DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Another irresponsible UAS Pilot

Its not glass, I could tell you that. I know its a plastic based material, for those of us who maintain these things, its plexiglass

Not according to the NTSB report.

I'd add that amongst the ballistic impact testing that I've done over the years (for different purposes admittedly), I've never seen either PMMA (plexiglass) or polycarbonate fail in that manner. Only glass has a high enough crack propagation speed to produce that kind of fragmentation.
 
Actually it appears that photo is of a Beech C-99 that struck a bird while descending into SOW. The NTSB narrative refers to the windshield as glass:

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb....ev_id=20091104X23538&ntsbno=WPR10IA045&akey=1

Makes sense, when toughened laminate shatters, the little particles of toughened are normally held together pretty well by the laminating process, but a bird going into it at X knots would be over and above normal scope.
Toughened glass is very hard to break, but when it does, it breaks into relatively safe particles, which can still cut, but are not shards that will cut arteries.
Having it break and blow into the cabin is not ideal in an aircraft.

The laminated interlayer (PVB) is similar to that used in regular laminated glass, various thickness annealed glass, 2 pieces, held together with a 0.38mm interlayer, often windscreen high performance (WHP) interlayer of 0.76mm is used.

So toughened laminate is very strong, but when it breaks it is supposedly held together to keep the opening secure, used sometimes in high security displays for jewellry, but also in even more layers for bullet proof glass.
Generally that used multiple layers of glass and lexan to aid different break points of the materials against a projectile, and 1.52 interlayers, often 4 or 5 different glazing layers with an interlayer heat bonded between each.
Has to be made to size, mostly for armoured vehicles etc, usually flat.

Anyway, enough on the glass, as you can see I have an obsession with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLYBOYJ and sar104
It's one of the examples in the link I posted above, and the subject of the NTSB narrative that I also linked to. Plus it's clearly a C-99, not a PA-31.
You're correct! I saw it was "Amerfright" and when I dealt with them they were flying Navajos. BTW, I had access to a Beech MM - .500 thick
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sar104
Technically, VLOS means that you can see it, not just that there are no obstacles obstructing your view of it. Without strobes I agree that at that distance it's going to be very hard to spot if you look away.

But again - briefly losing sight of it when it is close by and you know its approximate location is very different to flying it out several miles into a busy air lane (at the other extreme). The primary purpose of VLOS is situational awareness, so that if other air traffic appears you see/hear it and can take evasive action. That works even in your example. It doesn't work in the NY collision situation.

Well what do you know? I can agree with this. There's always the letter of the law and the spirit. Having an unobstructed view, of the general vicinity, of where the drone should be, is the best that I can do most of the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rfc
You're correct! I saw it was "Amerfright" and when I dealt with them they were flying Navajos. BTW, I had access to a Beech MM - .500 thick

It appears that this was also likely 1/2" glass. Which strengthens your original point further, of course. At VFE the C-99 is windshield is certified to survive a strike from a 0.91 kg bird. This particular bird apparently averages 1.5 kg. None of which bodes well for this type of aircraft, let alone a lighter GA aircraft, hitting a 1.5 kg UAV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rfc
Well what do you know? I can agree with this. There's always the letter of the law and the spirit. Having an unobstructed view, of the general vicinity, of where the drone should be, is the best that I can do most of the time.

What? You agree with me? I need a drink.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chip
Understand that I am just the messenger here and there's a level of common sense when flying a drone, let alone with operating any type machinery. The Feds aren't going to secretly time you every time you take your eyes off your drone!!! I have a Mavic and I can see it at at 350' and my 59 year old eyes aren't that great. IMO if you make a reasonable effort to maintain visual contact with your drone you're good. Sure you're going to have brief periods where you may lose visual contact, I think that's a given. I believe the intent is not having someone go out BVR and run into something - like a helicopter.

If you think this is tough, try learning how to fly a manned aircraft - and the regulations that go along with it.....

I'm 52 and not much better. I'm no stranger to regs between 20 years in airborne and dealing with OSHA, MIOSHA, IDEA, NFPA, etc in my job now.

I personally do my best to fly as safe as I can and get the shots that I want to get. I'm just being honest.
 
I'm 52 and not much better. I'm no stranger to regs between 20 years in airborne and dealing with OSHA, MIOSHA, IDEA, NFPA, etc in my job now.

I personally do my best to fly as safe as I can and get the shots that I want to get. I'm just being honest.
Excellent!

So if you deal with OSHA (I do as well on occasion in my full time job) then you feel the pain. At least with dealing with the FAA many of the ops or maintenance inspectors have worked in industry for many years before working for the FAA so you may find some troops at the ground level with some inkling of common sense. I've found many OSHA folks have never worked in a vocational capacity, so hellbent on following the letter of the law that they don't realize the actual task to be done!

Airborne? Army? My brother was in the 82nd while in Vietnam
 
Excellent!

So if you deal with OSHA (I do as well on occasion in my full time job) then you feel the pain. At least with dealing with the FAA many of the ops or maintenance inspectors have worked in industry for many years before working for the FAA so you may find some troops at the ground level with some inkling of common sense. I've found many OSHA folks have never worked in a vocational capacity, so hellbent on following the letter of the law that they don't realize the actual task to be done!

Airborne? Army? My brother was in the 82nd while in Vietnam

Exactly! They don't know the difference between a wrench and a screwdriver but think they can tell me how to do my job. Bah!

Yea I did Grenada, Panama, Korea, a few deployments in Europe, and Dessert Storm. My dad was in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chip and FLYBOYJ
Obviously you can’t read because my point is that people are going crazy over this picture & everyone thinks the drone will take down a plane. The point is know some facts about planes & know that the windshield will shatter these drones.

Probably true. But what if It went down an intake? It is easy to find videos of birds going into engines, causing engine failures. I don't think birds are tougher than drones. I just sliced through a couple over the holidays, and I am sure it would have taken more effort to slice through a drone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLYBOYJ
Did you guys read the comments? Kind of funny.

Here's one,

"Our analysis has been based on actual bird strikes, not near misses or simple sightings. We find in general that small UAS under 2kg pose a negligible risk to the safety of the national airspace. We estimate that 6.12x10−6 collisions will cause damage to an aircraft for every 100,000 hours of 2kg UAS flight time. Or to put it another way, one damaging incident will occur no more than every 1.87 million years of 2kg UAS flight time. We further estimate that 6.12x10−8 collisions that cause an injury or fatality to passengers on board an aircraft will occur every 100,000 hours of 2kg UAS flight time, or once every 187 million years of operation. This appears to be an acceptable risk to the airspace."

https://www.mercatus.org/pu..
Tell it to Sully.
 
You're taking it as fact.
Did the airport confirm the UAV?
People claim BS all the time.(this is from FB no less)
I really don't know what happened and will wait for more info to make a conclusion.
At this point it's just some random person making a claim.
And if this is all it is (some random person making a claim) it is fake news.

Of course, unless the random person's claim is true. I think the bigger point is do we believe drone operators do this. Not really so much whether this is true. And could a drone bring down an airplane?
My vote is DEFINITELY YES.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLYBOYJ
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
131,304
Messages
1,561,824
Members
160,246
Latest member
SK farming