Drone strike example.

[LuvMyTJ]

​

 

[UAV Man]

 

[ascension]

View attachment 3064​

You did get the comment that airliner's radomes are not made of aluminum, per your claim, right?
I would think that an administrator on this forum would want to know that when judging the link.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

You did get the comment that airliner's radomes are not made of aluminum, per your claim, right?
I would think that an administrator on this forum would want to know that when judging the link.

In post #12 you explained it. Also, I never claimed they were made from aluminum... I asked if they were. I said without explanation I could not make an accurate assumption of the video. Please do not add conjecture into my post. Being a forum admin does not make me an aircraft designer or builder. My post was to gain further information on it.

 

[dirkclod]

You did get the comment that airliner's radomes are not made of aluminum, per your claim, right?
I would think that an administrator on this forum would want to know that when judging the link.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

While this video is not about fuselage strikes it is another real concern.
Looks like the folks over at Rolls Royce got his under control...

 

[UAV Man]

Means the 5m liability insurance ain't enough I guess..

 

[nomad33fw]

This is crap. First to qualify, I have a pilots license and a rotor rating. These have to be about the most unscientific tests I have seen on the matter! Really 4 grape size steel cylinders to represent the motors? The motors on my 3DR, and Yunnec's (still waiting for my Mavic) are not solid steel, they may even be aluminum. In any case they are not SOLID, they break apart on hard impact. The plastic is also not solid chunks. and it is not all bound together in a tight package to be shot out of a cannon. These tests are typical of someone that has an agenda and designed the test to match the outcome they were looking for. That and the first story they mention about London turned out to by a ballon, and why is the plane flying so close to the building?

The facts are:
You can't ban drones anymore then guns - I can print both and buy the necessary components and pieces.

In the US the FAA is a typical *** backwards bureaucracy, if they existed when the Wright Brothers were trying to get in the air we would still thing ballon flight was high tech. When rules or laws don't make sense people are less likely to follow them.

I don't want someone flying an 'drone' into the path of an aircraft either but unless you are flying in the direct flight path of a runway this is probably not going to happing. Keep the thing below 400 AGL not over highways or directly inline with takeoff and departures. Other then this you should be good.

In a small aircraft the pattern is generally flown at about 1000-1200 feet about 1/4 to 1/2 mile out until you make your final turns, for large aircraft the pattern is much higher at further distances. No drone should be up at these altitudes or this close to an airport anyway. Manned aircraft should not be flying as close to buildings as a typical drone would be...they are actually prohibited.

anyway just my .02 vent

 

[Birdie_Sparrow]

Wait until the first airliner is brought down with a drone that had a half pound of Semtex on it. Surprised it has not happened already.

I am sure the laws and regs for that will be a huge knee jerk

 

[UAV Man]

Wait until the first airliner is brought down with a drone that had a half pound of Semtex on it. Surprised it has not happened already.

I am sure the laws and regs for that will be a huge knee jerk

Fact is Terrorists could easily take a drone, strap on explosive with impact fuse and hover in front of a plane taking off or landing. I think we will see this sort of attack too. But how do you enforce against criminals/terrorists.... Best we can do is develop anti drone technology ie. the 'Pathfinder' project to detect drones at low altitude.

 

[erkme73]

Fact is Terrorists could easily take a drone, strap on explosive with impact fuse and hover in front of a plane taking off or landing. I think we will see this sort of attack too. But how do you enforce against criminals/terrorists.... Best we can do is develop anti drone technology ie. the 'Pathfinder' project to detect drones at low altitude.

That's why the current FAA guidelines - and really any laws/bans passed - are 100% ineffective at preventing the catastrophe everyone fears. The law-abiding, attentive, and careful operators don't need guidelines, rules, laws, or bans. They know to avoid danger. The careless, inattentive, and clueless idiot that says, "hold my beer... watch this" can't be bothered by any rules. And someone who is willing to create chaos, killing people or damaging aircraft intentionally, won't be stopped by any 400' ceiling.

Just like the TSA, this is nothing but theater. It's designed to make the masses FEEL safe, and make it appear the politicians have their best interests in mind.

Of course, not leaving any good crisis (perceived or actual) go to waste, statists will immediately defend any and all new regulations as necessary - if they only save one plane (or save just one child!)... Whether they actually do is immaterial.

 

[4wd]

Wait until the first airliner is brought down with a drone that had a half pound of Semtex on it. Surprised it has not happened already.

I am sure the laws and regs for that will be a huge knee jerk

Like that would stop them.
Politically inspired tokenism.

 

[UAV Man]

I suppose the real question is: stick with the rules or ignore them??

In the UK the CAA are yet to really prosecute anyone and I think having read too many articles the FAA are pretty much the same...

I personally follow a verging on an OCD pre-flight check, including wind meters and laser measures if close to properties. Then still cancel attempts if I fore see people passing within the 50m radius. I also make a habit of avoiding flights over people or property.

Having seen the amazing footage people are getting by ignoring this type of procedure should I just say "what the hell..."?

 

[m0j0]

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.

I definitely think a drone strike could be a problem if it happens. I have a question for you though. How high were you flying when you hit the bird? Higher than 400 feet? If not why not? Second how many drones have you seen while flying? How many were above 400 feet?How many birds have you seen while flying? How many were above 400 feet?



Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots

 

[DanB]

I definitely think a drone strike could be a problem if it happens. I have a question for you though. How high were you flying when you hit the bird? Higher than 400 feet? If not why not? Second how many drones have you seen while flying? How many were above 400 feet?How many birds have you seen while flying? How many were above 400 feet?



Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots

To answer your questions I was about 300' AGL just off shore on the E Coast of FL, a route and altitude common to helicopter operations in the area. It provides additional vertical separation for the number of fixed wing operations being conducted from the coastal airports. I've not had any personal drone encounters as yet. With regards to birds, they're all over, I've had encounters from the surface to 5,000 feet.

 

[m0j0]

To answer your questions I was about 300' AGL just off shore on the E Coast of FL, a route and altitude common to helicopter operations in the area. It provides additional vertical separation for the number of fixed wing operations being conducted from the coastal airports. I've not had any personal drone encounters as yet. With regards to birds, they're all over, I've had encounters from the surface to 5,000 feet.

This supports my assumption. Birds seem to be more of a threat than drones. They aren't governed by rules or GEO. There are many more of them.

 

[ascension]

This supports my assumption. Birds seem to be more of a threat than drones. They aren't governed by rules or GEO. There are many more of them.

Drone operators are not going to win a public opinion forum vs birds.
Birds and airplanes have been at it for years.
One or two drone hits, and there's going to be a big problem.
It's a silly and losing argument, and best avoided by staying away.

 

[m0j0]

Drone operators are not going to win a public opinion forum vs birds.
Birds and airplanes have been at it for years.
One or two drone hits, and there's going to be a big problem.
It's a silly and losing argument, and best avoided by staying away.

First I wasn't making an arguement of birds versus drones. So don't attempt to put words in my mouth. My question was specific and answered by a pilot who made a comment earlier. It was specific to him.

Second, nobody said drone strikes wouldn't be a problem. So get down from your soapbox of course an accident would be terrible and a huge problem for us all.

I just keep everything in perspective. A bird strike is much more likely than a drone strike. The probability of a drone hitting a plane is astronimical. Even when you factor in muppets flying where they shouldn't. The probability is very low. That is my arguement. If you want to argue against that go ahead.

Again for the umpteenth time .. that doesn't mean i believe we should fly recklessly. I support responsible flying. I just point to the probabilities that is all.

 

[VietVet]

This is a great topic and one that every quad owner should show interest. A couple years back you could fly your RC fixed wing aircraft just about anywhere without a problem. I used to fly mine near my home in a very large open lot. When flying it folks would stop by and actually be entertained by watching it fly by do loops and safely land. The police would drive by sometimes even watch and smile. I never had an irate neighbor call and complain, never! You had Parkflyers who on a Sunday could go to the local vacant soccer field and fly their craft. Now I'm afraid to go back to where I flew and wonder when this whole thing will come to an end because of rules and regulations. Then the press started with all this "drone" thing as if Darth Vader was here with the Death Star and things went down hill fast. I would say there have been more negative incidents with lasers and aircraft then with quads but you don't have to register when you buy a laser pen. There is no lobby for the quad enthusiast and the AMA members are more or less fixed wing flyers and blame the quads for all this attention to the hobby. Each state, city and town are now adopting "drone" laws to restrict or stop the flight of "drones" all together. I wanted to by a Mavic until I saw all the attention it was getting, not by the hobbyist but by the press and the average Joe. Even though DJI is now claiming shipping in 5 to 7 days I find myself restrained from buying one because there will be more restrictions coming. I don't have the answer to the problem but I can tell you reversing these rules and regulations will be next to impossible. Maybe one of you has the answer?

 

[erkme73]

It's crazy. I just learned today that my home state of Florida passed a law that makes drone operators liable for damages if they capture any private property with a camera at a level higher that street level. In essence, any aerial captures of anything other than your own property constitutes an invasion of privacy.

Fortunately, in the next few months I will be moving to my vacation property in TN where the closest neighbor is more than a mile away.