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.
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.
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?
Anyone who actually uses a drone for any sort of photography (instead of "Here's how fast I can lose my $800 toy by standing on the UP button") knows the only decent pictures are taken from 200 feet. We have GoogleMaps to look at our neighborhoods with - but most of the interesting views are barely over the treetops or the power lines.
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.
" 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.
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.