen as a big potential threat to airplanes, then more measures would be taken to prevent encounters.
Table-ized A.I.
I don't think someone that wants to blow up a jet engine with a drone carrying a bomb is going to care that he's entering restricted airspace.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
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.
{^_^}
Wait. There could be a whole FLOCK of logic out there? Ban it before it kills someone! ;-)
The *moment* someone finally nuts up at a testing center and throws a Phantom 3 into a commercial jetliner engine, and it does *any* noticeable damage, then we can talk about how easily they will bring down a plane. At this point, with *NO* testing, these assertions come directly from the anal region.
Sensible rules, away from approach paths of airports, and limited to 500 ft outside of those areas, unless licensed to do so. If you can't manage to lift your plane above 500 feet away from the airport, you have problems that 'drones' have no effect over. Christ, planes buzz the 400' tower attached to my work - and the damn thing is painted red and white and blinks, FFS.
Actually, it's the other way round. The way we have brought airplanes from deathtraps to very-very-safe is by testing and estimating risks as much as possible, and avoiding unknown risks whenever possible. You don't tell people "sure, you can do a low level barrel roll with this 747, nobody ever crashed a 747 doing barrel rolls". You tell people "Sorry we have not designed and tested the 747 for low level barrel rolls, so you can't do those with the plane". Jet engines are typically certified for ingestion of birds, water and ice. Not 1.2 kg of metal and plastic. So until we have thrown enough drones into jet engines that we are reasonably certain what drones will and what will not bring down an airliner there are good reasons to be very restrictive.
Yeah! Because we know that regulation stops stupidity!!!
" 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.
You're not actually an engineer, are you? If so, is the "cheap" intentionally significant? 'Cause that's not how engineering and safety works. "Well, we've never done it so sure, go ahead and risk it until we have the data." That's not an acceptable answer where lives are on the line.
That said, the regulations are retarded. Seemingly, they're just as retarded as the responses to them.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I never said they can't. I said they don't. If you look outside your window today, for the whole day, how many planes will you see up high? If you're anywhere near a city, you'll see between 10 and 1'000. How many geese will you see at a similar altitude? I'll bet on zero.
Like I said, it's about behaviour, not about capability.
Even when the geese migrate here, they do so at an altitude of 100 feet.
Words have meaning. You can't just switch them around as you did.
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.
#2 - Drones have significantly lower weight capacity and range. If you need high-quality or non-visible spectrum video, they won't work. If you need multiple angles or manual adjustment of the camera to get the right image, they won't work. Be real about the limitations.
#3 - Amateur pilots have a ton of training and safety regulations to deal with. Drone operators basically have nothing. The only thing keeping drones safe is the fact they weigh less than a small book. If and when we develop larger drones, the risk will increase in line with their weight and velocity.
And, actually, we do allow horses and carriages on the roads. In most states, they are required to have reflective badges indicating they are slow-moving vehicles---just like farm and construction vehicles. There are several states where seeing Amish buggies on the road is not a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
There is potential problem with logic here. Why didn't they put explosives _before_ the rules were introduced. Why would they start doing it only _after_? Second thing is that trying to hit a flying aircraft with drone will take not hours, it'll take years and generations.
Actually, your logic has more potential flaws. First, all ideas may or may not need to come out at the same time an invention appears. Besides, some people could have thought about the idea already but do not want to mention or talk about (afraid of Striensand effect), but then later on some wackos finally have a thought about it (and do it).
Second, why are you thinking that a wacko would target only a flying aircraft with drone? It doesn't make sense at all. However, a dangerous application can easily be used to ground targets (non-moving). It does not need years or generations to develop that.
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
In the incident from the video the fault lies with the manned plane, who did a low altitude flyby on an in-use runway without permission. Even though it crashed into a very large R/C craft, it didn't cause enough damage to take down the manned plane and nobody was injured or killed. Just because collisions CAN happen, doesn't mean that they're automatically catastrophic and also doesn't mean that the R/C pilot is always at fault. There are already regulations and procedures in place to prevent such incidents as long as pilots follow them.
Enigma
Yeah! Because we know that regulation stops stupidity!!!
No, but at least you can put the stupid out of their misery.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Do you actually want hundreds of people to die before acknowledging a problem?
Air travel is incredibly safe, and one big reason is that it's very cautious. I'd rather start with restrictions on drones where aircraft go and loosen them as needed than tighten regulations a little every time an airliner goes down.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Are you the same coward from before? Or a different one? Can't have a discussion without knowing to how many persons I'm speaking.
If you aren't willing to put your name to your opinion, then your opinion has zero value. That's consistent with your not knowing what a registration achieves.
The FAA already got their $5 out of me.
Thanks for the distortion of what I said. The people who are proclaiming loudly that a hobby drone can bring down a plane are fabricating 'evidence'. Telling people 'drones can be a hazard' is accurate and prudent caution. HOWEVER, the Phantom series is 3+ years old now (my Phantom V2+ is almost 2 years old now) and yet no one has bothered to actually *test* one. I did some checking a few months ago at FAA bird strike data and found the bird vs plane tables showed it took a bird of almost 8-10 pounds to show any appreciable chance of aircraft damage. The DJI Phantom V2+ that I have is 2.2 pounds. Birds of *twice* that size showed, according to FAA data, to have a chance to do damage to aircraft of 0>10% when encountered. Polystyrene plastic and aluminum and a LiPo battery (that doesn't EXPLODE btw, but burn when shorted) is not the equivalent to Depleted Uranium slugs. I'm all for proper rules and separation of real planes and models. But I won't stand still for manufactured bullshyt, and the assertion that it seems like every single goddamn 'pilot' makes that a toy drone *will* take down a plane is false until *some* kind of testing is done.
Yes, now the RC world is experiencing its own September that never ended and as usual it's screwing over those that cut their teeth "the old way."
Sigh.
Funny - same thing happened to the IT world!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.