Drone strike example.

[UAV Man]

What Really Happens When a Drone Strikes an Airplane

 

[scooot]

Interesting.



Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

 

[Will Vardy]

Scaremongering bull. The reality is a drone could damage a passenger plane but bring it down? You'd be VERY unlucky. And seeing as dji products won't go near a registered airport it's all down to the cheaper makes which tend to be smaller anyway

 

[Bryan Conover]

What Really Happens When a Drone Strikes an Airplane

Propaganda...you stand a greater chance of finding a 5kt diamond at the beach before a UAS will be sucked in to a jet engine...let me know when either 1 of 2 things happens and I'll send you $10,000 in cash. A human being is struck and killed from a UAS falling out of the sky...and a commercial jet liner blows a engine after ingesting a drone. Pretty sure my money is safe.

 

[Bryan Conover]

Scaremongering bull. The reality is a drone could damage a passenger plane but bring it down? You'd be VERY unlucky. And seeing as dji products won't go near a registered airport it's all down to the cheaper makes which tend to be smaller anyway

All meant to further control the masses and instill fear in the general public. Put a drone in the sky and the police show up.

 

[UAV Man]

Whether you believe its scare mongering or not doesn't really matter. Governments are all investing in this type of research currently. RAF in the UK are purposefully flying into Drones to see what effects they have.

Like it or not 'Drones' are the target of the Aviation Industries biggest players and unless you have as many lobbyists as they do I'd suggest you start supporting safe practices.

Having spoken to my neighbour who flies commercial jets for a UK company his union are currently lobbying to have all drones banned for public use. Not an opinion I agree with but I don't fly over 600 souls about the world a day.

Regarding the actual risks involved too jets, it's pretty minimal and correct DJI do use smart technology to stop people flying around airports. If you read the article you'll see the greater risk is to private aircraft and helicopters.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

While the chances of it happening are slim as some of you say... that will not be the case soon enough. More & more take to the skies everyday with full scale commercial operations due to start soon.

I do however have a few questions regarding the linked content. What was a fiberglass nose cone used? Aren't most commercial airliners aluminum in the nose cone area? And the projectile they used was nothing like the shape of a drone. Without some explanation into the video I can't put to much validity in it.

 

[DanB]

I don't know what your personal experiences have been but I've hit a bird at about 140 knots and had it come through the chin bubble on a helicopter. Fortunately it wasn't the windscreen as the bird may have incapacitated me, temporarily. At low altitude, that's not much time to react. Honestly, the bird coming through scared the crap out of me and I can't imagine what a Mavic or Phantom would do. Food for thought... yes, I fly sUAS too and do my best to do so professionally.

 

[UAV Man]

While the chances of it happening are slim as some of you say... that will not be the case soon enough. More & more take to the skies everyday with full scale commercial operations due to start soon.

I do however have a few questions regarding the linked content. What was a fiberglass nose cone used? Aren't most commercial airliners aluminum in the nose cone area? And the projectile they used was nothing like the shape of a drone. Without some explanation into the video I can't put to much validity in it.

I think the point of the video is to give an example, it not the final research as far as I'm aware and having read through the article. References to commercial jets is a little tenuous as you pointed out they use alternate materials in the construction of parts. But the later in the article is does say the most at risk are smaller planes and helicopters. Which are lower level and have less protection, this is also the ares we see irresponsible drone pilots flying in (400m +) around cities.

I think the bird strike risk is a little higher but based on the videos I've seen they have more brain cells than many pilots with drones....

 

[Will Vardy]

I think the bird strike risk is a little higher but based on the videos I've seen they have more brain cells than many pilots with drones....


... Can't argue with that! The masses are generally thick as ****. I thought that (in the UK anyway) aircraft cannot fly lower than 500 ft in normal flight. And seeing as we can't fly higher than 500ft I'm confused as to where the problem is?! So the issue only really lies in light aircraft/helicopters taking off/landing from/in unregistered strips.

 

[UAV Man]

I think the bird strike risk is a little higher but based on the videos I've seen they have more brain cells than many pilots with drones....


... Can't argue with that! The masses are generally thick as ****. I thought that (in the UK anyway) aircraft cannot fly lower than 500 ft in normal flight. And seeing as we can't fly higher than 500ft I'm confused as to where the problem is?! So the issue only really lies in light aircraft/helicopters taking off/landing from/in unregistered strips.

In theory with a Mavic you can fly up to 500 meters or 1600+ feet. Any threat is predominately on approach to airports and as pointed out several times this is assuming the approach is long ie. outside of the no fly zone.

 

[ascension]

While the chances of it happening are slim as some of you say... that will not be the case soon enough. More & more take to the skies everyday with full scale commercial operations due to start soon.

I do however have a few questions regarding the linked content. What was a fiberglass nose cone used? Aren't most commercial airliners aluminum in the nose cone area? And the projectile they used was nothing like the shape of a drone. Without some explanation into the video I can't put to much validity in it.

The nose of an airliner is made of fiberglass or some composite, not a aluminum.
It is called a "radome," because the weather radar, and maybe an antenna or two are located inside of it.
Thus, they must allow non attenuated penetration of transmission energy, and cannot be aluminum.

Further, and from experience, it takes quite a bit of time to replace one, even if a certain station has one in its spare parts inventory. Radomes typically adjust to the front portion of the fuselage that they are attached to, and the replacement takes hours, and is very expensive and disruptive of schedule.

 

[Will Vardy]

1600 ft?!? Crikey I never realised. Ok so yeah some idiot could place a mavic in the approach path of pretty much any aircraft. Well I'm not to worried. I don't like rules and regs being forced apon our lives but if I need to prove I'm safe with a drone then so be it.
I think an IQ test needs to be mandatory before pregnancy. Just a thought

 

[UAV Man]

1600 ft?!? Crikey I never realised. Ok so yeah some idiot could place a mavic in the approach path of pretty much any aircraft. Well I'm not to worried. I don't like rules and regs being forced apon our lives but if I need to prove I'm safe with a drone then so be it.
I think an IQ test needs to be mandatory before pregnancy. Just a thought

Don't think anyone is a fan of the rules, but we fly safe less rules we don't .... BAN!

Some say thats a little extreme but we'll see..... On the Inspire forum the attitude is 99% in favour of sticking to the rules, the logic here is the average investment for an Inspire is about 3k plus if you work commercially the license etc.

Here and more worryingly with the US pilots is seems to be back to the days of the 'wildwest'..... You can almost hear the similarities between the 'Pro gun lobby' and pilots refusing to follow simple safety guidelines.

 

[Will Vardy]

Don't think anyone is a fan of the rules, but we fly safe less rules we don't .... BAN!

Some say thats a little extreme but we'll see..... On the Inspire forum the attitude is 99% in favour of sticking to the rules, the logic here is the average investment for an Inspire is about 3k plus if you work commercially the license etc.

Here and more worryingly with the US pilots is seems to be back to the days of the 'wildwest'..... You can almost hear the similarities between the 'Pro gun lobby' and pilots refusing to follow simple safety guidelines.

Hmm. Don't get me wrong I'm pro rules. My immediate gut reaction is why the hell should I have to have a licence to prove I can be safe, but then when you think how the hobby is now affordable to the masses you can't really argue.
And no I don't think a ban is extreme. Perhaps a strike system would be better but it's way to early days for that.

Don't get me started on the gun thing. I've had many an argument over it. I have firearms and shotguns and am pro gun but the rules in alot of states need tightening for sure. That said I have no right to comment on a country I don't live in. UK firearm rules are pretty good

 

[UAV Man]

The guys I feel for are the old boys who've flown RC for years and now these new plastic things are basically destroying their hobby. I'm off too Canada next year so will have to fork out a couple a thousand bucks for license, ground school, etc.... But I don't mind as its an investment for commercial work, also the attitude there is so much more about pilots being responsible and less about policy and government imposing rules.

 

[DroningOn]

Here and more worryingly with the US pilots is seems to be back to the days of the 'wildwest'..... You can almost hear the similarities between the 'Pro gun lobby' and pilots refusing to follow simple safety guidelines.

What are you saying? The quote "Gun Lobby" refuses to follow "simple safety guidelines" and are the equivalent to some idiot purposely dodging manned aircraft with a UAV?

SMH :-/

 

[UAV Man]

What are you saying? The quote "Gun Lobby" refuses to follow "simple safety guidelines" and are the equivalent to some idiot purposely dodging manned aircraft with a UAV?

SMH :-/

Sorry, but over here in the UK we have a few rebels but on the forums and groups I'm part of the same old rhetoric is spouted about 'free country' and it our right...etc. The reference to the Gun Lobby is in reflect to the comments made. It's the 'maverick' approach to following the guidelines or laws that is hard to swallow.

 

[DroningOn]

The reference to the Gun Lobby is in reflect to the comments made. It's the 'maverick' approach to following the guidelines or laws that is hard to swallow.

Example please

....... and why is a Canadian commenting on US gun laws if that's what you were doing?

 

[Andrew F]

I don't know what your personal experiences have been but I've hit a bird at about 140 knots and had it come through the chin bubble on a helicopter. Fortunately it wasn't the windscreen as the bird may have incapacitated me, temporarily. At low altitude, that's not much time to react. Honestly, the bird coming through scared the crap out of me and I can't imagine what a Mavic or Phantom would do. Food for thought... yes, I fly sUAS too and do my best to do so professionally.

We clearly need to ban birds! (Joke). The current US guidelines work well to keep people safe and maintain liberties. Some tweaking needs to happen (heliport 5 mile radius is a joke) - but clearly we don't want passenger jets ingesting drones.