Drone vs. aircraft wing testing

[Mad Mavic]

"Aviation pioneer Cal Rodgers was the first person to die from a bird strike in 1912 "

"According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), between 1990 and 2013, there were 25 human fatalities attributed to wildlife strikes with US civil aircraft. In the same period there were 279 recorded injuries. "


Gavin Haines,
5 SEPTEMBER 2017
How common are bird strikes – and could they bring down a passenger jet?

 

[FoxhallGH]

Wow - interesting thread! The example of the Mooney M20 wing is good, because it's a 'fast' light aircraft, built back in the day when designers built strong and had big engines ... A lot of the 2 and 4 seat light and trainer aircraft are admittedly, not quite as fast, but also built lighter and are more fragile (have a look at all the 'No Step' signs on surfaces!). Bottom line is that maybe the impact speed will be slower with many light a/c out there - but the damage could be just as bad. I don't fly any more myself, but - many moons ago - as a young student pilot, having just gone solo - if I'd been involved in a bird OR drone strike doing circuits at my local airfield, I don't know how that might have ended up.
Have a look at this ...

... A Mavic or Phantom battery could have taken that guy's head off ...
It's irresponsible to just proceed on the assumption that 'it might not happen' or 'statistically' it's unlikely to ... The nature of statistics is that it WILL happen - just once in a whole lot of times! I wouldn't wish that one time on anybody!!! [Statistics says - Give enough chimp's enough typewriters, and one of them will come up with a plan for Brexit! (or maybe not!!!).]
I'm also concerned that while there's been a lot of reference to the Mooney wing, we've had a reported drone strike on a [Blackhawk] Helicopter, and all seen the [Jetranger] near-miss near Florida ... While a Blackhawk is designed to fly with a rotor blade damaged or even missing, something like a Bell Jetranger with just 2 rotors won't. Rotory-wing a/c are probably more likely to come into contact with a Drone than fixed-wing, due to their low-level operations. Debating the validity of this test just doesn't help Mavic Pilots one little bit for as long as there are going to be people flying their drones near airports and at altitude on flight-paths [and then proudly displaying them on YouTube!]. When you train as a private or recreational pilot, you train to minimise risk ... you do the same when you learn to drive a car ... As responsible Mavic Pilots, we need to fly to minimise risk to both ourselves and the people around us - at all times and at all altitudes!

 

[Mad Mavic]

Wow - interesting thread! The example of the Mooney M20 wing is good, because it's a 'fast' light aircraft, built back in the day when designers built strong and had big engines ... A lot of the 2 and 4 seat light and trainer aircraft are admittedly, not quite as fast, but also built lighter and are more fragile (have a look at all the 'No Step' signs on surfaces!). Bottom line is that maybe the impact speed will be slower with many light a/c out there - but the damage could be just as bad. I don't fly any more myself, but - many moons ago - as a young student pilot, having just gone solo - if I'd been involved in a bird OR drone strike doing circuits at my local airfield, I don't know how that might have ended up.
Have a look at this ...

... A Mavic or Phantom battery could have taken that guy's head off ...
It's irresponsible to just proceed on the assumption that 'it might not happen' or 'statistically' it's unlikely to ... The nature of statistics is that it WILL happen - just once in a whole lot of times! I wouldn't wish that one time on anybody!!! [Statistics says - Give enough chimp's enough typewriters, and one of them will come up with a plan for Brexit! (or maybe not!!!).]
I'm also concerned that while there's been a lot of reference to the Mooney wing, we've had a reported drone strike on a [Blackhawk] Helicopter, and all seen the [Jetranger] near-miss near Florida ... While a Blackhawk is designed to fly with a rotor blade damaged or even missing, something like a Bell Jetranger with just 2 rotors won't. Rotory-wing a/c are probably more likely to come into contact with a Drone than fixed-wing, due to their low-level operations. Debating the validity of this test just doesn't help Mavic Pilots one little bit for as long as there are going to be people flying their drones near airports and at altitude on flight-paths [and then proudly displaying them on YouTube!]. When you train as a private or recreational pilot, you train to minimise risk ... you do the same when you learn to drive a car ... As responsible Mavic Pilots, we need to fly to minimise risk to both ourselves and the people around us - at all times and at all altitudes!

At first glance at your post, I thought to my self, (this guy is probably a pilot). It revealing just how fast incidents can occur. **** good composure by the POC... obviously not his first rodeo. And yes, the mass of a hard shelled Mavic battery compared to a fluffy feathered, hollow boned bird, no comparison.

I wonder if we could get Brendan Shulman and Tony Gwynn Jr. together for a little test to validate Brendan's argument. Position the two at 60 feet 6 inches apart and have Shulman choose which item he would prefer Tony throw at him, battery or bird...then throw the battery LMBO. Oh, and when Shulman staggers to his feet, give him the bird! now that funny right there LOL

 

[pftarch]

That's pure sophistry. The published it, which you asserted that they did not. Just because someone else linked to an abbreviated video doesn't change it at all.

It was hardly an attempt to deceive anyone on my part. First I clicked on the video in the original post, no bird strike. Then I clicked the link to the article in the original post, there was talk of the bird strike but no video of it. Then I I tried googling URDI bird strike and other combinations to no avail, followed by searching the URDI site (again to no avail) in hopes of finding the bird strike video (again to no avail). I made a legitimate effort to find it without success.

Your posting of that video was the first time that I had seen it, and believe me I looked. (Thank you for posting it.)

The fact is that they did NOT include it in their "Risk in the Sky" article that was indicated in the OP and was referenced by DJI.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

Who wants Giblets? HA...

 

[sar104]

It was hardly an attempt to deceive anyone on my part. First I clicked on the video in the original post, no bird strike. Then I clicked the link to the article in the original post, there was talk of the bird strike but no video of it. Then I I tried googling URDI bird strike and other combinations to no avail, followed by searching the URDI site (again to no avail) in hopes of finding the bird strike video (again to no avail). I made a legitimate effort to find it without success.

Your posting of that video was the first time that I had seen it, and believe me I looked. (Thank you for posting it.)

The fact is that they did NOT include it in their "Risk in the Sky" article that was indicated in the OP and was referenced by DJI.

Fair enough - it's possible that links were changed or deleted. When this was first released I only saw the full video, not the abbreviated version. Either way - my point is that they appeared to be completely up front about the testing and methodology and, in my opinion as a physicist, it was a well-executed scoping study.

 

[ac0j]

At first glance at your post, I thought to my self, (this guy is probably a pilot). It revealing just how fast incidents can occur. **** good composure by the POC... obviously not his first rodeo. And yes, the mass of a hard shelled Mavic battery compared to a fluffy feathered, hollow boned bird, no comparison.

I wonder if we could get Brendan Shulman and Tony Gwynn Jr. together for a little test to validate Brendan's argument. Position the two at 60 feet 6 inches apart and have Shulman choose which item he would prefer Tony throw at him, battery or bird...then throw the battery LMBO. Oh, and when Shulman staggers to his feet, give him the bird! now that funny right there LOL

NO WAY that a less than 2 pound Mavic would be worse worse than a 12 to 15 pound goose. That is just dumb.

 

[ac0j]

No - they showed that in that scenario the drone caused significantly worse structural damage than the bird simulant.

Who has fired drones at windscreens and planes many times? I know of precisely one such test, and it involved a commercial airliner, not a GA aircraft. Citations please.

As much as I would love to do the research for you, I respectfully decline.
Mythbusters did it, They even put a motor and prop on a stick and carefully got it to cut a chicken before stalling the motor from full power. I have seen at least 4 other videos of similar tests with drone shooting cannons. But it wont serve your point well. Because NONE have proven worse than a bird strike. If you want to call a significant smaller hole in the surface of the wing and an unsubscribed amount of spar damage (may have just been a scratch) "Significantly worse damage" then that is your right.
But I feel if the result of the test was in fact "significantly worse structural damage than a gel bird of similar size" THAT should be a big part of the controversial video released. But, The common default edit of the video does NOT show the bird strike, and does NOT show spar damage and is just a witch hunt to get funding for more tests. As that proof would have been a far more compelling video about the danger of drones in airspace.

 

[sar104]

As much as I would love to do the research for you, I respectfully decline.
Mythbusters did it, They even put a motor and prop on a stick and carefully got it to cut a chicken before stalling the motor from full power. I have seen at least 4 other videos of similar tests with drone shooting cannons. But it wont serve your point well. Because NONE have proven worse than a bird strike. If you want to call a significant smaller hole in the surface of the wing and an unsubscribed amount of spar damage (may have just been a scratch) "Significantly worse damage" then that is your right.
But I feel if the result of the test was in fact "significantly worse structural damage than a gel bird of similar size" THAT should be a big part of the controversial video released. But, The common default edit of the video does NOT show the bird strike, and does NOT show spar damage and is just a witch hunt to get funding for more tests. As that proof would have been a far more compelling video about the danger of drones in airspace.

Did you not actually watch the video? Or have you just decided that you know more about impact testing than the Dayton Impact Physics group?

 

[ac0j]

Did you not actually watch the video? Or have you just decided that you know more about impact testing than the Dayton Impact Physics group?

I just watched the version you posted, AND no, they did not show the internal damage. (described as dents and bends, but not described as significant) When did I say I knew more? I know what I see.

To answer your previous request for citations, within your version of the video, the speaker clearly states "there has been several tests using batteries , motors and components....." so there is a citation for you.
I also noticed that even though the cannon will hit where ever they aim it. They carefully marked an area on the wing at the softest possible place for an impact, So, I still say they have proved that "worst case scenario" is a bird strike that would not severely compromise flight. Why dont they publish the ODDS of it happening?
My ONLY point is, the "PAID Researchers" will continue to shoot drones at aircraft until they get a catastrophic result. We already know that any item of size impacting certain budget windscreens will cause catastrophic damage so there is no need to prove that.
Also, I find it interesting that since this video was released, when you google anything about drones and aircraft, this video shows up all over the place. So it has been tagged in every possible way to gain views, even though it doesnt really PROVE anything we didnt already expect.

 

[sar104]

I just watched the version you posted, AND no, they did not show the internal damage. (described as dents and bends, but not described as significant) When did I say I knew more? I know what I see.

To answer your previous request for citations, within your version of the video, the speaker clearly states "there has been several tests using batteries , motors and components....." so there is a citation for you.
I also noticed that even though the cannon will hit where ever they aim it. They carefully marked an area on the wing at the softest possible place for an impact, So, I still say they have proved that "worst case scenario" is a bird strike that would not severely compromise flight. Why dont they publish the ODDS of it happening?
My ONLY point is, the "PAID Researchers" will continue to shoot drones at aircraft until they get a catastrophic result. We already know that any item of size impacting certain budget windscreens will cause catastrophic damage so there is no need to prove that.
Also, I find it interesting that since this video was released, when you google anything about drones and aircraft, this video shows up all over the place. So it has been tagged in every possible way to gain views, even though it doesnt really PROVE anything we didnt already expect.

Agreed - they described the internal damage. So you are not saying that you know more than them - you are saying that you don't believe their description? And that's the only possible way to conclude from these tests that a bird strike that will not compromise flight is the worst outcome, when the tests show that a drone impact causes more structural damage.

And, once again, even thought they didn't describe the impact aim point as softer or weaker (that's your assertion) they should be aiming at the weakest point because they are trying to determine worst case outcome. By your rationale they should have aimed to miss the wing entirely since that's a higher probability event.

Which brings us back to why they didn't publish the probability - they are not studying probability. They are an impact dynamics research group, with the appropriate expertise to study impacts, not a statistical risk assessment group. What about that is so, so hard for you to understand?


I don't think you understand what a citation is - it's a specific reference to previous work.

 

[ac0j]

Agreed - they described the internal damage. So you are not saying that you know more than them - you are saying that you don't believe their description? And that's the only possible way to conclude from these tests that a bird strike that will not compromise flight is the worst outcome, when the tests show that a drone impact causes more structural damage.

And, once again, even thought they didn't describe the impact aim point as softer or weaker (that's your assertion) they should be aiming at the weakest point because they are trying to determine worst case outcome. By your rationale they should have aimed to miss the wing entirely since that's a higher probability event.

Which brings us back to why they didn't publish the probability - they are not studying probability. They are an impact dynamics research group, with the appropriate expertise to study impacts, not a statistical risk assessment group. What about that is so, so hard for you to understand?


I don't think you understand what a citation is - it's a specific reference to previous work.

There is a clear conclusion from the test. 'It would NOT have had a significant impact on the flight.'
That is what I am REPEATING from the tester.
You can imagine as many hypothetical outcomes as you want. My only point is that No one has proved a drone will down an aircraft, or that more aircraft pilots will die from drone hits than their own mistakes.
I never hear people in the wild using words like you use. So the average intellect finds your overuse of vocabulary a little cryptic at times. I have no interest on looking up every $10 word that is a substitute for more common that every one understands. I assumed it meant "proof" so since you take the speakers words in the video as gospel, I figured since HE said there has been several tests previous was proof enough. And NO, I will NEVER play Scrabble with you!
I do value your input!

 

[JDawg]

Boy, this thread has wings, er legs...

 

[sar104]

There is a clear conclusion from the test. 'It would NOT have had a significant impact on the flight.'
That is what I am REPEATING from the tester.
You can imagine as many hypothetical outcomes as you want. My only point is that No one has proved a drone will down an aircraft, or that more aircraft pilots will die from drone hits than their own mistakes.
I never hear people in the wild using words like you use. So the average intellect finds your overuse of vocabulary a little cryptic at times. I have no interest on looking up every $10 word that is a substitute for more common that every one understands. I assumed it meant "proof" so since you take the speakers words in the video as gospel, I figured since HE said there has been several tests previous was proof enough. And NO, I will NEVER play Scrabble with you!
I do value your input!

No - it was stated that they "believed that the aircraft would have survived the impact", not that it would not have had a significant impact on the flight. It would certainly require an immediate emergency landing and a replacement wing, even if it did stay airborne.

The intent of these tests is not to prove or disprove that a drone might take down an aircraft. In the GA world it obviously can, as can birds. The purpose, as was clearly stated in the video, is to quantify the damage that can occur in various scenarios. That's necessary, firstly to understand the scope of the problem, secondly, when combined with probability of collision, to quantify the risk, and thirdly to understand what might be done to mitigate the risk.

I can't help it if you have too limited a vocabulary to understand a technical subject - technical terms have specific meanings, which is why they are used. They are not just fancy versions of commonplace words designed to confuse you. If you want clarification on what any of them mean I'm always willing to explain them.

 

[ac0j]

No - it was stated that they "believed that the aircraft would have survived the impact", not that it would not have had a significant impact on the flight. It would certainly require an immediate emergency landing and a replacement wing, even if it did stay airborne.

The intent of these tests is not to prove or disprove that a drone might take down an aircraft. In the GA world it obviously can, as can birds. The purpose, as was clearly stated in the video, is to quantify the damage that can occur in various scenarios. That's necessary, firstly to understand the scope of the problem, secondly, when combined with probability of collision, to quantify the risk, and thirdly to understand what might be done to mitigate the risk.

I can't help it if you have too limited a vocabulary to understand a technical subject - technical terms have specific meanings, which is why they are used. They are not just fancy versions of commonplace words designed to confuse you. If you want clarification on what any of them mean I'm always willing to explain them.

I think if a person is a GA pilot, they would be more impressed with the video in question, BUT is it because of the POSSIBLE additional cost of repairs as compared to the birdstrike? Obviously hitting anything of that size is not wanted in flight, but I still maintain you have better odds of hitting the powerball than you do hitting a drone in flight. Both are little to none. BUT you can almost EXPECT to have a birdstrike eventually.
I dont have no need for a more technical vocabulary. The only time it would come in handy is reading your posts and maybe BudWalkers! The people in my everyday life would exile me! You gentlemen do what you do, and I will do what I do!

 

[sar104]

I think if a person is a GA pilot, they would be more impressed with the video in question, BUT is it because of the POSSIBLE additional cost of repairs as compared to the birdstrike? Obviously hitting anything of that size is not wanted in flight, but I still maintain you have better odds of hitting the powerball than you do hitting a drone in flight. Both are little to none. BUT you can almost EXPECT to have a birdstrike eventually.
I dont have no need for a more technical vocabulary. The only time it would come in handy is reading your posts and maybe BudWalkers! The people in my everyday life would exile me! You gentlemen do what you do, and I will do what I do!

Ask yourself how you would feel flying in an aircraft that had just suffered that damage, or perhaps in one where the drone had come through the windshield and incapacitated the pilot. Is your primary concern going to be the cost of repairs, or whether you are going to survive? Do you have enough simulator time to have a chance at landing a damaged aircraft if the pilot can't?

The probability of collision is definitely low, at least for now, but it has happened. And as the use of drones continues to increase, and their range and flight time continues to increase, the probability will rise, all other things being equal. Hopefully all other things will not be equal, and anti-collision/detection capabilities will mitigate the risk.

 

[ac0j]

I fully understand your position Sar. Make no mistake.
But I believe the whole topic is being to critical for an event that is very, very rare to say the least.
You will ALWAYS have the risk of something falling off a truck or trailer flying thru the windshield of your car and incapacitating you. That happens WAY more often than bird strikes.
Are you saying there should be similar studies and regulations about hauling cargo on public roads? It would make sense, because it is a greater risk than drones. Here is just a couple examples, there are plenty more if you look.

Birds will ALWAYS outnumber drones in flight at any given time.
Maybe the occasional GA pilot needs the government to make them feel safer about flying?
Maybe they are unwilling to except a very tiny bit more risk? These studies are not proving anything that is really not already understood or believed. There might be an additional MINOR risk to flying light aircraft. I say Live with it, or dont fly.

 

[FoxhallGH]

Airport Authorities do take the risk of bird-strike very seriously. I worked for the CAA at an airport on the coastline - and we had a big problem with seagulls. Theories were that gulls didn't like to go where there were dead gulls - so we were painting 'dead-gull' shapes on the runway thresholds, and we even had a stock item we could requisition which was a plastic moulded dead seagull! Acoustic bird-scaring cannon were installed, and at one stage, we even had a falconer come in to do regular flights to scare the gull flocks away.
My point is that the CAA were prepared to do a whole lot to minimise the risk of bird-strike to general & commercial aviation ... It's a whole lot easier to regulate against drone pilots than it is to regulate seagulls! At the moment, statistically [annually] you have a one in 5 million chance that your commercial airline flight will crash ... It doesn't help to talk about that statistic meaning that there is a huge probability that nothing will happen - but - If you as a manufacturer or pilot talked about ways to make that probability one in eight or ten million (minimising risk), then you'd have people at all levels, on your side ...

 

[ac0j]

Airport Authorities do take the risk of bird-strike very seriously. I worked for the CAA at an airport on the coastline - and we had a big problem with seagulls. Theories were that gulls didn't like to go where there were dead gulls - so we were painting 'dead-gull' shapes on the runway thresholds, and we even had a stock item we could requisition which was a plastic moulded dead seagull! Acoustic bird-scaring cannon were installed, and at one stage, we even had a falconer come in to do regular flights to scare the gull flocks away.
My point is that the CAA were prepared to do a whole lot to minimise the risk of bird-strike to general & commercial aviation ... It's a whole lot easier to regulate against drone pilots than it is to regulate seagulls! At the moment, statistically [annually] you have a one in 5 million chance that your commercial airline flight will crash ... It doesn't help to talk about that statistic meaning that there is a huge probability that nothing will happen - but - If you as a manufacturer or pilot talked about ways to make that probability one in eight or ten million (minimising risk), then you'd have people at all levels, on your side ...

It would be easier for them to control Flocks of drones near airports, if that was an issue. BUT it is not, they only want the public to believe that it is.

 

[lmel2005]

Not only birds are way more dangerous than drones, but many other objects, like aircraft parts, tire fragments, mechanics’ tools, nails, luggage parts, broken pavement and stones.

Boeing says they cost about 4 billion every year.

Fact Sheet – Foreign Object Debris (FOD)