AMann
Well-Known Member
Screen shot from news- Mark (LI) posted a better one above showing the evidence tag on the top of the same bag.
Drone collides AND grounds a firefighting Super Scooper in LA...
- Thread starter VenomXts
- Start date
It was all over the news last night and this morning as a "DJI" drone that caused the damage and the FBI is directly involved because it's a criminal matter.
I'll hold off on my comments until the catastrophe is over other than to say I hope they get this under control soon and prayers to the victims and families affected.
I'll hold off on my comments until the catastrophe is over other than to say I hope they get this under control soon and prayers to the victims and families affected.
Lazerbrains
Well-Known Member
My understanding of that is the drone should have been obliterated by the plane, not the other way around (plane has much more acceleration). If the plane was standing still and the drone was going 400mph I could see it doing that damage, but not the other way around. As it is, even if it the Mini 3 wasn't hovering, it is for all intents stationary compared to the fast moving airplane. I'm not saying the drone didn't cause that damage, but it doesn't seem right in my mind re physics.
Still waiting from someone to come along and say the images of the evidence bag and drone parts are all fake. 
I hope they are able to catch the TOTAL IDIOT who was flying that Mini and, if found guilty, I hope the Mini pilot suffers the maximum possible punishment.
I believe incidents like this are going to lead to Remote ID and registration being required for ALL drones, not just those over .55 lbs. If not an entire ban on the hobby.
Mark
I hope they are able to catch the TOTAL IDIOT who was flying that Mini and, if found guilty, I hope the Mini pilot suffers the maximum possible punishment.
I believe incidents like this are going to lead to Remote ID and registration being required for ALL drones, not just those over .55 lbs. If not an entire ban on the hobby.
Mark
Last edited:
Speed of the drone (alone) is irrelevant. A hovering drone hit by an aircraft moving at 200 MPH will have the same effect as the drone moving 200 MPH against the same angle/impact point of a stationary aircraft.
For years, discussions about whether drones could hurt an aircraft have occurred here and many other forums. I think the problem for some is that physics is not intuitive and they can't understand how a large aircraft could be damaged by a tiny drone.
Ironically a video that has been around for over six years (one I've posted more times than I can count), demonstrated this exact point of impact (Leading Edge) by a drone.
AMann
Well-Known Member
We’ve all seen that forgotten video a long while back, thanks for reposting it! An “I told you so” moment! Also, good explanation of the difference between relative speed and actual speed beween two objects colliding. Introductory physics classes should be required in schools.
Last edited:
This thread should be mandatory reading for all of the folks that "think they know" when, in fact, they don't.
Mark
Lazerbrains
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the video that clearly shows it. Still hard to get my head around, but there it is.
DARKSeifer
Well-Known Member
From a physics perspective, it's basically the same thing.
People tend to think of planes as very tough, probably because they are big, or because of videogames or historical images of a few lucky B-17; but the aluminum is quite thin and can get damaged pretty easily on impact.
A few years ago this test appeared on Youtube, and it felt kinda exaggerated, as the drone was being “shot” to a static wing, and it basically destroyed it.
Now we've seen that a <250g drone managed to do that on a real case scenario and that the lipo also got inside the wing, just where the fuel tanks are located.
So yes, as everything in this world, potential damage is there, even on the <250 g; but luckily figures are there to prove droning is one of the safest hobbies out there and that overregulation goes nowhere; as bad actors will appear no matter what while overregulation will just affect people that were already complying with the regulation.
“L'action gratuite” will always be there and will use stones, cars, drones or whatever they want, the only thing you can do is educate people on doing the right thing and stop behaving like idiots... and if we look at the casualties, there are a ton of other things to address way before drones.
Not my intent really. I just think that the kind of pilot, that flew the drone, that hit the water bomber, probably never really considered what they were doing was risky to an aircraft. It's likely that if they'd thought this could happen, they would have never flown.
Maybe this guy was a member here? Hopefully more people see these dangers and think twice.
Not a forensic scientist but the recovery of the parts suggest that the drone was hit from the rear. It would suggest that the operator never say the plane coming.
Since it was flying with a 249g battery, it's possible that the drone wasn't required to be registered. So the operator might not be in the database.
Probably could, if the SN is recovered, track it back to who sold it and then to whom it was sold but it still opens up to circumstantial evidence as the purchaser could say they sold it to some unknown cash buyer.
(also, my comment about the frozen chickens was OBVIOUSLY sarcasm. DUH!)
Inertia doesn't care which object is at rest or which is moving. The moment of impact will be the combination of both entities and their relative movement.
Thus, if the plane was going 100mph and the drone were moving 10mph in the same direction then the moment of impact would total 90mph. That's a for instance. We could use trains as a comparison too. Remember 3rd grade math?
Lipo batteries aren't actually prone to fire or explosion. There's a lot of conditions that need to come together for them to ignite and a drone impact doesn't seem like a likely scenario. That's not to say it's not possible but if you had 1000 drone impacts, carrying Lipo batteries, you still might not see a fire. Where do I come up with that? How may Lipo batteries are out there? How many have caught fire?
Also, while fingerprints are possible, the perpetrator needs to either be in a database or they need to charge someone with a crime to get their fingerprints. Some weird thing about "illegal search and seizure" prevents someone from having to give fingerprints unless charged with a crime.
Will they catch the person? Maybe. Will it be easy? Doesn't appear so.
How muc manpower do they want to commit to getting a perpetrator when the "damages" were fairly minimal.
Forget all the "what COULD have happened" in an investigation. That's rarely a concern. What actually happened is paramount to the degree of investigation. The "could" part is for the courts and (unfortunately) lawmakers.
Since it was flying with a 249g battery, it's possible that the drone wasn't required to be registered. So the operator might not be in the database.
Probably could, if the SN is recovered, track it back to who sold it and then to whom it was sold but it still opens up to circumstantial evidence as the purchaser could say they sold it to some unknown cash buyer.
(also, my comment about the frozen chickens was OBVIOUSLY sarcasm. DUH!)
Inertia doesn't care which object is at rest or which is moving. The moment of impact will be the combination of both entities and their relative movement.
Thus, if the plane was going 100mph and the drone were moving 10mph in the same direction then the moment of impact would total 90mph. That's a for instance. We could use trains as a comparison too. Remember 3rd grade math?
Lipo batteries aren't actually prone to fire or explosion. There's a lot of conditions that need to come together for them to ignite and a drone impact doesn't seem like a likely scenario. That's not to say it's not possible but if you had 1000 drone impacts, carrying Lipo batteries, you still might not see a fire. Where do I come up with that? How may Lipo batteries are out there? How many have caught fire?
Also, while fingerprints are possible, the perpetrator needs to either be in a database or they need to charge someone with a crime to get their fingerprints. Some weird thing about "illegal search and seizure" prevents someone from having to give fingerprints unless charged with a crime.
Will they catch the person? Maybe. Will it be easy? Doesn't appear so.
How muc manpower do they want to commit to getting a perpetrator when the "damages" were fairly minimal.
Forget all the "what COULD have happened" in an investigation. That's rarely a concern. What actually happened is paramount to the degree of investigation. The "could" part is for the courts and (unfortunately) lawmakers.
The title SHOULD read "Fire Fighting Plane Hits Drone"
The other title implies the drone was the one moving fast and that's just not true.
MARK (LI)
Well-Known Member
DARKSeifer
Well-Known Member
It just needs to get punctured or hit hard enough to cause internal damage, and it explodes into flames, there are a ton of videos on YT about it.
DJI batteries tend to be inside a plastic shell that makes them a bit more resistant, but it's basically the same thing. They won't probably get fire from a fall at terminal velocity or a crash at a drone regular top speed, but crashing into a high speed plane is another thing.
I'm aware of how and why they catch fire.
TV is probably between 115-150 mph. Fire fighting planes fly near 100 mph
It is amazes me that ANYONE is prone to make excuses for the idiot who was flying the Mini in the area of a wildfire.
Stop it! You are not helping the hobby by making excuses for this idiot. The drone shouldn't have been in the air, AT ALL. Period.
Had the drone punctured a fuel tank, caused an explosion, and the plane gone down in a previously undamaged neighborhood, I think some of you might have blamed the homeowners for building their homes so close to where airplanes and drones might fly. Seriously, that is how ridiculous your current "excuses" sound.
Mark
Stop it! You are not helping the hobby by making excuses for this idiot. The drone shouldn't have been in the air, AT ALL. Period.
Had the drone punctured a fuel tank, caused an explosion, and the plane gone down in a previously undamaged neighborhood, I think some of you might have blamed the homeowners for building their homes so close to where airplanes and drones might fly. Seriously, that is how ridiculous your current "excuses" sound.
Mark
DARKSeifer
Well-Known Member
There's literally not a single post on this entire topic defending that idiot.
First we debated if it was a drone or not; which, unluckily, has been; then we debated about how a <250 g could make that damage, because no one was expecting that it would be anything but a full sized drone.
Why would anyone defend the operator? With his action, he has basically destroyed the ongoing idea that <250 g were pretty much harmless, hence destroyed the entry level to the hobby. Now, there's no reason to not regulate <250 g exactly the same as <900 g drones or heavier.
Last edited:
AMann
Well-Known Member
The Canadair crew didn’t know when they hit the drone. Their cruising speed is over 200mph, and their water drops around 100mph. So they could have hit it while cruising, which may explain why so much damage. It does look like the battery broke also, so there was a fire risk.
There’s a lot of bad things that could have happened from the hit, glad they didn’t and that the crew was safe. They have too much else to worry about besides stupid drone pilots flying about.
Good point about the speed. I know the fire drops are around 100. I don't know how fast they fly to or from the actual drop.
Yes, there was a fire risk, however miniscule it was.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
Issue with poor focus on the DJI Air 3.
- Started by the_elite_DJI_pilot.
- Replies: 1
-
Small Drone Smashes into Super Scooper Aircraft over Palisades Fire.- Started by The Droning Company
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Forum statistics
