Professional investigator concludes - "what's the fuss about?"

[FlyGuy8675309]

Have you guys seen the Vantage Robotics "Snap" drone? It's the one CNN just got permission to fly over crowds.
Preorder Snap Flying Camera from Vantage Robotics
"We borrowed a trick from F1 racecars and enabled Snap to break apart on impact. This distributes the kinetic energy of impact across more components, which lets us make everything both lighter AND more durable. We know you don’t have an F1 sized budget, so it also snaps back together in seconds using our patent pending magnetic connectors."

Would be interesting to see how this fares in aircraft collision tests.

 

[Lon Denard]

Now you are projecting. Inevitable irony.

Maybe, but that's the general sense. It's a "my opinion is greater than yours" type of world. You quote Asimov and then back peddle? If you truly believe what you say then by definition all other opinions are ignorance. If you're not willing to admit that you've routinely called my opinion "denial", or other disparaging remarks, we have nothing else to discuss.

 

[sar104]

Maybe, but that's the general sense. It's a "my opinion is greater than yours" type of world. You quote Asimov and then back peddle? If you truly believe what you say then by definition all other opinions are ignorance. If you're not willing to admit that you've routinely called my opinion "denial", or other disparaging remarks, we have nothing else to discuss.

I'm not backpedaling on anything. Your projection appears to have presented a perfect confirmation of Asimov's argument - that many people think they know best, whether or not they acutally know anything. Did you completely misunderstand the quote? Or do you not understand the difference between knowledge and opinion? The entire point of the quote is that uninformed opinion, whether it be yours, mine or anyone else's, is not remotely as valuable as actual knowledge.

As for routinely calling your opinion "denial", perhaps you could point to an example, or is it just your opinion that I've done that?

 

[Lon Denard]

I'm not backpedaling on anything. Your projection appears to have presented a perfect confirmation of Asimov's argument - that many people think they know best, whether or not they acutally know anything. Did you completely misunderstand the quote? Or do you not understand the difference between knowledge and opinion? The entire point of the quote is that uninformed opinion, whether it be yours, mine or anyone else's, is not remotely as valuable as actual knowledge.

As for routinely calling your opinion "denial", perhaps you could point to an example, or is it just your opinion that I've done that?

Baby, I'm wrong, you're right about everything. Honey, I should have listened to from the start and I can only hope that you'll somehow find it in your heart to forgive me. My darling, it's a blessing to have you in my life and I would be completely lost without you. Thank you for allowing me to the privilege of being around you.

 

[raymo]

It's more refined than these "chunk"-sized columns, but even if we concede that the risk is overall "medium", as you point out the aviation industry shouldn't ignore it. But that's not the issue. The issue is what should the rest of the world do? Should aviators and airports take steps to mitigate the risks to their aircraft (such as detection technologies, flight protocols, observers, etc.)? Absolutely. Should the rest of the world enact restrictions to lower the level of risk to the aviation industry and yet stifle another? I'm not so sure.



That's the real crux of the argument. The way the world is going is not circling the existing rules and laws against endangering aviation, but rather is zeroing in on an industry that thus far, has not shown itself to be a malignant force, and deeming it critical to mandate ever-tightening controls and restrictions on that industry without data or scientifically-based determinations/evidence demonstrating the need to curtail their behaviors. Based purely on supposition. As an aviation safety person, I'm fully ensconced in SMS (we won't elaborate on that), that dictates a proactive approach to safety, rather than a reactive approach. However, SMS is also a data-driven approach and constantly reevaluating risk management based on existing data. That's why I bristle at the speculation and worry focused on potential occurrences, rather than based on existing and definitive data in-hand.



I hope I wasn't ranting about those types of things. I tried to stick to the facts and the true risks. But, I will point out, the issue of "bringing down an aircraft" is an important one, as it delineates the difference between a societal cost (loss of life, etc) in the case where an aircraft crashes, or simply the financial costs to an airline that incurs damage due to a strike. For the former, it is our duty and imperative as a society and nation to help prevent such occurrences from happening. For the latter, it really is the duty (or motivation) of the private sector, in particular the airlines and/or the airports, to mitigate those costs/risks. If there is a belief that a drone could bring down a commercial airliner, then I would argue that it is absolutely mandatory to impose controls in order to prevent such an incident. If the belief is that it is highly unlikely or extremely improbable, then there isn't much of a social requirement to prevent such occurrences (even if there is a financial cost).



By whatever means necessary? Absolutely not. As I have mentioned, "whatever means necessary" could be easily accomplished. Ban the use of drones and jail anyone utilizing/manufacturing them. Case closed. That solves the drone strike potential pretty much in one fell swoop (with some criminal outliers possible). But that would end up killing a market estimated to be worth $100 billion in the next few years.

Let's put it this way: should we impose terminal restrictions on the laser pointer industry because of their inherent risk to aircraft? I think we can all agree that they are certainly a danger to aviation and have had far more provable incidences of endangering aircraft in the past several years.

Not that it's even a 1$billion industry but imagine mandating that every user of every laser pointer in the US either gets a laser pointer license (from the FCC... after minimally one week of demanding courses/instruction and extensive examinations) or only uses it in the comfort of his/her home or only for "recreational" purposes in playing with their cat. No license, no use of a laser pointer if it is even remotely or tangentially related to earning money. Want to use one during a conference speech? Not without a license from the FCC. Want to use one to point out the locations of a house that you're inspecting to show someone where heat is escaping from the roof? Not a chance. At least not without the license from the FCC. And if that house was within 5 miles of an airport, you would have to contact the FCC and get their permission to use your laser pointer more than 90 days in advance. And you'd have to describe exactly how you were going to use your laser pointer. When and for how long, etc.

And for all other laser pointers, we're also going to mandate that they can't be turned on if they are located anywhere near an airport. Do you want to use a leveling laser while constructing your house 4 miles from the perimeter of JFK airport? No way. Even if it's inside and even if you acknowledge that you won't be using it for nefarious purposes. It won't even turn on. Wanna give a speech at a hotel conference center near the airport? Nope. Not gonna happen. The little GPS inside the laser pointer is going to communicate with the federal government or with a foreign company that manufactured it, and it's going to shut down on its own. It may even, in the future, report you to the authorities if you attempted to operate it.

As absurd as this scenario that I proffered would be, I would argue that there is little difference from what is happening today to the UAS industry. There are probably millions more laser pointers than drones out there in the world. They are also infinitely cheaper to acquire and operate. There have been dozens if not hundreds of verifiable and confirmed cases of "attacks" on aircraft by idiot users. Not so with the UAS industry. We could ban laser pointers as well, without a major hit to a significant sector of the economy. But we don't.

But put a spinning prop on that laser pointer and whoa... hold on there now. Suddenly we have to prohibit any functional or rational use of it no matter the cost.

Granted, this is "reductio ad absurdum" at its finest, but the overall point is what I'm trying to convey. If the data we have changes to reflect a different situation, then I would certainly change my position to support stronger mandates. Until then though, I do not believe that we should prevent something from happening "...by whatever means necessary".

I love the laser pointer analogy. Laser pointer incidents have happened far too frequently, but the authorities are not going to do anything about them. It's just gone too far, but UAVs, that they can clamp down on, so that's what's happening.

 

[sar104]

I love the laser pointer analogy. Laser pointer incidents have happened far too frequently, but the authorities are not going to do anything about them. It's just gone too far, but UAVs, that they can clamp down on, so that's what's happening.

What might they do about laser pointers, beyond the actions to date of making such behavior illegal and proscuting those who are caught? How have they clamped down on UAVs?

 

[raymo]

What might they do about laser pointers, beyond the actions to date of making such behavior illegal and proscuting those who are caught? How have they clamped down on UAVs?

I will simply put it this way. I have a friend who was going to set up a competitive drone course for racers who pretty much all use fpv. The latest regulations have made that virtually impossible. Nuff said.

 

[Lon Denard]

I will simply put it this way. I have a friend who was going to set up a competitive drone course for racers who pretty much all use fpv. The latest regulations have made that virtually impossible. Nuff said.

Wow! Where is this? I'm not aware of any restrictions or regulations.

 

[sar104]

I will simply put it this way. I have a friend who was going to set up a competitive drone course for racers who pretty much all use fpv. The latest regulations have made that virtually impossible. Nuff said.

Right - but that's an organized event. If he were trying to set up an outdoor competetive laser pointer competition it might be a reasonable analogy but, since laser pointers are used almost entirely indoors, in private, that's simply not comparable. The example really was a case of reductio ad absurdum, as lisadoc said.

 

[Pathogen]

My dream of gimbal mounted laser drone is never going to come true...

 

[cderoche]

My dream of gimbal mounted laser drone is never going to come true...

 

[Lon Denard]

My dream of gimbal mounted laser drone is never going to come true...

Well you can easily mount a laser pointer to your drone...Just saying. Talk about a nightmare for the aeronautics industry.

 

[Dw911]

Ya know, I think there might be a post in here from a guy like that. He wasn't really too interested in getting all debate-y, though; just dropped a quick opinion and hastily left. Kinda like spraying lighter fluid on the bbq.

Yeah, i read a couple of his replies, id happily fly with a guy like that and trust his opinion/experience over a lot of the other replies on here.

Unless or course someone else far more qualified rocked up here and voiced their first hand experience, someone who maybe introduced themself as a full qualified commercial time machine pilot -with an intrest in drones - who had just stopped in here to post after a whistle stop tour of the future ;-)

 

[Pathogen]

Unless or course someone else far more qualified rocked up here and voiced their first hand experience, someone who maybe introduced themself as a full qualified commercial time machine pilot

Yea and I got a few questions about those contrails that end up turning into persistent cloud cover which surely affects weather systems.

 

[dwallersv]

It's more refined than these "chunk"-sized columns, but even if we concede that the risk is overall "medium", as you point out the aviation industry shouldn't ignore it. But that's not the issue. The issue is what should the rest of the world do? Should aviators and airports take steps to mitigate the risks to their aircraft (such as detection technologies, flight protocols, observers, etc.)? Absolutely. Should the rest of the world enact restrictions to lower the level of risk to the aviation industry and yet stifle another? I'm not so sure.

Much more must be considered here than simply the static risk analysis at this point in time.

For example, as drone use and airspace density increases, the risk profile may change -- indeed, most expect it to increase. This might justify planning and implementing mitigation regulations, technology, and practices immediately to keep risk, and extreme consequences, under control.

 

[FlyGuy8675309]

I will simply put it this way. I have a friend who was going to set up a competitive drone course for racers who pretty much all use fpv. The latest regulations have made that virtually impossible. Nuff said.

He should do it inside. No FAA involvement and the environment is controlled.

 

[787steve]

Well I find it pretty amazing that folks think they're flying a 100% lethal projectile capable of taking down a jumbo jet with deadly accuracy.
Fly the dang thing into a tree if you want to see how tough it is.

What a ridiculous mischaracterization of what has been said.

 

[Brojon]

What a ridiculous mischaracterization of what has been said.

Yup - whole lotta ridiculous going around on the topic. Basically we all have opinions that closely mirror our natural inclinations towards either reckless idiots on one extreme to cowering chicken little's on the other end. I try to stay in the middle and apply a little reality check.

 

[787steve]

Much though I've always like Clarke, this thread reminds me more of Isaac Asimov's quote:

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

That's all true, but a lot of times bird strikes will happen at what we call "out stations", where there is no company employed mechanic. This means we have to call out a mechanic on call (who has up to an hour to report to the aircraft) to do the necessary damage inspection, and wipe the remains off the aircraft. Pilots aren't even allowed to pull out a towel and wipe it down. It has to remain untouched; only the mechanic can wipe it off. I've had flights delayed for hours, and a few even canceled, by waiting for a mechanic to come out, wipe off the guts, and then fill out the necessary paperwork to get us back in the air again.



They also have special regulations for commercial flying in Alaska by smaller Part 135 operators that are quite a bit more lenient than the rest of the states.

I dunno, gents.... I'm a major airline pilot, and to me, drones represent no more (and no less) of a threat than large birds. I've hit a large number of birds of all sizes in my 17,000 hours of piloting time. Some while flying small airplanes, some when flying large. Sure, it's not something that you *want* to do, and it will certainly scare a year or two off your life if it hits a windshield, but very rarely will a bird strike (or a drone strike) take down a plane. And yes, that's even if it goes through a jet engine when it's landing or even taking off! Aircraft must be certified to lose an engine prior to takeoff at what we call the V1 decision speed. Once you're at or faster than V1, you are going flying come **** or high water. If it happens prior to V1, we abort the takeoff.

My most recent bird event was taking a Mallard to the left front windshield at 250KIAS. Our true airspeed was about 265 knots. It sounded like a rifle shot in the flight deck. Didn't even crack the glass. We knew it was a drake mallard by the feathers stuck in various places.

I also sucked a sea gull once through the intake of a small turboprop. A turboprop is a jet engine that is used to swing a propeller. It made a nasty smell through the cabin, as we tap high pressure bleed air off the engine for air conditioning and pressurization, but other than that, the engine just made a hiccup noise, and digested that gull in far under a second. We didn't even lose enough torque to trip the auto ignition system, which is quite sensitive to uncommanded torque loss.

So if you want to break it down to categories... Are drone strikes:

1. Likely to cause an accident resulting in loss of life? IMO, no more so than birds, and they have to be ingested in quantity to really even be able to snuff a motor. Now I know you guys are gonna bring up "Miracle on the Hudson", but those guys flew through a large flock and put a bunch of birds through both engines at the same time. How likely are you to fly through a large flock of drones? Well, I'll let you answer that yourselves.

2. Likely to cause expensive damage to an aircraft? Absolutely. You can't scratch the paint of an aircraft without spending a thousand bucks to repair it.

You guys can beat this back and forth all you want, but I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep "wondering if I'm gonna hit a drone tomorrow" when I go to work.

I'll see your 17,000, and raise you another 13,000 hours.(5000 fighters, 25,000 airlines (DC9, DC8. 727,737,757,767,787, L1011, and a smattering of light civil. I agree with your position that downing a modern jet transport is unlikely. But my last post retirement position was with Boeing as an instructor pilot for foreign aircrews. I found out that the bell curve pf pilot flying skills was much broader than I found it to be with my many years with a major US airline. And while all the above mentioned aircraft can be flown with a loss of an engine, you can also find fatal accidents caused by poor crew performance after a loss of a single engine. I wouldn't want to be the drone operator that gave a crew the opportunity to screw it up.

 

[787steve]

Clearly you're spoiling for a fight. I'm well versed in statistics and fully well know that you can in fact make some rational calls from limited data. Fer instance;
Would you acknowledge that in a study with a sample size of one, swatting a fly with a 2x4 will pretty much have the same effect no matter how many times you do it? I would submit that you could also analyze the reverse and pretty much conclude the board would sustain minor if any damage from the act of swatting. Some things are fully capable of being analyzed reducto ad absurdum. I would submit the relative size and materials of the fly vs 2x4 are analogous to the drone and aircraft.
We're not going to quibble about the paint getting scratched - the entire hysteria around drones and aircraft is the fear of catastrophic damage. It just isn't likely. In fact the odds are *much* better that a person or house on the ground will get damaged by falling chunks of frozen waste from said commercial aircraft.
There have been limited studies and simulations on drone strikes. Unsurprisingly they found large aircraft relatively immune but helicopters and small craft at a much larger risk. Of course these small craft are also much more at risk from birds and flocks of birds. I would submit you're much more likely - statistically speaking - of a bird strike than a drone given the population densities.
Frozen 'poo bomb' smashes hole in couple's roof after being flushed from jet

Anyway - that's all I'm going to say about it since you're mind is made up.

What passes as the news media in the US sensationalizes EVERTHING. CNN reported, with an accompanying cute puppy pic, about a dog which was misrouted and spent the night in Las Vegas before being delivered the next day to Boise. They went so far as to report the dog appeared happy and healthy when he got home. . I guess we will have to wait for the psychologist report to see if he is, in fact, ok after such an ordeal. (Delta misroutes puppy on cross-country flight - CNN).

They love stories about aviation and the multiple horrible things that await you in the sky, or even at the airport. And by upsetting the public, they drive legislation. Sometimes legislation which jeopardizes safety.

How can we expect them to treat drones any differently? So, at least, lets consider following the applicable regs and not make it any easier for them.