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.
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.
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.
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.
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