Professional investigator concludes - "what's the fuss about?"

[lisadoc]

There were number of close calls. DJI pilots usually get bad rap for piloting drones carelessly. And if not for NFZs around major airports that cannot be unlocked, I would say that number of these incidents would increase. Combined with altitude limits and NFZs, your typical drone won't fly close to danger areas. This is, in large part, why there were no incidents yet.

There's just one problem with this theory. In 2014 - 2016 when there were no confirmed incidents, DJI aircraft did not have locked NFZs. Firmware .800, in which DJI instituted compulsory NFZ management and positive geo-fencing control, was only introduced on June 08, 2017. Prior to that, there was nothing preventing an operator of a DJI aircraft from flying in a NFZ around a major airfield. Even today, for those folks that retain .700 FW or lower, the NFZs do not pose a restricted boundary to their flights (which is why many users refuse to update their firmware). This also doesn't speak to all those users who are flying non-DJI drones, without any sort of restrictions.

And I'm not sure there were any "close calls". Many pilots reported seeing drones, though most were never confirmed by anyone else or seen by a ground observer. Many of the sightings were of drones several hundred yards away from their flight path (hardly a "close call", even if true). Others also claimed to have struck a drone, all of which were later determined to be something else.

 

[sar104]

Good to know all those high paid engineers and flight safety people are wasting their time testing then.
You'd have thunk they'd use something that's - I dunno - dangerous to aircraft to test with?
I think you should enlighten these folks to the error of their ways...

They are not wasting their time - they are testing the turbines specifically for survival under ice ingestion, as required by law. Because that's a major hazard when ice breaks off cowlings. They don't generally just throw any old junk into the engine just to see what happens. To date, that has included composite UAVs.

Anyway - your level of discourse has fallen below any reasonable standard that makes it interesting to discuss this further with you. Snarky comments, straw man arguments, and ignoring any points that you can't answer is neither clever nor welcome.

 

[geigy]

That logic would apply if the number of drones were constant from 2014, but it hasn't. The number of drones has been growing exponentially, with DJI taking the lion's share of the market.

 

[lisadoc]

That logic would apply if the number of drones were constant from 2014, but it hasn't. The number of drones has been growing exponentially, with DJI taking the lion's share of the market.

It doesn't matter. First, I detailed the growth of the drone market in an earlier post. Second, it doesn't matter if the number of drones was growing or not. The fact remains that there was not a single confirmed incident with a drone and an aircraft (in the US or in the world) during 2014 - 2016 (and prior) and all that time there were no NFZs enforced by DJI or any other entity (other than through voluntary compliance - for recreational users).

One could argue that the number of drones in use has skyrocketed since June 2017 and therefore, it has only been the firmware/geo-fencing restrictions that have maintained such a low number of incidents (i.e. two), but the evidence from all of the time prior to June 2017 suggests that this isn't what is managing the extremely low incident rate (only two confirmed strikes anywhere in the world, even though the Canadian government has not submitted their evidence, I will take them at their word that it was a confirmed incident).

 

[serpa4]

Hope you don't expect much service. Ordered directly from DJI store.
Support for RMA:
---------------------------
20 Oct, 10:02 CST

Good day.
I need to return my 3 orders for a refund. I do not which to trouble shoot with support. I'd only like a refund.
0018985025045
0019818850280
0018881743900
Thank you for your prompt service.
V/r
--------------------------------
DJI:
Dear Lorne,

Thank you for contacting DJI Customer Support.

We understand that you want return the order numbers listed in your email. May we know the reason for the return? By any chance, do you have any relatives, friends or know someone that might be interested in purchasing the item you want to return?

We hope to hear from you soon.

If you have any other questions, please let us know.

Regards,
Carol

DJI Customer Support,
---------------------------------
Me:
It will not connect reliably to both my android devices. The gimbal spins wildly in flight. When connected finally to my android device all three flights the phone app DJI GO crashes and exits in the middle of my flight.
Please send me an RAN to return it all 3 orders. I so not want to trouble shoot with you. I want to refund all 3 orders today please. My orders are
0018985025045
0019818850280
0018881743900
----------------------------------
DJI:
Dear Lorne,

Thank you for contacting DJI Customer Support.

I'm afraid that you have reached the Presales team. I will forward your concern to the right department for further assistance.

Hi Aftersales, please assist the customer.
-------------------
DJI:
Dear Lorne,

Your concern has been brought to our attention.
We understand that you have an issue all with your Mavic Pro and would like to refund the product alongside the additional accessories you bought for it, assured that we will do our best to provide assistance.

In order for us to process your refund, kindly provide the following information:
First and Last Name:
Shipping Address (no PO box):
Phone number:
Name of DJI Product:
Purchase date of product:
Dealer name or DJI Order Number:
Brief Description of the issue:
Proof of purchase:
Proof of delivery:
We will await your response.
------------------------------------
Me:
Everything you requested is already in your database under my order that I have provided. I know you can look at my orders. If you pulled up my order by the numbers I provided you, you will find everything you have asked for: Name, address, phone, DJI product, dealer name and order number, proof of purchase, your shipping information, and proof of delivery.
Again, here is the order numbers that you can pull up and see every single item you have asked for:
0018881743900
0019818850280
0018985025045
Those are your DJI Store order numbers that contain all the information you have requested right on your website at https://store.dji.com/
However, to not delay the return, I will copy and paste the information for all 3 orders for you to expedite the return of my payment for the 3 orders.

-------------------------------------

1st Order number: 0018881743900 from the DJI Store website where I ordered it from you.

First and Last Name: xxx
Shipping Address (no PO box): xxx
Phone number: xxx
Name of DJI Product: Mavic Pro Platinum, PGYTECH-Mavic Pro Control Stick Protector
Purchase date of product: 2017-09-04 18:19:47
Dealer name or DJI Order Number: DJI Store and DJI order number 0018881743900
Brief Description of the issue: Gimbal spins wildly, and will not connect to my two different android devices. Android application crashes.
Proof of purchase: You have to review my order number to verify I paid: Order number 0018881743900 It is listed on your website. Your website under my order says: Payment status: Pay Confirmed. Payment Method: Online Payment. Total: USD $1,180.00
Proof of delivery: you have to review my order number to verify I received it. It is logged on your website that I received it. The FEDEX tracking number you Provided me to verify it was shipped and delivered is: xxxx. According to the tracking number by you and FEDEX, it was delivered 10/18/2017 at 5:39pm.

------------------------------------------

2nd Order number: 0019818850280 from the DJI Store website where I ordered it from you.

First and Last Name: xxxx
Shipping Address (no PO box): xxx
Phone number: xxx
Name of DJI Product: Mavic Intelligent Flight Battery (Platinum), PGYTECH Mavic Lens Hood.
Purchase date of product: 2017-09-27 13:50:53
Dealer name or DJI Order Number: DJI Store and DJI order number 0019818850280.
Brief Description of the issue: Gimbal spins wildly, and will not connect to my two different android devices. Android application crashes. The battery is not needed due to returning the MAVIC Pro for refund.
Proof of purchase: You have to review my order number to verify I paid: Order number 0018881743900. It is listed on your website. Your website under my order says: Payment status: Pay Confirmed. Payment Method: Online Payment. Total: USD $142.50.
Proof of delivery: you have to review my order number to verify I received it. It is logged on your website that I received it. According to the tracking number by you and FEDEX, it was delivered 10/13/2017 at 5:40pm. The FEDEX tracking number 171033971194666.

------------------------------------------

3rd Order number: 0018985025045 from the DJI Store website where I ordered it from you.

First and Last Name: xxx
Shipping Address (no PO box): xxx
Phone number: xxx
Name of DJI Product: Mavic Low-Noise Quick-release Propellers (Golden)
Purchase date of product: 2017-09-29 06:22:08
Dealer name or DJI Order Number: DJI Store and DJI order number 0018985025045
Brief Description of the issue: Gimbal spins wildly, and will not connect to my two different android devices. Android application crashes. The extra propellers are not needed due to returning the MAVIC Pro for refund.
Proof of purchase: You have to review my order number to verify I paid: Order number 0018985025045. It is listed on your website. Your website under my order says: Payment status: Pay Confirmed. Payment Method: Online Payment. Total: USD $50.00.
Proof of delivery: you have to review my order number to verify I received it. It is logged on your website that I received it. The FEDEX tracking number you Provided me to verify it was shipped and delivered is: 171033971221607

-----------------
DJI:
Dear Lorne,

Thank you for contacting DJI Support.

We appreciate your cooperation in providing the required information. But to ensure that your refund will be processed without any problems we would like to request you to provide a copy of the screenshot or photo of the proof of payment and the proof of delivery. This items are important as our refund team would like proper documentation.
We will await your response.
-------------------

DAM DJI, this is pitiful.

 

[sar104]

To be clear, I didn't say that. Taking a Mavic, or a Phantom, or even a baseball, down the core would potentially cause significant damage to a modern jet engine. Taking a Mavic outside the core could potentially cause significant damage to fan blades, or only minor damage - it just depends. Either way, with most modern commercial aircraft, that damage would not likely be catastrophic (irrespective of the phase of flight), as it would/should be contained to that engine and most aircraft can fly/takeoff/land with only one engine available. Since drones don't tend to fly in large flocks, incidents like the "Miracle on the Hudson" are also not likely, since impacting multiple engines with a drone is virtually impossible.

However, the assumption that a strike involving a drone would necessarily involve an engine is misplaced. Let's take as our basis, the one other flying object impacting aircraft that we do have data for - birds. With all bird strikes, only 13% involve a strike with an engine. That leaves 87% impacting another component of the aircraft. Beyond that, some type of damage (minor or major) results only 30% of the time a strike occurs in an engine. This would assuredly be much higher for a drone in the engine. However, for the remainder of the components, damage occurs only approximately 8% of the time. And these figures (the percentages with damage) are likely significantly inflated, due to the fact that most strikes without damage go unreported. The FAA estimates that only 20% of all strikes are reported, meaning 80% of the strikes that occur never make the database. For other parts of the aircraft, this means that damage probably occurs in only roughly 1-2% of the strikes.

Even if you double or triple these figures(or heck, even multiple them by 100) for drones, the result means that an incident with a drone will likely not be significantly damaging. Coupled with the astonishing low rate of drone strikes per flight hour (of the drones, not the aircraft: see above), the overall risk of a drone striking a commercial airliner is exceedingly low.

Risk, as I noted previously, is probability times severity. Even if you assume an elevated severity measure for a drone strike (not one that I would make but for the sake of other's arguments, I will assume this), the other factor - probability - is vanishingly small. There are other risks that would also result in quite severe consequences (e.g. someone with a Stinger missile sitting just outside an airfield) with a much greater certainty and to a much higher severity degree, but we don't irrationally chase every potential risk out there.

I'm not suggesting that drone operators be allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want. I think that most potential significant instances involving drones would be with "bad actors", who, despite regulation or law would not be stopped if they had ill intentions to act negatively to impact aviation. The question is, are we going to treat the voluntary guidelines currently in place that guide the remainder of the UAS community as sufficient or do we feel the need to impose significant restrictions on recreational (or even commercial) drone operators? It's a legitimate question worthy of debate, but it is also critical to not fall victim to the emotional or ill-informed arguments that are often proffered in this field, especially as it pertains to risk.

You made some leaps of reasoning there that I don't think are justified. If engine damage results from 30% of bird strikes and you think that the rate for drone strikes would be much higher then that means, effectively, from a risk management perspective, that we treat the probability of damage as unity. You rather glossed over that. I'd also agree that glancing impacts are likely to cause minor damage. Impacts on radar domes, windshields, leading edges etc., while presenting a much smaller cross-section for impact, are going to cause significant damage. We are not (or should not) just talking about Mavics. We have seen the damage that a P4 did to to UH-60 main rotor. I would not want to see one hit a tail rotor or anywhere on a less robust helicopter.

So you are relying on what you called the "astonishingly low" strike rate to achieve your "exceedingly low" risk. You also restricted the discussion to commercial airliners. What about general aviation? Do we ignore those less robust aircraft? The problem with using the low strike rate to date is that drone use is increasing non-linearly, and is nowhere near market saturation, which makes even extrapolation very problematic.

And from the point of view of intent, it has been pretty clear that the main risk is not "bad actors" trying to bring down aircraft, it is incompetent and reckless recreational pilots who either have no understanding of the risks or are looking for cool shots and just don't care. Plenty of self-admitted examples of those on these forums and on YouTube.

Yes - this is clearly a subject worthy of debate, and a question that needs to be asked. So what is your opinion or recommendation? Do you have one? How significant do you think the risk needs to be in order to be concerned about it? It's too easy just to critique others.

 

[FlyGuy8675309]

On the "civilian side" we have people screaming "you (gvmt) has to DO SOMETHING!
.

Well you're not supposed to fly above 400' and around airports or other aircraft, just like you're not supposed drive drunk, murder, steal, etc. You can't fix stupidity.

 

[dwallersv]

Sorry to pop your bubble but it's an FAA requirement. Check out ETOPS specs.

How do you recon all those commercial single-engine aircraft flying people all over Alaska for hire, for example?

Based on what you say quoted above, are they in trouble with the FAA?

 

[dwallersv]

As so often happens, people are arguing when two completely different ideas are under discussion.

I wasn't explicit in stating that I'm talking exclusively about a jet turbine engine -- not the entire state of the aircraft and its flight worthiness. I thought that would be clear implicitly from context (after all, I DID state that an engine loss for a commercial jet aircraft would not be catastrophic and bring it down). In any case, to be absolutely clear, I'm talking about the engine mechanism only.

And again, I claim that if a Mavic is ingested by a common commercial jet engine it will very likely -- not 100%, of course (geez, why do I have to say that?) -- cause catastrophic damage to the engine. That is, catastrophic as in the engine will no longer be operable, capable of safely operating and providing thrust. It will be damaged severely enough it will have to be shut down.

This is "catastrophic" damage to the engine. It is simply a hunk of metal hanging there.

 

[Lon Denard]

I'll take that $10,000 bet with a simple modification: It has to fly into the tire in a wind tunnel at 300mph.

You arrange the test. For that kind of bet -- that I know I will win -- I'll fly anywhere in the US to be there to both watch, and accept cash payment from you immediately.

So the airplane tire was rolling on the run way at 300 mph then? You know what, you go ahead and figure how you're going to set up a car tire or a Mavic traveling at 300 mph... Nah, since you want to modify the conditions of MY bet with a third party, get the exact same type of aircraft and have it run over a Mavic at the same speed. Since you're so concerned with duplicating the exact same circumstances as the accident but with a Mavic instead. Gee whiz, I wonder what will happen? I was giving you all a chance by suggesting that the Mavic strike a car tire on the side. With the Mavic lying on the tarmac, getting run over by the plane....Yea, you're gonna lose. I've seen a truck run over a Solo, which is far more substantial than a Mavic. The Solo was toast, the truck didn't even get a flat.

Like I said, you'll do or say anything to try and prove your stupid point. The real proof in all this is exactly what has been stated. After years of hobby drones in the air, there has never been the incident that you all are afraid of. What if, what if, what if... If I were a terrorist, is be taking notes right now!

 

[Lon Denard]

I presented you with that data. 1.5 million flight hours (likely far more than that though) of drones in the US alone from 2014-2016 with exactly zero confirmed incidents. Add in 2017 and that figure probably doubles for flight hours but adds in only one strike (and to a non-commercial aircraft). Those figures are real data and though based on some specific assumptions, likely far lower than the true numbers.

Welcome to school! Hahaha!

 

[Lon Denard]

There were number of close calls. DJI pilots usually get bad rap for piloting drones carelessly. And if not for NFZs around major airports that cannot be unlocked, I would say that number of these incidents would increase. Combined with altitude limits and NFZs, your typical drone won't fly close to danger areas. This is, in large part, why there were no incidents yet.

Say what? I've been flying for years. NFZs are a new thing this year. What you talking bout Willis?

 

[Lon Denard]

lol - to keep it apples to apples then you'd need an actual aircraft tire in said wind tunnel. You'd lose. Just a small amount of thinking would reveal that those tires support a multi-ton aircraft hitting the tarmac at pretty much those speeds.

Yea I read up on it before I said anything. I'm not the gambling type. I've been to Vegas 4 times and have never placed a coin in a slot machine. I've never even bought a lottery ticket. The amount of pressure those tires withstand tell me that a strike from a Mavic to the tread would have little to no effect. I'm not sure that it would even perceivably deflect.

Rolling down the runway an aircraft tire takes on 53,000 lbs of force, at 300 mph a Mavic would generate about 600 lbs of force... Hahaha! SCIENCE!

 

[Lon Denard]

While planes can definitely shut down an engine, bad damage to turbine can destroy it and send shrapnel all over the place. And that can be catastrophic. Look at United Airlines 232 incident. Destroyed turbine cut hydraulic lines. Or American 191. Engine got ripped out, and resulted in slats not retracting properly.

Accidents are usually a combination of multiple things going wrong. More of those things we can avoid, the better. And if drone collides with an aircraft, even if there's zero damage (highly unlikely to have zero damage), damage to drone pilots will be serious. New regulations, fines, requirements, etc.

It's just not worth it.

Who in the heck is advocating flying drones into commercial aircraft? No one. So many of you are saying that any collision with a drone will be catastrophic. We are saying not necessarily or even likely. We are saying that a drone strike is highly unlikely. Has anyone considered that this might have been an attempted terrorist attack? If in fact it was a drone that hit the plane at all?

 

[Lon Denard]

Nope - I did say that.


2028 bro - expected to fly with 18,000 miles of earth which is closer than many satellites. Margin for error puts it within possibility of an earth strike.


No mistake - statistically speaking a drone strike is a very small likelihood thus they are an unlikely source of threat.


That's pretty much apples to oranges since the MP has a top speed of 40mph you need a vector sum of 300 the minivan would have to be traveling *sideways* at 260 mph. I would submit that's not happening in your lifetime. A more realistic scenario would be a head-on at a combined velocity of 140 mph tops. Now if it hits the windshield it's likely going thru - but it's not the same animal as a aircraft canopy or windscreen. Aircraft are designed *expecting* to hit things and survive. If the MP hit it square in the grill I suspect the vehicle would be disabled but you're not going to see the engine annihilated or even shoved back.
In the case of the Mavic weighing in at .75 kilos going at 140 mph (62 m/s) results in a whopping 1500 joules of energy or the equivalent of .325 grams of TNT. Yeah, that little. You can do the math too if you'd like.
In the case of an aircraft going 600 mph the lowly Mavic would possess 31104 joules of energy or the equivalent of almost 7 grams of TNT - less than the weight of a quarter and a dime.

Math!

 

[Lon Denard]

I doubt it will straight up destroy the aircraft. But losing an engine in a critical phase of flight can be bad.

It will definitely damage a prop or turbine blades. A bird strike killed two engines on US Airways 1549. And birds are soft tissue. Mavic has hard parts. So we are talking way past "it will be inspected" because turbine blades will be chipped at least or destroyed at most. And they will have to be replaced. Entire engine will be out of service while it's being checked for proper balancing, etc. Virginia Tech did a simulation of a drone hitting a turbofan, and a quarter of blades were destroyed by impact.

My flight instructor had a bird strike that made significant dent on his Bonanza's wing. Entire section of the wing had to be replaced.

On your typical airliner, anything hitting the air, has something that will be damaged. Nose has radar equipment. Windshield can be cracked. Wing, tail and stabilizer leading edges have deicing equipment. All of this will have to be checked and repaired. Downtime and repair costs alone can be passed to you.

So, you must be extremely unlucky if you bring down a plane with a drone. So, it's just not worth it.

The soft bird argument... I hit a bird on my bike at 60 and it hurt like Heck. To suggest that a flock of 20 lb geese are less dangerous to an aircraft than 1.5 lb hunk of plastic is incredible.

 

[Lon Denard]

Hey both sides!

New argument. Has anyone considered that this may have been an attempted terrorist attack? According to some of you, terrorist can pop into Best Buy, buy a few drones, maybe duct tape a couple titanium rods to them and take out aircraft all over the country. Thoughts?

 

[geigy]

It doesn't matter. First, I detailed the growth of the drone market in an earlier post. Second, it doesn't matter if the number of drones was growing or not. The fact remains that there was not a single confirmed incident with a drone and an aircraft (in the US or in the world) during 2014 - 2016 (and prior) and all that time there were no NFZs enforced by DJI or any other entity (other than through voluntary compliance - for recreational users).

One could argue that the number of drones in use has skyrocketed since June 2017 and therefore, it has only been the firmware/geo-fencing restrictions that have maintained such a low number of incidents (i.e. two), but the evidence from all of the time prior to June 2017 suggests that this isn't what is managing the extremely low incident rate (only two confirmed strikes anywhere in the world, even though the Canadian government has not submitted their evidence, I will take them at their word that it was a confirmed incident).

Yes, I do that it is probable that enforcing NFZ's works, and has kept the collision numbers down from what it would be. Certainly I could be wrong, but there is nothing illogical about saying that this is possible.

 

[geigy]

Hey both sides!

New argument. Has anyone considered that this may have been an attempted terrorist attack? According to some of you, terrorist can pop into Best Buy, buy a few drones, maybe duct tape a couple titanium rods to them and take out aircraft all over the country. Thoughts?

Expensive, and not very effective it seems to me...

Unless you bought puts on DJI stock

 

[Lon Denard]

Yes, I do that it is probable that enforcing NFZ's works, and has kept the collision numbers down from what it would be. Certainly I could be wrong, but there is nothing illogical about saying that this is possible.

Yea but drones have been around for years. I got my first one almost 8 years ago. NFZs have only been a thing, in one company out of a half dozen, for 4 months. I think that's a very valid point.