New UK drone laws next week

[4wd]

Both reports are at improbable altitudes not attainable by regular DJI products unless somehow wildly out of control.
This is a regular theme with all these supposed near misses, which raises suspicions the whole story is largely fantasy or at least has been embroidered to provide 'proof' legislation is urgently needed.

 

[reckless]

How do people get around the NFZ's?
Thought NFZ's were infallible.

 

[colinfowler]

How do people get around the NFZ's?
Thought NFZ's were infallible.

by not buying DJI
or build your own drone (in blue)

 

[MavicPro2]

The wind-tunnel testing I've seen tells a dramatically different story.

The reason is, birds are soft flesh, so when a collision happens, much of the impact energy is absorbed in the splattering destruction of the bird. Deformation absorbs a lot energy -- this is why cars are designed with "crumple zones" and other stress points designed to break and deform.

A Mavic, on the other hand, is like a rock. At 100mph, a drone (in this case a P3) will go right through the wing of a cessna 152.

I'm an aerospace engineer and for more rubust testing of engine survivability we use frozen chickens I kid you not. The engine copes pretty well thats for sure, the chicken on the other hand...

 

[DOC_XDA]

Uneducated? Really?
A drone collision can rip off a pitot tube, damage a static port, block the oil intercooler or cause prop/turbine blade damage. When an aircraft is low and slow, as in during takeoff (laden with fuel) and landing, it is most vulnerable. The margins are considerably thinner should an emergency arise.
Also small single-engine and twins have thin plexi windscreens. A Mavic or other small drone could smash right through a plexi windscreen and into the pilot or passengers face, causing serious injury or worse.
I am a FAA certificated pilot with instrument and ground instructor ratings. I fly all the time out of Class B, C, D and E airports. My greatest collision fear around the airport surface area is not with another aircraft, but some hobbyist with a drone.
I am not saying all drone operators are careless and wreckless, but obviously many are. Thus my argument that for a drone operator to be able to fly in an airport area they need to be a certificated pilot, and I don't mean simply a drone operators license.

No one is saying fly near airports, nor go to collide into airplanes, by saying uneducated I mean that people that are not as savy as you take things out of proportions. You fly a drone right? (Otherwise you wouldnt be in a mavics forum?) So you can agree with me that we need regulations made by people like you (that clearly understand the potential damage) and not by people that consider them as wmd.

 

[collins]

The wind-tunnel testing I've seen tells a dramatically different story.

The reason is, birds are soft flesh, so when a collision happens, much of the impact energy is absorbed in the splattering destruction of the bird. Deformation absorbs a lot energy -- this is why cars are designed with "crumple zones" and other stress points designed to break and deform.

A Mavic, on the other hand, is like a rock. At 100mph, a drone (in this case a P3) will go right through the wing of a cessna 152.

This seems to conflict with recent reports. Do you have some links to this data?

 

[Johnmcl7]

I don't think there's anything unreasonable about stiffer penalties for flying in an airport NFZ, I don't find these news stories about supposed near misses with drones over the last few months believable as they just don't make any sense. No drones could do this out of the box and those capable would need specialist modifications plus it doesn't seem credible that they're flying so close to the planes and that pilots can identify these drones while going hundreds of miles. Even putting aside the difficulty in getting a drone up there (it's not something you can just buy a £100 drone for and stick it up), there's the question of why...there's no good spy shots as these are just commercial airliners and I would have thought if someone wanted to crash the drone into a plane they would have done so.

Despite all these sightings and near misses, no-one else has seen these mysterious drones which can't have that large a range or flight time and would need to quickly get back down which people could be on the look out for. Near misses with helicopters I could understand as their speed is lower and the altitude can be a lot lower (thinking of the rescue and medical ones that fly over my house) but so far it's been commercial jet engine planes.

 

[Robin]

The wind-tunnel testing I've seen tells a dramatically different story.

The reason is, birds are soft flesh, so when a collision happens, much of the impact energy is absorbed in the splattering destruction of the bird. Deformation absorbs a lot energy -- this is why cars are designed with "crumple zones" and other stress points designed to break and deform.

A Mavic, on the other hand, is like a rock. At 100mph, a drone (in this case a P3) will go right through the wing of a cessna 152.

Where is this information ?
The plastic is soft and only small bits of metal.
I think a consumer drone would be smashed to bits.

 

[4wd]

Where is this information ?
The plastic is soft and only small bits of metal.
I think a consumer drone would be smashed to bits.

I agree with this though Mavic might be a little denser than Phantoms which were more or less bendy plastic.
If one went in a jet engine, even if it did no damage (most likely outcome) there might still be downtime for checking.

Small planes might be more vulnerable but speeds are much less.
I'd like to see a small drone trying to get near a helicopter, it would be swatted like a bug or simply blasted away.

 

[Evo1668]

Thank you for proving my whole argument about arrogant and ignorant people. You sir are a classic case! Condesending ****.

@westonmavicpilot
and you sir are a blinkered fool....I never fly out of line of sight, never fly in NFZ.....I am responsible as to both how and where I fly. I do not condone any drone operator flying in restricted zones....
I simply point out the sheeple who drink in and believe as gospel, everything they read in the mainstream media....the Times for god sake is owned by one of the biggest imperial neo-Liberalists in the world....and you think he has yours or the people's best interests at heart....? Check again and educate yourself a bit....

 

[Johnmcl7]

On talking about how hard objects interact with aircraft, I noticed this news article this evening about someone chucking small coins in the jet engine for luck:

Coins thrown into plane engine by elderly passenger for 'luck' - BBC News

 

[gavcuk]

On talking about how hard objects interact with aircraft, I noticed this news article this evening about someone chucking small coins in the jet engine for luck:

Coins thrown into plane engine by elderly passenger for 'luck' - BBC News

Apply the same logic as people use with regards to drone articles. Ban all elderly people from flying on aircraft.

 

[westonmavicpilot]

@westonmavicpilot
and you sir are a blinkered fool....I never fly out of line of sight, never fly in NFZ.....I am responsible as to both how and where I fly. I do not condone any drone operator flying in restricted zones....
I simply point out the sheeple who drink in and believe as gospel, everything they read in the mainstream media....the Times for god sake is owned by one of the biggest imperial neo-Liberalists in the world....and you think he has yours or the people's best interests at heart....? Check again and educate yourself a bit....

@ego 1668

Wow, you really do love the sound of your own voice don't you, I'm guessing you're the pub bore, the guy people see coming and make a swift exit to avoid lol. If you had actually read my first post accurately you would have seen that I was not in support of the articles in the papers - I was making a point about the total denial by many people here that there could be any truth to any of them what so ever, almost to the point where some come across as appearing to support those poor flying habits. But yeah I'm sure you are the perfect pilot, always flying line of site, even with your goggles on. Keep up the good work, you're an inspiration to all of us. Lmao.

 

[Viciam]

Chill out people.

 

[collins]

I'm an aerospace engineer and for more rubust testing of engine survivability we use frozen chickens I kid you not. The engine copes pretty well thats for sure, the chicken on the other hand...

I have to say that firing frozen chickens at aircraft sounds like my sort of job!!

 

[collins]

Here is an example of a summary on research of the dangers of UAV collisions.

It concludes that 'Results strongly suggest RCC-based thresholds are overly conservative in terms of injury potential because they do not accurately represent the collision dynamics of elastically-deformable sUAS'

ASSUREuas - Research Projects - sUAS Ground Collision Report

Further in the report it says that someone is 3,000 times more likely to suffer a head injury from a piece of wood (of the same mass) falling from the sky (sic) than a drone (apparently tested with a Phantom)

I dont really think that most people know the danger or destruction a Mavic could do in a collision (and that seems to include most Mavic owners). I am not sure how much testing has actually been done and I suspect most of it is hidden away in obscure engineering journals. The problem is that it is human nature when confronted with potential dangers of an unknown severity - to simply assume the worst.

As such 'drone crashes into sports stadium' or plane has 'near miss' with drone make much better news stories than 'report says drones are actually pretty safe' or 'plane destroys drone - Billy is in tears.'

 

[mightyarrow]

Both reports are at improbable altitudes not attainable by regular DJI products unless somehow wildly out of control.
This is a regular theme with all these supposed near misses, which raises suspicions the whole story is largely fantasy or at least has been embroidered to provide 'proof' legislation is urgently needed.

False. I've flown a Mavic to 4400ft up. It's called firmware modifications, and they've been happening since about the Phantom 2, maybe earlier. The P3 Pro, all P4s, and all Mavics have firmware mods for them that remove the altitude caps, increase speeds, and more. I'm kinda surprised you didn't notice last week's...........stuff.......in the forums.

Hell, there videos all over Youtube with high altitude flights from DJI drones -- even as insane as some Europeans hitting 10,000 ft. I bet you probably didn't realize that the Phantom and Mavic drones can easily clear 16,500ft above sea level. Software caps are the only reason they don't.

An encounter at this altitude, while indeed improbable, is not for the reasons you state, but moreso because most folks luckily aren't stupid enough to fly around air traffic at that altitude, and most don't install said mods.

 

[dwallersv]

This seems to conflict with recent reports. Do you have some links to this data?

Nope. Just seen the video.

What "recent reports"? Recent reports of P3s striking cessnas at 100mph?

 

[dwallersv]

Where is this information ?
The plastic is soft and only small bits of metal.
I think a consumer drone would be smashed to bits.

It was.

And there was a hole in the wing.

Since it was something I saw just casually surfing YouTube some time ago, I can't provide a link. I don't know the provinence of the video, and I'm not an aeronautical engineer (although I am an EE with a minor in Physics), so it certainly could have been fake.

However, it's very consistent with my understanding of physics, collisions, impulse, and how energy is distributed in an impact.

And a person claiming to be an aeronautical engineer (I have no reason to doubt him) commented they use frozen chickens to test engine destruction (note: frozen).

In my opinion, there are a whole bunch of people here who do not know what they're talking about, engaging in wishful thinking -- some of it quite arrogantly delivered. Par for the course with human beings.

You're certainly free to accuse me of lying, but that seems rather uncivil.

 

[Nikon1]

I'm an aerospace engineer and for more rubust testing of engine survivability we use frozen chickens I kid you not. The engine copes pretty well thats for sure, the chicken on the other hand...

Chicken Salad out the exhaust?