BBC 2 tonight 9-30

[kensteele]

 

[Cheech Wizard]

I actually have professional concern about the low barrier to acquiring (and the anonymity of acquiring) a Mavic 2, loading it up with 400g of home made plastique and ball bearings from Screwfix (PM me for a recipe - I read Chemistry at Oxford in the 70s) and using Litchi to target it (out of VLOS and out of of controller contact) onto your target from a distance of 3+kms

Shhhhhhhhhh!

 

[FoxhallGH]

The problem with DJI's "rebuttal" is that, just like their previous ones, it is entirely free of any actual evidence and just a rather weak attempt to deflect from what they see as bad publicity. They can complain all they want about how the BBC did not use the drone-positive material that they offered, but since it wasn't ever supposed to be a DJI infomercial that wasn't going to happen. If they were serious about this then they could always conduct, or commission, some independent impact testing experiment and modeling, neither of which would be very expensive in comparison to their sUAS revenue, but they would get exactly the same kinds of results and I'm pretty sure that they know that.

And as the BBC response itself said:

"From the outset, and repeatedly during the film, the positive uses of drones and the efforts the industry has taken to make them safe was referred to. The film does not claim that drone technology is unsafe, but rather that it can be used maliciously when in the wrong hands. Indeed, as drone users ourselves, the BBC is well aware of the positive benefits of them when used appropriately."​

Personally I think that DJI's outrage is counterproductive because it likely reinforces the view that they are somehow at fault, and their threat of a formal complaint is just ill-judged posturing - they may well think it's worth complaining since there is nothing to lose, but it won't get them anywhere. DJI's extensive and innovative work in the areas of remote identification, geofencing, collaboration with multiple agencies etc. is what they should be touting, rather than giving the impression that they are burying their corporate head in the sand and screaming that their drones are completely safe which, ironically, is not what they are actually doing at all.

I understand your quite logical wish to take this BBC video as a single item, but I think what's happening here in the UK, is that it has actually poured salt on a wound! To put this in context, just the week before, Andy Sage of NATS formally stated in front of a Government technology committee convened to investigate the future of Drones in the UK, that NATS considered UK drone users as "Clueless, Careless and Criminal"! It was only after a barrage of complaints, that Andy printed an apology (and that was only on the NATS website!) and admitted that there was a majority of operators who flew drones responsibly and within the rules. As far as we are aware however, there has been no attempt by NATS to offer an amendment or addendum to the transcript of the hearing, to alter the context of Andy Sage's comments in front of the Committee.
Right on the tail of that, we get this Britain's next Air Disaster - thing ... OK - if looked at in the context of 'this is what a terrorist can do to weaponise a drone' - then yes - paranoia and comments accepted. But the proviso's were sadly lacking!
In regard to the impact test on the 'wing' - well ... How does;
- smashing off the plastic fuselage that gives some shock absorption (oh look how difficult it is to break this with the lump hammer!)
- folding up the remaining pieces with the 4 motors at the front
- putting a LiPo battery sized aluminium brick behind the motors
- inserting 3 solid carbon fibre rods
- epoxying the whole lot together like a bullet with a cross-section of less than 20% of the Phantom from any angle
- then firing it at a wing to hit less than half a metre away from a point where it's already been pulverised by a gello-bird.
If that's a scientific test then I'm - well I don't know what I am in regard to that load of cr*p!

Again looking at the Tech' committee that's convened at the moment; the first day did feature Brendan Schulman of DJI and he did give a very good show in answering questions put to him by the Committee. It was made quite obvious to the committee that DJI has taken it on themselves to implement remote ID, Geofencing etc. and that it was our CAA who are then turning what DJI are doing into regulation ... not vice versa. That was a valid point that could have been made in the "Britain's Next" video, but it wasn't.

 

[FoxhallGH]

Further to my post above, there have been a lot of complaints lodged with the BBC about the "Britain's Next Air Disaster" program. It's interesting to see that suddenly, we have a completely different slant on a Drone sighting story from the BBC. Normally, we would have just seen the original story which was a report that a drone sighting had caused a one-hour closure at East Midlands Airport on the 3rd July - then nothing else. But suddenly this morning (6th July) we have this! ...

East Midlands Airport 'drone' sighting 'could have been a bird'

An expert says it is "extremely unlikely" a drone would have been able to fly near East Midlands Airport.

www.bbc.co.uk

... "could have been a bird, according to experts"

It's also interesting that there is an organisation/department called "Airprox Reality Check" - which has now been set up to scrutinise reports of incidents involving drones.

 

[zocalo]

Also worth noting that the Fraunhofer Institute is doing a formal study on the danger of drone impacts with aircraft. Fraunhofer is well respected for being thorough with this kind of testing and will almost certainly consider much more realistic test scenarios and be much clearer on what is an absolute worst case than the BBC programme did.

It's unlikely to take into account the probability of an impact, both with an aircraft in general or a given part of an airplane, but it should as least give a much more accurate idea of just how much damage might be done in a collision. I'd like to see a follow up where they consider where impacts are more likely to occur (I would guess the engines and nose/cockpit), ideally taking into account airflow effects of a moving airplane; e.g. would a drone actually just bounce off the bow shock?, but that doesn't appear to be on the cards just yet.

 

[FoxhallGH]

Also worth noting that the Fraunhofer Institute is doing a formal study on the danger of drone impacts with aircraft. Fraunhofer is well respected for being thorough with this kind of testing and will almost certainly consider much more realistic test scenarios and be much clearer on what is an absolute worst case than the BBC programme did.

It's unlikely to take into account the probability of an impact, both with an aircraft in general or a given part of an airplane, but it should as least give a much more accurate idea of just how much damage might be done in a collision. I'd like to see a follow up where they consider where impacts are more likely to occur (I would guess the engines and nose/cockpit), ideally taking into account airflow effects of a moving airplane; e.g. would a drone actually just bounce off the bow shock?, but that doesn't appear to be on the cards just yet.

There will be a lot of 'chance' involved in a drone-strike as the closing speed with an aircraft would make it difficult to line up to get a precise impact with the leading edge of a wing, tail or stabiliser - or even with the wide-open throat of a Jet turbo-fan engine. Something like an FPV racer would have a lot more chance of doing so than a Mavic Pro, Phantom etc. However, the way aviation safety works is that it has to look at the worst-case scenario where all the dice have rolled in the perfect combination to get the 'perfect storm'. In that case, inertia is the problem as the weight of even a Mavic Air can make it impossible for the change of airflow direction around a fuselage or wing to 'take' the drone off in another direction to miss the wing. Using that kind of logic, I'd expect that there is serious consideration given to impacts with the tail stabiliser, as that could affect the elevators. One thing we were always told in pilot training, was that the elevators are the worst thing to be without on any aircraft!

 

[gnirtS]

There will be a lot of 'chance' involved in a drone-strike as the closing speed with an aircraft would make it difficult to line up to get a precise impact with the leading edge of a wing, tail or stabiliser - or even with the wide-open throat of a Jet turbo-fan engine. Something like an FPV racer would have a lot more chance of doing so than a Mavic Pro, Phantom etc. However, the way aviation safety works is that it has to look at the worst-case scenario where all the dice have rolled in the perfect combination to get the 'perfect storm'. In that case, inertia is the problem as the weight of even a Mavic Air can make it impossible for the change of airflow direction around a fuselage or wing to 'take' the drone off in another direction to miss the wing. Using that kind of logic, I'd expect that there is serious consideration given to impacts with the tail stabiliser, as that could affect the elevators. One thing we were always told in pilot training, was that the elevators are the worst thing to be without on any aircraft!

If you're going for a deliberate impact its a little easier - just stick it on the gidepath of an active runway. Then you'll know the exact height and location to hover and wait.
Picking a specific piece of a plane wont be easy, but hitting a plane of any size would be.

 

[waylander]

FYI, some reactions to the documentary opinion piece:

https://www.trustedreviews.com/n ... -cost-lives-3897718

and:

Drone maker DJI challenges BBC reports

and just found this, the text of letter from DJI to BBC:

IN FULL: DJI's 2,300-word letter to BBC boss Tony Hall

The manufacturer uses the letter to criticise the BBC's recent television documentaries and general reporting on drones.

www.commercialdroneprofessional.com

Well said mate, your diligence in finding these links may help others to see how biased the BBC is.

 

[sar104]

I understand your quite logical wish to take this BBC video as a single item, but I think what's happening here in the UK, is that it has actually poured salt on a wound! To put this in context, just the week before, Andy Sage of NATS formally stated in front of a Government technology committee convened to investigate the future of Drones in the UK, that NATS considered UK drone users as "Clueless, Careless and Criminal"! It was only after a barrage of complaints, that Andy printed an apology (and that was only on the NATS website!) and admitted that there was a majority of operators who flew drones responsibly and within the rules. As far as we are aware however, there has been no attempt by NATS to offer an amendment or addendum to the transcript of the hearing, to alter the context of Andy Sage's comments in front of the Committee.
Right on the tail of that, we get this Britain's next Air Disaster - thing ... OK - if looked at in the context of 'this is what a terrorist can do to weaponise a drone' - then yes - paranoia and comments accepted. But the proviso's were sadly lacking!

I was commenting on the BBC documentary, not the NATS stuff. I'm not clear why the latter is relevant to the former.

In regard to the impact test on the 'wing' - well ... How does;
- smashing off the plastic fuselage that gives some shock absorption (oh look how difficult it is to break this with the lump hammer!)

The plastic Phantom fuselage will have little effect during the impact except to add mass to the projectile.

- folding up the remaining pieces with the 4 motors at the front
- putting a LiPo battery sized aluminium brick behind the motors

Not ideal, as I mentioned above, but doesn't completely invalidate the test. As I also mentioned, the results were broadly similar to the University of Dayton test where the Phantom was intact, and if you look at some of the finite-element modeling of these kinds of impact you will notice that the structure folds up in such a way that the components end up converging anyway.

- inserting 3 solid carbon fibre rods

Those are extremely low density and separated at impact.

- epoxying the whole lot together like a bullet with a cross-section of less than 20% of the Phantom from any angle

That was a weak, low-density PU foam, simply to hold the components in the sabot, not an epoxy.

- then firing it at a wing to hit less than half a metre away from a point where it's already been pulverised by a gello-bird.

The internal structure was clearly undamaged on that side of the spar.

If that's a scientific test then I'm - well I don't know what I am in regard to that load of cr*p!

I'm a little surprised to see you join the ranks on this one.

Again looking at the Tech' committee that's convened at the moment; the first day did feature Brendan Schulman of DJI and he did give a very good show in answering questions put to him by the Committee. It was made quite obvious to the committee that DJI has taken it on themselves to implement remote ID, Geofencing etc. and that it was our CAA who are then turning what DJI are doing into regulation ... not vice versa. That was a valid point that could have been made in the "Britain's Next" video, but it wasn't.

This was not about DJI specifically, although with their dominant position in the market and the use of one of their aircraft they could have been given more credit there. However, remote ID and geofencing was discussed at some length, strengths and weaknesses.

 

[THE CYBORG]

DJI challenges BBC

Drone maker DJI challenges BBC reports

 

[FoxhallGH]

I was commenting on the BBC documentary, not the NATS stuff. I'm not clear why the latter is relevant to the former.

I mention that - not because the 'subject' is relevant, but because of the Social context. It explains why UK drone users were quick to complain about this BBC program. Maybe I was sensitive to it, but for me, the program just didn't seem to make a distinction between those who fly doing no harm and following the rules, and those who would 'weaponise' a drone to do harm! It just felt like we'd been kicked twice in the gut in quick succession (NATS then BBC). It has galvanised some activity with new Facebook groups being set up to pool opinion and action to do some form of lobbying - due to a very large proportion of UK drone operators feeling like their hobby is under threat, and society is being turned against them. In the wider scheme of things, we are also getting a lot of 'No Drones Here' signs going up on Public Park space - and that's frustrating urban drone owners because they used to have a place to fly, and now their drone is an expensive paper-weight!

In regard to the collision test results - you know I'm an advocate for all things safety focussed in general aviation - However, I just felt that there could have been a lot more diligence shown in that test to explain that the breaking up of the drone meant that the test results were not entirely real-world. I have seen tests where a Phantom is splatted onto the leading edge of a wing, and 3 out of the 4 motors went past the wing if I remember correctly. The battery did enter the wing but didn't get through the main spar. In fact, the test results on that Mooney wing were similar to the fake bird test results on the BBC program.

 

[sar104]

I mention that - not because the 'subject' is relevant, but because of the Social context. It explains why UK drone users were quick to complain about this BBC program. Maybe I was sensitive to it, but for me, the program just didn't seem to make a distinction between those who fly doing no harm and following the rules, and those who would 'weaponise' a drone to do harm! It just felt like we'd been kicked twice in the gut in quick succession (NATS then BBC). It has galvanised some activity with new Facebook groups being set up to pool opinion and action to do some form of lobbying - due to a very large proportion of UK drone operators feeling like their hobby is under threat, and society is being turned against them. In the wider scheme of things, we are also getting a lot of 'No Drones Here' signs going up on Public Park space - and that's frustrating urban drone owners because they used to have a place to fly, and now their drone is an expensive paper-weight!

Do you think it's just the hobbyists feeling threatened, or commercial users too? Unfortunately the overall negative public response is likely due to association with military uses and surveillance issues, but it's definitely been compounded by antisocial or irresponsible hobbyists. These forums clearly illustrate that problem - equal measures of complaints about public perception with rants about not wanting to follow regulations. Much of this is completely self-inflicted by the community as a whole.

In regard to the collision test results - you know I'm an advocate for all things safety focussed in general aviation - However, I just felt that there could have been a lot more diligence shown in that test to explain that the breaking up of the drone meant that the test results were not entirely real-world. I have seen tests where a Phantom is splatted onto the leading edge of a wing, and 3 out of the 4 motors went past the wing if I remember correctly. The battery did enter the wing but didn't get through the main spar. In fact, the test results on that Mooney wing were similar to the fake bird test results on the BBC program.

Some components might miss in a collision with a very small wing, although I haven't seen the test that you are referring to. But again - that would be a poor test since it would not be a worst-case scenario.

 

[mavicpro1000]

And later on bbc2 ,Horizon, 'how Amazon makes millions from drone deliveries'

 

[zocalo]

Do you think it's just the hobbyists feeling threatened, or commercial users too? Unfortunately the overall negative public response is likely due to association with military uses and surveillance issues, but it's definitely been compounded by antisocial or irresponsible hobbyists. These forums clearly illustrate that problem - equal measures of complaints about public perception with rants about not wanting to follow regulations. Much of this is completely self-inflicted by the community as a whole.

For me it's both. More legislation and restrictions makes it harder and more expensive for commercial operators to fly. Yes, you might be able to get approval to fly in a given NFZ or a waiver for other flight restrictive operations like over crowds, but red tape and paperwork is going to cut into profits and/or make costs for clients more expensive, and therefore less appealing. Besides, with the new EU regulations (which AFAICT are being put forwards for introduction into UK law despite Brexit as they're already drafted) the distinction goes away - everyone will just be a SUAV pilot, albeit with different levels of certification and competencies.

That said, I do agree that it's mainly some within the community that have led to this (and not just those that buzz airfields for kicks). We complain about public perception, yet rants about not wanting to follow the regulations, or actively looking for measures to circumvent them, are not helpful when it comes to perception of drone pilots by officials. Likewise, I don't think the all-too-common attitude that these things are essentially toys, is particularly helpful either. They are legally classed as aircraft (which is great when someone takes potshots at one), but until more pilots start treating them as such the flight restrictions, and requirements for registration and training are going to get more and more onerous.

Some components might miss in a collision with a very small wing, although I haven't seen the test that you are referring to. But again - that would be a poor test since it would not be a worst-case scenario.

I suspect it's the one with a Phantom embedded in an aircraft wing that DJI railed about previously because they felt (perhaps rightly) they were being singled out via a contrived test scenario that clearly showed a DJI drone. Regardless, no, it's not the worst case - that would definitely be the entire drone going into a turbine or through a prop and the LiPo igniting the process. Liklihood of that happening, or level of damage sustained by an aircraft if it does? No one knows, because no-one has actually done a proper simulation of this yet; it's all conjecture and FUD.

Maybe the Fraunhofer tests will shed some light on this, but based on their pictures in the article on it I think they're just doing wing/fuselage impacts, which is useful but not really the $1m question. Until someone actually brings a drone into contact with a running turbine at a few hundred knots impact velocity, I suspect the conjecture and FUD (including in programmes like this) will continue.

 

[Dale D]

I shall not be watching, since if I put my head in the sand I will not have to hear it

 

[johnbirt]

The BBC, ITV, SKy etc. etc. clearly all use drones for photography and video footage routinely. Whether this is by "in house" pilots or freelances. Puzzling that there was not any attempt to use this body of expertise for comment in the program.

The choice of an ex-sniper to deliver the program with by his own admission little or no experience of drones was baffling. The only relevance of his very specialist expertise was the attempted Hollywood scenario of attempting to shoot a moving drone at several hundred metres. On moving it close enough and having it hover conveniently to enable a successful kill thus showing his shooting prowess did at least answer the idiots (BBC newsreaders, pundits et al) who posed the question why the HeathRow drone/drones could not simply have been blasted from the sky and everyone could have gone on their holidays on time. Of course assuming there was actually something real to shoot at.

 

[Alanc]

As a point of interest did anyone see the BBC morning police show the other day after breakfast?
If showed the police flying drones over crowds of people at a football match on the basis of crowd control. Yet not one word was mentioned of the dangers of such practice or of the legality. My My hypocritical of the BBC

 

[sar104]

As a point of interest did anyone see the BBC morning police show the other day after breakfast?
If showed the police flying drones over crowds of people at a football match on the basis of crowd control. Yet not one word was mentioned of the dangers of such practice or of the legality. My My hypocritical of the BBC

I hope that you are not suggesting that the BBC (or any other credible news organization) should be editorializing their news reporting with opinions on the legality of the events covered.

 

[The Editor]

As a point of interest did anyone see the BBC morning police show the other day after breakfast?
If showed the police flying drones over crowds of people at a football match on the basis of crowd control. Yet not one word was mentioned of the dangers of such practice or of the legality. My My hypocritical of the BBC

Perfectly legal.
I have answered this here.....

Ok for police to fly over crowds ?

How is this allowed? The golden rule for all pilots is not to fly over people or crowds or buildings. Yes ? Yes just the other morning on BBC TV did I see the police using drones over crowds of football fans. . This was a contradiction of almost any law that I’m aware of. Surely if there is...

mavicpilots.com

 

[FoxhallGH]

Do you think it's just the hobbyists feeling threatened, or commercial users too? Unfortunately the overall negative public response is likely due to association with military uses and surveillance issues, but it's definitely been compounded by antisocial or irresponsible hobbyists. These forums clearly illustrate that problem - equal measures of complaints about public perception with rants about not wanting to follow regulations. Much of this is completely self-inflicted by the community as a whole.

Some components might miss in a collision with a very small wing, although I haven't seen the test that you are referring to. But again - that would be a poor test since it would not be a worst-case scenario.

Oh I agree 100% that the problems are self-inflicted, in that the regulations are there and being tightened due to the relatively few who seem to revel in publicly displaying their rule-breaking on YouTube. You get the same with cars. While most drivers are law and rule obeying citizens using their cars sensibly, there are some that will joy-ride and do crazy things that will endanger other motorists and pedestrians. In both cases (drones & cars), I think that it is true to say that the majority of drivers/pilots are responsible and obey the rules. However, despite the annual road death-toll, and the use of vehicles in terrorist rammings and bombings - we don't see TV programs titled "Britain's next Road Disaster: White Van!". I'm by no means advocating that there should be no rules and/or regulations (I'll be one of the first to go on-line to register my Mavic with the CAA in October), but it is disappointing and depressing to be painted with a broad-brush that labels me as clueless, careless and/or criminal when I try my utmost to be none of the above. It's obvious that there are a lot of others out there who feel the same ... To answer your question, yes - it does appear to be both hobbyists and commercial operators who are feeling the lack-of-love!
I was referring to the University of Dayton test that used the Mooney wing ...