Drone damage to airplanes?

[N2084V]

I had a small bird, (about the size of a Robin ) hit the corner of the windshield in my small Cessna. It cost about 3,000 dollars to replace and my landing was challenging to say the least because of the bird guts. I can only imagine what a Mavic drone would have done.

 

[brett8883]

The way your post read it seemed you were suggesting DJI made good points and the subject test was fake news. The more likely reality is an act of desperation from DJI to try and keep the findings out of the public arena.

At Brett8883 News we are dedicated to bringing you the most important stories of the day. We work hard to make sure our readers receive both sides of every story and then let YOU decide.

There may be occasions when one side of a story has already been reported on ad nauseam by other outlets. In this case we may decide to do our reporting solely on the counter narrative to the widely portrayed version of events. This is to avoid repetition of what our readers are already well aware of. However, it is our promise that in these situations we will always make available or reference the original story in our reporting.

If you have any additional questions or concerns please write to blackholetonowhere@ brett8883news.com

Thank you for your support of Brett8883 news!

 

[sar104]

I think it’s as much what they don’t show as what they do show. According to the original “blog” Risk in the Sky? : University of Dayton, Ohio
by the University the purpose of the test was “to compare a bird strike and a drone strike, using a drone similar in weight to many hobby drones and a wing selected to represent a leading edge structure of a commercial transport aircraft, Poormon said. The drone and gel bird were the same weight and were launched at rates designed to reflect the relative combined speed of a fully intact drone traveling toward a commercial transport aircraft moving at a high approach speed”

The problem here is that they call the plane a “commercial transport aircraft” however they never show the aircraft that they used just the wing which looks like the wing of a commercial jet. However, this is the aircraft they usedView attachment 74608
Now does that look like a “commercial transport aircraft” to anybody?

Also, it their stated purpose was to “to compare a bird strike and a drone strike” then it was extremely conspicuous that they did not release the video of the bird strike ? .

They did however describe the bird strike. “The bird did more apparent damage to the leading edge of the wing, but the Phantom penetrated deeper into the wing and damaged the main spar, which the bird did not do.”

I guess they figured that showing the video of the bird strike next to the video of the drone strike would make the bird strike look worse and decided not to show that and potentially disprove their own point.

The only thing they proved was that under similar situations a drone strike does similar damage to a bird strike and have misrepresented their methodology and findings as well as suppressed evidence contrary to their hypothesis.

Firstly - the original video summary of the Dayton study made it perfectly clear that they were testing a GA aircraft, specifying exactly what they used, and that video does include the simulated bird strike. So your guess is wrong, and your conclusions are incorrect. Stop guessing.

Secondly, the DJI criticism was incorrect. The impact speed used was below the top speed of that aircraft and, in any case, trying to use that argument is either a deliberate attempt by DJI to obfuscate or demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of scientific safety testing. I would have used an even higher impact speed because, for safety testing, a positive result is only achieved by demonstrating a significant margin on the damage threshold - i.e. no signficant damage at some margin above the maximum credible impact speed. Given that damage is mostly energy dependent, a common margin would be 150% of the maximum impact energy, so 123% of the maximum impact speed. This test was below that.

 

[brett8883]

Firstly - the original video summary of the Dayton study made it perfectly clear that they were testing a GA aircraft, specifying exactly what they used, and that video does include the simulated bird strike. So your guess is wrong, and your conclusions are incorrect. Stop guessing.

Secondly, the DJI criticism was incorrect. The impact speed used was below the top speed of that aircraft and, in any case, trying to use that argument is either a deliberate attempt by DJI to obfuscate or demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of scientific safety testing. I would have used an even higher impact speed because, for safety testing, a positive result is only achieved by demonstrating a significant margin on the damage threshold - i.e. no signficant damage at some margin above the maximum credible impact speed. Given that damage is mostly energy dependent, a common margin would be 150% of the maximum impact energy, so 123% of the maximum impact speed. This test was below that.

Firstly I never said that their experiment wasn’t conducted scientifically, I said that the WAY they presented their findings doesn’t address this as they never released the technical details at all. I also take issue with the fact that they did not release the video of the bird strike along side of the drone strike video.

The video you reference is dated Oct. 3rd, 2018 and is from Aviation International News. It is much better then the original released by Daytona University (the organization that conducted the “study”) on September 13, 2018 as I referenced above Risk in the Sky? : University of Dayton, Ohio.
They also uploaded this video the same day to YouTube with no mention of the type of aircraft or make any reference to the fact that they also tested a bid strike in the same manner which I allege is suppression of evidence contrary to their hypothesis. I allege that it was negligent of Daytona University to release this evidence this way without also showing the bird strike and without providing the proper supporting research. I allege that it was a PR stunt to present the video this way and the University should have known that their video would be rebroadcast without the supporting facts because they didn’t provide any.

This the original “blog” commonly referenced by the main stream media for this story, Kevin Poormon, group leader for impact physics at UDR and lead on this “experiment” says, “It’s not practical to regulate manned air vehicles to try to avoid collisions with a quickly growing population of drones, but it is practical to regulate UAV operation,”

We why the heck can’t we regulate manned aircraft to avoid drones? Does this man have the credentials to make such a claim? I don’t know because the report does not elaborate on why a “group leader in impact physics” is qualified to speak about aviation regulations.

Secondly the Mooney is only certified for:

Do Not Exceed Speed

164 Knots (189 Mph)

Max. Structural Cruising Speed

130 Knots(149 MPh)

Mooney M20

www.aopa.org

Lastly, this is the kind of research I would expect from an institution calling themselves University of Daytona “Research Institute.” http://www.assureuas.org/projects/d...Severity Projectile and Target Definition.pdf

It’s not findings I have an issue with it’s the way they were presented and the total lack of supporting documentation.

 

[brett8883]

Also FAA “Section 25.631 requires the empennage structure be designed to assure continued safe flight after impact with an eight-pound bird at VC at sea level, including consideration of control system elements. This regulation was introduced at Amendment 25-23 (effective May 8, 1970) as a result of the 1962 Vickers Viscount accident, which was caused by impact with a swan, estimated to weigh between 12 and 17 pounds, that damaged the horizontal stabilizer and elevator.”

Bird Strike Requirements for Transport Category Airplanes

This document solicits public comments on the need for, and the possible scope of, changes to the bird strike certification requirements for transport category airplanes. The FAA is not currently proposing a specific regulatory action. The purpose of this request is to gather comments from...

www.federalregister.gov

Surely these fellows would have known this since that is what they supposedly do and still decided to test an 2lb bird instead. Doesn’t that seem like something that should have been mentioned in a real scientific study?

 

[sar104]

Firstly I never said that their experiment wasn’t conducted scientifically, I said that the WAY they presented their findings doesn’t address this as they never released the technical details at all. I also take issue with the fact that they did not release the video of the bird strike along side of the drone strike video.

The video you reference is dated Oct. 3rd, 2018 and is from Aviation International News. It is much better then the original released by Daytona University (the organization that conducted the “study”) on September 13, 2018 as I referenced above Risk in the Sky? : University of Dayton, Ohio.
They also uploaded this video the same day to YouTube with no mention of the type of aircraft or make any reference to the fact that they also tested a bid strike in the same manner which I allege is suppression of evidence contrary to their hypothesis. I allege that it was negligent of Daytona University to release this evidence this way without also showing the bird strike and without providing the proper supporting research. I allege that it was a PR stunt to present the video this way and the University should have known that their video would be rebroadcast without the supporting facts because they didn’t provide any.

This the original “blog” commonly referenced by the main stream media for this story, Kevin Poormon, group leader for impact physics at UDR and lead on this “experiment” says, “It’s not practical to regulate manned air vehicles to try to avoid collisions with a quickly growing population of drones, but it is practical to regulate UAV operation,”

We why the heck can’t we regulate manned aircraft to avoid drones? Does this man have the credentials to make such a claim? I don’t know because the report does not elaborate on why a “group leader in impact physics” is qualified to speak about aviation regulations.

Secondly the Mooney is only certified for:

Do Not Exceed Speed

164 Knots (189 Mph)

Max. Structural Cruising Speed

130 Knots(149 MPh)

Mooney M20

www.aopa.org

Lastly, this is the kind of research I would expect from an institution calling themselves University of Daytona “Research Institute.” http://www.assureuas.org/projects/deliverables/a3/Volume I UAS Airborne Collision Severity Projectile and Target Definition.pdf

It’s not findings I have an issue with it’s the way they were presented and the total lack of supporting documentation.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong on almost everything in that post. What technical details are you looking for? Again - they did release the video comparing the simulated bird impact to the drone impact. The video I referenced was the full original video - just because you saw an abbreviated version and couldn't be bothered to do even a cursory search doesn't change that. And the results of the bird impact test supports their conclusions - they don't weaken them - so there was no incentive to hide them and they didn't. There are multiple variants of the M20 with cruising speeds up to 242 knots.

As for the Group Leader's credentials - are you suggesting that he's not qualified to state the obvious? You don't seem to have any problem pronouncing in absolute terms on subjects that you clearly have no qualifications in. And it's the University of Dayton Impact Physics Group - a quite well regarded research organization, not Daytona University.

 

[sar104]

Also FAA “Section 25.631 requires the empennage structure be designed to assure continued safe flight after impact with an eight-pound bird at VC at sea level, including consideration of control system elements. This regulation was introduced at Amendment 25-23 (effective May 8, 1970) as a result of the 1962 Vickers Viscount accident, which was caused by impact with a swan, estimated to weigh between 12 and 17 pounds, that damaged the horizontal stabilizer and elevator.”

Bird Strike Requirements for Transport Category Airplanes

This document solicits public comments on the need for, and the possible scope of, changes to the bird strike certification requirements for transport category airplanes. The FAA is not currently proposing a specific regulatory action. The purpose of this request is to gather comments from...

www.federalregister.gov

Surely these fellows would have known this since that is what they supposedly do and still decided to test an 2lb bird instead. Doesn’t that seem like something that should have been mentioned in a real scientific study?

They compared equivalent masses to demonstrate the effect of the physical characteristics of the impacting object. Changing the physical characteristics and the mass would have been a meaningless test. Alternatively they could have used an 8 lb drone which would likely have severed the wing.

 

[WithTheBirds]

At Brett8883 News we are dedicated to bringing you the most important stories of the day. We work hard to make sure our readers receive both sides of every story and then let YOU decide.

There may be occasions when one side of a story has already been reported on ad nauseam by other outlets. In this case we may decide to do our reporting solely on the counter narrative to the widely portrayed version of events. This is to avoid repetition of what our readers are already well aware of. However, it is our promise that in these situations we will always make available or reference the original story in our reporting.

If you have any additional questions or concerns please write to blackholetonowhere@ brett8883news.com

Thank you for your support of Brett8883 news!

Here is the glaring issue at Brettnews- you need to put a broom through your technical research department. The reporters would be better supported by performing their own simple google searches and/or reading the earlier published articles.

 

[brett8883]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong on almost everything in that post. What technical details are you looking for? Again - they did release the video comparing the simulated bird impact to the drone impact. The video I referenced was the full original video - just because you saw an abbreviated version and couldn't be bothered to do even a cursory search doesn't change that. And the results of the bird impact test supports their conclusions - they don't weaken them - so there was no incentive to hide them and they didn't. There are multiple variants of the M20 with cruising speeds up to 242 knots.

As for the Group Leader's credentials - are you suggesting that he's not qualified to state the obvious? You don't seem to have any problem pronouncing in absolute terms on subjects that you clearly have no qualifications in. And it's the University of Dayton Impact Physics Group - a quite well regarded research organization, not Daytona University.

All we want is the research paper

They compared equivalent masses to demonstrate the effect of the physical characteristics of the impacting object. Changing the physical characteristics and the mass would have been a meaningless test. Alternatively they could have used an 8 lb drone which would likely have severed the wing.

Then they could have explained their methodology in a research paper like I am asking for. Until somebody tests an 8lb drone hitting a wing we DO NOT KNOW WHAT would happen. You are making assumptions. You know who taught me not to do that? YOU

I want to see their log file.

Dic mihi solum facta, domine

 

[sar104]

All we want is the research paper

If it had been a research paper then they would have done that. It was a summary of a preliminary proof of concept test. If they get funded to do a full study then I have no doubt it will be published.

Then they could have explained their methodology in a research paper like I am asking for.

What, exactly, about that test do you not understand? The methodology is fully apparent in the video.

Until somebody tests an 8lb drone hitting a wing we DO NOT KNOW WHAT would happen. You are making assumptions. You know who taught me not to do that? YOU

It happens to be one of my fields too. I've spent a lot of time creating and examining impact damage - hence my comment about the likely damage an 8 lb drone would have done. I wasn't making an assumption - I was giving an informed opinion. Just an opinion, although I'd put money on it.

I want to see their log file.

I assume that's meant metaphorically, but what you saw is what there is. It was a very simple test with a self-explanatory result.

Dic mihi solum facta, domine

You have them, in this case.

 

[brett8883]

If it had been a research paper then they would have done that. It was a summary of a preliminary proof of concept test. If they get funded to do a full study then I have no doubt it will be published.



What, exactly, about that test do you not understand? The methodology is fully apparent in the video.



It happens to be one of my fields too. I've spent a lot of time creating and examining impact damage - hence my comment about the likely damage an 8 lb drone would have done. I wasn't making an assumption - I was giving an informed opinion. Just an opinion, although I'd put money on it.



I assume that's meant metaphorically, but what you saw is what there is. It was a very simple test with a self-explanatory result.



You have them, in this case.

Well that’s fine then why don’t they just say that? They are presenting it like that was the final result. We now have a motive. Funding.

And btw it’s not the researchers I have a problem with it’s the communications department that is putting the info out there. They released the drone only video on September 13, 2018 let all the main stream media go all nuts about it and then quietly released the video you referenced on Oct. 3, 2018 after the pandemonium had died down.

Unless you can find a video of the full meal deal dated on or before Sep. 13, 2018 but I have been unable to find one released by University of Daytona. I’ll retract that point if you can.

 

[sar104]

Well that’s fine then why don’t they just say that? They are presenting it like that was the final result. We now have a motive. Funding.

Wait - did you think that research is free? This was almost certainly the result of a proposal or white paper on the subject. It's been a hot topic for obvious reasons, and the UD impact group is one of the obvious candidates to do this kind of work. And how could you possibly have taken that to represent a final result?

And btw it’s not the researchers I have a problem with it’s the communications department that is putting the info out there. They released the drone only video on September 13, 2018 let all the main stream media go all nuts about it and then quietly released the video you referenced on Oct. 3, 2018 after the pandemonium had died down.

But even the shortened version that you saw was entirely accurate, so what's your point?

Unless you can find a video of the full meal deal dated on or before Sep. 13, 2018 but I have been unable to find one released by University of Daytona. I’ll retract that point if you can.

Dayton. Not Daytona. Retract which point? The full video was the first one that I found when I followed the link to the original UDRI blog. My notes are not good enough to reconstruct exactly where it was. But again - even the shorter video is accurate so, now that you have seen the longer version, what is your problem with it - other than that your beliefs and allegations turned out to be misplaced? You are working way too hard on a mission doomed to failure (discrediting the work). I don't understand why it is so hard to accept at face value a very simple, clearly described test.

 

[brett8883]

But even the shortened version that you saw was entirely accurate, so what's your point?

It’s misleading. That is my point and has always been my point. They show what looks like the wing of a commercial airliner that the average person might fly on getting hit by a drone to spark public outcry and fear for the purpose of up publicity to attract funding. How do you not see that as misleading?

The longer video is much better but they didn’t release that till several weeks after they released the shorter one. And no most people don’t realize that these researchers mislead the public to generate funding but thank you for acknowledging it.

 

[brett8883]

The full video was the first one that I found when I followed the link to the original UDRI blog. My notes are not good enough to reconstruct exactly where it was. But again - even the shorter video is accurate so, now that you have seen the longer version, what is your problem with it - other than that your beliefs and allegations turned out to be misplaced? You are working way too hard on a mission doomed to failure (discrediting the work). I don't understand why it is so hard to accept at face value a very simple, clearly described test.

Sir the full video is not on their blog anywhere. You referenced a YouTube video that was shot by another organization. If that video was on their blog we wouldn’t be having this discussion

 

[sar104]

It’s misleading. That is my point and has always been my point. They show what looks like the wing of a commercial airliner that the average person might fly on getting hit by a drone to spark public outcry and fear for the purpose of up publicity to attract funding. How do you not see that as misleading?

The longer video is much better but they didn’t release that till several weeks after they released the shorter one. And no most people don’t realize that these researchers mislead the public to generate funding but thank you for acknowledging it.

The first publication I saw of this was in suasnews on September 22. It clearly describes the test and references the M20 aircraft used. It doesn't even remotely look like an airliner wing. The longer video that I linked above, which contained exactly the same information as the suasnews article but included the high-speed images of the bird strike, was published on October 8. And don't put words into my mouth and make straw man arguments - that's pathetic and you are better than that.

 

[sar104]

Sir the full video is not on their blog anywhere. You referenced a YouTube video that was shot by another organization. If that video was on their blog we wouldn’t be having this discussion

I'm done with this discussion. I have no idea what your agenda is here, but I'm not wasting any more time trying to reason with you.

 

[NESLDrone]

I think I have finally reached the point that I am skeptical (don't believe) anything that I read or hear in published news. Everybody portrays information in a way that supports their purpose. I don't think there is anywhere to get unbiased news. Major news sources have turned into "news shows" and could care less about "the whole picture". I remember, back in the cold war days, of hearing how the Soviet citizens just don't believe their news sources because they knew it was propaganda. Now, we're in that same place......

Sorry for the rant. I don't usually, but this is a topic that hits me wrong..

You are now in the Matrix

 

[Deleted member 94307]

Everyone should have to take a course and earn FAA part 107.. then you know all about TFRs

That being said manned aircraft should not be under 400 feet unless they are involved in search and rescue.. all to after I see manned aircraft flying to low.. even trying to get a better look at me when I’m flying with strobes in vlos.

Happy to hear about technology soon to be implemented that would warn uavs of approaching aircraft.. we need it because it’s too easy to lose sight of a drone. You look down and when you look back up you often have lost it and have to fly closer to see it again..

 

[CincyTriGuy]

The problem here is that they call the plane a “commercial transport aircraft” however they never show the aircraft that they used just the wing which looks like the wing of a commercial jet. However, this is the aircraft they usedView attachment 74608
Now does that look like a “commercial transport aircraft” to anybody?

Regardless of what you think the aircraft looks like, a GA aircraft like this Mooney is by far the most likely type of aircraft that would experience a drone strike. This is exactly the type of aircraft that should be included in these studies.

 

[Cymruflyer]

It all depends on the area of impact (on the wing) the angle of impact, and which portion of the sUAS strikes the aircraft.

I'll be brutally honest here.... how could anyone just simply dismiss the video of a "Phantom Like" aircraft penetrating the wing skin like that? Yes they simulated a direct full-on strike and probably on a less rigid portion of the wing but why would you NOT test Worse Case Scenario?

The "Evidence" that the YT showed of the Canadian aircraft is bull... they don't know which drone hit it, what angle it hit it, or which portion of the drone hit it. It could have simply been the soft plastic undercarriage that "Scuffed" the aircraft wing.....

What you have to remember in these cases, is that some labs may not be playing fair, while other may. For example, if the drone can only reach a max. speed of 42MPH and the aircraft in question can only reach a max. straight and level speed of, for example 150MPH, then the testing should be done so that the wing is sped up to a combined speed of 192MPH when it impacts the hanging drone, or the drone is propelled at this same speed when it is shot at the stationary wing of the aircraft. If the lab decided to shoot the drone at the wing at a speed of 250MPH then of course the wing would sustain more damage. However, that would not be a real word happening and that resultant data would be extremely misleading, as well as incorrect.

Of course there are many different aircraft that fly through the sky and these have greatly differing speeds at cruise and resulting damage at higher speeds is always going to be more severe. With that said, at cruse speed those aircraft are always at higher altitudes, and the average drone flier is never going to be flying at those altitudes, which means that a drone strike is as likely as being in a tornado while living in northern Canada. We can not say that no one is going to fly a drone at high altitude but we can assume that if we are considerate about the rules, a strike between the two aircraft will likely not happen. Yes anything can happen but that is outside of all our control.

Many years ago when the British government sold the British invented Harrier jet to the US military, they stated that the cockpit canopy could sustain impact from a number of sized birds with no damage. Not wanting to accept that data, the US wanted to carry out their own testing, and sure enough, they were able to shatter canopy glass of the Harrier. Just reading this would have many believe that the British testing was flawed or biased.

When the US testing was looked into in more detail, the British discovered that the US were propelling frozen birds at the canopy, which was not a real world testing procedure. Of course a frozen chunk of flesh is going to impart more damage on the canopy than a soft natural body of a bird. Therefore, when reading testing data, it is best to be able to source all the information possible regarding those test, to be sure they were done correctly and fairly.

The other thing to consider, when assessing what damage a drone might do to an aircraft, is the type of aircraft that might come into contact with the drone. Everyone seems to be thinking of a Jet airliner or a Cessna high wing aircraft, which are both metal covered aircraft. They also seem to assume that a drone would hit the leading edge of a wing. I suspect that most here have never taken into consideration that there are many much lighter weight aircraft also flying through the sky.

Aircraft such as fabric covered Piper Cubs and other type of fabric covered aircraft, some internal metal structures and some with wooed built wings. Then there are props to consider, the majority of props are metal but there are a number of aircraft that fly with wooden props which would sustain more damage than a metal prop in such an impact. But even a bolt left on the ground that a prop might suck up can cause a slight fracture that does nothing at that point, but over time that crack can propagate to a point that part of the blade could shear off in flight.

When an aircraft loses a piece of propeller in flight it is not a good day. There can be a minor shake to a severe shake, due to imbalance of that prop. A severe imbalance can create such a shake, that if not immediately attended to, could possible shake the engine off its mountings. If an engine was to fall off in flight, those aboard had better have jam in their pockets, because they will be toast! An aircraft's CG is finely balanced for flight, from passenger placement to baggage placement, and the loss of an engine in a small single engine aircraft would be catastrophic, due to the aircraft's CG being so far out, it is not recoverable.

There is another thing to think about in drone strikes and that is, not all strikes may be on the leading edge of a wing, it may be a tail structure which is not as hefty as a wing and may sustain more damage than a wing strike. Again this could cause an aircraft to crash and kill all on board. Now, all this is highly unlikely to happen as long as we don't fly drones in areas that are close to GA aircraft and that pilots keep themselves high enough to avoid a strike with a slightly higher flying drone, than the new laws allow, just to keep that buffer in altitude a safer buffer. But when considering the damage a drone can do to an aircraft, there are all sorts of man carrying aircraft up there, from delicate ultralights to high speed jet airliners and all at different speeds and altitudes, so be mindful of that when flying. I'm not the drone police but I am both kinds of pilot and we should both consider the other and their safety when flying.