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

[Phlier]

Not that it's even a 1$billion industry but imagine mandating that every user of every laser pointer in the US either gets a laser pointer license (from the FCC... after minimally one week of demanding courses/instruction and extensive examinations) or only uses it in the comfort of his/her home or only for "recreational" purposes in playing with their cat. No license, no use of a laser pointer if it is even remotely or tangentially related to earning money. Want to use one during a conference speech? Not without a license from the FCC. Want to use one to point out the locations of a house that you're inspecting to show someone where heat is escaping from the roof? Not a chance. At least not without the license from the FCC. And if that house was within 5 miles of an airport, you would have to contact the FCC and get their permission to use your laser pointer more than 90 days in advance. And you'd have to describe exactly how you were going to use your laser pointer. When and for how long, etc.

And for all other laser pointers, we're also going to mandate that they can't be turned on if they are located anywhere near an airport. Do you want to use a leveling laser while constructing your house 4 miles from the perimeter of JFK airport? No way. Even if it's inside and even if you acknowledge that you won't be using it for nefarious purposes. It won't even turn on. Wanna give a speech at a hotel conference center near the airport? Nope. Not gonna happen. The little GPS inside the laser pointer is going to communicate with the federal government or with a foreign company that manufactured it, and it's going to shut down on its own. It may even, in the future, report you to the authorities if you attempted to operate it.

As absurd as this scenario that I proffered would be, I would argue that there is little difference from what is happening today to the UAS industry. There are probably millions more laser pointers than drones out there in the world. They are also infinitely cheaper to acquire and operate. There have been dozens if not hundreds of verifiable and confirmed cases of "attacks" on aircraft by idiot users. Not so with the UAS industry. We could ban laser pointers as well, without a major hit to a significant sector of the economy. But we don't.

But put a spinning prop on that laser pointer and whoa... hold on there now. Suddenly we have to prohibit any functional or rational use of it no matter the cost.

Granted, this is "reductio ad absurdum" at its finest, but the overall point is what I'm trying to convey. If the data we have changes to reflect a different situation, then I would certainly change my position to support stronger mandates. Until then though, I do not believe that we should prevent something from happening "...by whatever means necessary".

If I was as gifted at writing as lisadoc, the above is exactly what I would've posted.

I've had three laser incidences on landing at night, and I'll tell you, they are a far, far greater risk to aircraft than drones.

 

[Grif]

They don't test aircraft against frozen turkeys. That would be incredibly dumb (hence the urban legend about the engineers making that silly mistake).

Sorry-not an urban legend. It happened testing laminated canopies at Goodyear "Aerospace" in Litchfield Park AZ. Not turkeys but frozen chickens were thawed, loaded into an air canon and fired at a canopy design under test for the US Govt. A new employee didn't follow test directions/test directions omitted the thaw stage.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Sorry-not an urban legend. It happened testing laminated canopies at Goodyear "Aerospace" in Litchfield Park AZ. Not turkeys but frozen chickens were thawed, loaded into an air canon and fired at a canopy design under test for the US Govt. A new employee didn't follow test directions/test directions omitted the thaw stage.

I'll confirm that - it was also done on the L 1011 when a "not-so-thawed" chicken went through a 1011 windshield and the wall in the test cell

 

[Grif]

I'll confirm that - it was also done on the L 1011 when a "not-so-thawed" chicken went through a 1011 windshield and the wall in the test cell

I was assigned as a Govt contract property administrator to the company some years ago. The canopy (from a "closed" contract by mutual consent) was permanently stored at the company. It made for a very interesting "consumption" review.

 

[Lon Denard]

Sorry-not an urban legend. It happened testing laminated canopies at Goodyear "Aerospace" in Litchfield Park AZ. Not turkeys but frozen chickens were thawed, loaded into an air canon and fired at a canopy design under test for the US Govt. A new employee didn't follow test directions/test directions omitted the thaw stage.

Hey don't contradict my girlfriend buddy! She said "turkeys" not chickens, so she's still right! Hahaha! Just kidding.

 

[sar104]

It's more refined than these "chunk"-sized columns, but even if we concede that the risk is overall "medium", as you point out the aviation industry shouldn't ignore it. But that's not the issue. The issue is what should the rest of the world do? Should aviators and airports take steps to mitigate the risks to their aircraft (such as detection technologies, flight protocols, observers, etc.)? Absolutely. Should the rest of the world enact restrictions to lower the level of risk to the aviation industry and yet stifle another? I'm not so sure.



That's the real crux of the argument. The way the world is going is not circling the existing rules and laws against endangering aviation, but rather is zeroing in on an industry that thus far, has not shown itself to be a malignant force, and deeming it critical to mandate ever-tightening controls and restrictions on that industry without data or scientifically-based determinations/evidence demonstrating the need to curtail their behaviors. Based purely on supposition. As an aviation safety person, I'm fully ensconced in SMS (we won't elaborate on that), that dictates a proactive approach to safety, rather than a reactive approach. However, SMS is also a data-driven approach and constantly reevaluating risk management based on existing data. That's why I bristle at the speculation and worry focused on potential occurrences, rather than based on existing and definitive data in-hand.



I hope I wasn't ranting about those types of things. I tried to stick to the facts and the true risks. But, I will point out, the issue of "bringing down an aircraft" is an important one, as it delineates the difference between a societal cost (loss of life, etc) in the case where an aircraft crashes, or simply the financial costs to an airline that incurs damage due to a strike. For the former, it is our duty and imperative as a society and nation to help prevent such occurrences from happening. For the latter, it really is the duty (or motivation) of the private sector, in particular the airlines and/or the airports, to mitigate those costs/risks. If there is a belief that a drone could bring down a commercial airliner, then I would argue that it is absolutely mandatory to impose controls in order to prevent such an incident. If the belief is that it is highly unlikely or extremely improbable, then there isn't much of a social requirement to prevent such occurrences (even if there is a financial cost).



By whatever means necessary? Absolutely not. As I have mentioned, "whatever means necessary" could be easily accomplished. Ban the use of drones and jail anyone utilizing/manufacturing them. Case closed. That solves the drone strike potential pretty much in one fell swoop (with some criminal outliers possible). But that would end up killing a market estimated to be worth $100 billion in the next few years.

Let's put it this way: should we impose terminal restrictions on the laser pointer industry because of their inherent risk to aircraft? I think we can all agree that they are certainly a danger to aviation and have had far more provable incidences of endangering aircraft in the past several years.

Not that it's even a 1$billion industry but imagine mandating that every user of every laser pointer in the US either gets a laser pointer license (from the FCC... after minimally one week of demanding courses/instruction and extensive examinations) or only uses it in the comfort of his/her home or only for "recreational" purposes in playing with their cat. No license, no use of a laser pointer if it is even remotely or tangentially related to earning money. Want to use one during a conference speech? Not without a license from the FCC. Want to use one to point out the locations of a house that you're inspecting to show someone where heat is escaping from the roof? Not a chance. At least not without the license from the FCC. And if that house was within 5 miles of an airport, you would have to contact the FCC and get their permission to use your laser pointer more than 90 days in advance. And you'd have to describe exactly how you were going to use your laser pointer. When and for how long, etc.

And for all other laser pointers, we're also going to mandate that they can't be turned on if they are located anywhere near an airport. Do you want to use a leveling laser while constructing your house 4 miles from the perimeter of JFK airport? No way. Even if it's inside and even if you acknowledge that you won't be using it for nefarious purposes. It won't even turn on. Wanna give a speech at a hotel conference center near the airport? Nope. Not gonna happen. The little GPS inside the laser pointer is going to communicate with the federal government or with a foreign company that manufactured it, and it's going to shut down on its own. It may even, in the future, report you to the authorities if you attempted to operate it.

As absurd as this scenario that I proffered would be, I would argue that there is little difference from what is happening today to the UAS industry. There are probably millions more laser pointers than drones out there in the world. They are also infinitely cheaper to acquire and operate. There have been dozens if not hundreds of verifiable and confirmed cases of "attacks" on aircraft by idiot users. Not so with the UAS industry. We could ban laser pointers as well, without a major hit to a significant sector of the economy. But we don't.

But put a spinning prop on that laser pointer and whoa... hold on there now. Suddenly we have to prohibit any functional or rational use of it no matter the cost.

Granted, this is "reductio ad absurdum" at its finest, but the overall point is what I'm trying to convey. If the data we have changes to reflect a different situation, then I would certainly change my position to support stronger mandates. Until then though, I do not believe that we should prevent something from happening "...by whatever means necessary".

Apologies - you spent a lot of time refuting an argument that I was not trying to make regarding using available measures to mitigate the risk. That was an ambiguous statement. I meant measures that achieve some level of mitigation but do not prevent UAV operations, such as the DJI AeroScope technology.

Also, no - I was not pointing at you when I mentioned ranting - just characterizing many other responses on the subject.

I think that we have converged to a point of effective agreement on the bulk of these questions.

 

[Penguinmaster]

You will then have to categorize the consensus of the general public and the US FAA as "dribbling morons."

Excuse me but I had an assanine question since you brought that up why the he’ll don’t they put some kind of vents or rebar size steel cage to a point or some thing not excusing the idiots that feel it’s neccisary to risk somebody’s life for the fun of being stupid

 

[Grif]

Hey don't contradict my girlfriend buddy! She said "turkeys" not chickens, so she's still right! Hahaha! Just kidding.

She's got something there... Chicken gun - Wikipedia See towards the end of the article.

 

[Marko9219]

Okay, let me rephrase, I refuse to believe that it's a forgone conclusion that one of our $100,000,000 fighters can be so easily taken out by a $500 toy. It's that better? I'll say this again for the cheap seats because it's something I know a whole bunch about between my years in the military and my decades in construction. It a safety officer's job to exaggerate risk. That's how they justify their jobs! If they decided that all the necessary safety regs have already been written they'd be phased out. The worst thing that could ever happen to OSHA would be a few years without any on the job accidents. It's the same with your SO. If drones had never been invented, it would be swarms of bees, or helium balloons or kites, or anything to keep them relevant. I've sat through some truly ridiculous safety briefings in my careers and I bet you have to! If your main "evidence" is the chicken little rantings of an SO, absent of almost zero actual incidents. Well, that ice is very thin with me bro. My whole life had been actual risk management. I may not have a slide rule or whatever to prove my findings but after 35 years of jumping out of airplanes, growing up in East Detroit, working construction, servicing cell towers, two tours of combat, riding/racing a sport bike, flying an ultralight, etc,etc,etc I consider myself more of an expert than someone sitting in front of a computer screen.

Does your SO even know what a drone is? Are you sure he's not thinking about a Predator?

Uh no... He wasn't thinking Predator or Reaper drone. He specifically knew the Mavic when I mentioned it.

 

[Lon Denard]

Uh no... He wasn't thinking Predator or Reaper drone. He specifically knew the Mavic when I mentioned it.

Of course I was joking, dude! You guys can be so serious sometimes!

My dad was Army Air Corps to Air Force and he didn't have a sense of humor either! We had bullets flying all around and were cracking jokes about each other's mothers! Sigh. Whatever.

 

[Riveratdave]

They don't test aircraft against frozen turkeys. That would be incredibly dumb (hence the urban legend about the engineers making that silly mistake).

Not to be a know it all, but lisadoc is half right. Those are actually thawed whole chickens fired through an air powered cannon at flight speeds, and impacting the aircraft cockpit canopies of fighter, and commercial planes secured to a ground mounted frame. The impact is recorded with ultra high speed cameras to determine the survivability of the aircraft/ pilot. My x father in law designed and operated one of these "bird guns" for a defense contractor in Alabama. This facility could be used to shoot drones at decommissioned planes to assess the damage caused by an impact. It would require funding, though.

 

[Lon Denard]

Not to be a know it all, but lisadoc is half right. Those are actually thawed whole chickens fired through an air powered cannon at flight speeds, and impacting the aircraft cockpit canopies of fighter, and commercial planes secured to a ground mounted frame. The impact is recorded with ultra high speed cameras to determine the survivability of the aircraft/ pilot. My x father in law designed and operated one of these "bird guns" for a defense contractor in Alabama. This facility could be used to shoot drones at decommissioned planes to assess the damage caused by an impact. It would require funding, though.

I wonder if I could rent it to shoot a Mavic at a commercial airplane tire?

 

[Hollow Dog]

Great article in Forbes where FINALLY someone has exercised common sense backed up with professional credibility. His conclusion is a hobby drone represents little to no danger to commercial aircraft.

Epic thread.

 

[Lon Denard]

Yea it's been an interesting discussion for sure.

 

[cderoche]

At the strain rates involved the hardness of ice is not a significant factor and, in very high-speed impacts, such as with turbine blades, its behavior is largely hydrodynamic. That's not true of some of the component materials in a UAV. I'd suggest that you read more papers and watch fewer videos. The survivability of turbine blades under ice ingestion is a poor indicator of survivability with other materials.



So your anecdote is better than his? That's pretty funny.

Not arguing on either side, I think you both present some very intelligent arguments here, but has the FAA or anyone conducted any real testing by chunking a drone into a running jet engine? This would give us the answers we need, and if they're truly concerned about drones proper testing with them being struck should be conducted. At least we would know how big a drone it takes to destroy an engine. I'm sure the bigger the drone the bigger the threat. I guess if I were a pilot I'd still rather hit a single consumer drone than a flock of geese.

 

[cderoche]

As an airforce brat, my dad served as an aircraft mechanic WWII, Korea and Vietnam and as a US Army veteran, 11B airborne, B4 cert, 16R Gunner and air defense/anti aircraft trainer for 3 systems 16C, 16S and 16P. I have some knowledge and experience in what it takes to down a plane. My dad would tell stories of what planes looked like after bombing runs and I know from first hand experience trying to down aircraft how hard it can be. I fully recognize that there are scenario that could cause a catastrophic failure during a drone/ aircraft collision. I'm stating that if such an occurrence was staged randomly 100 times you might get one compete engine failure. Maybe. I think it would have to be a perfect situation.

I personally stay away from airports anyway and wouldn't be opposed to an actual law that mandated that.I'm sure even airforce pilots would agree that the possibly of danger to them would be all but eliminated with a five mile rule.

I think you could launch dozens of drones/birds/cassettes/ice balls/etc into a running jet engine and it all depends on how and what in the engine is hit, the RPMs, etc. So many variable. Angle of entry. Like you said stay away from the airports maybe we won't have to ever find out short of real world testing.

 

[cderoche]

Probability is another thing altogether. There is no question that a UAV could hit an aircraft, any aircraft, and not bring it down. A lot depends on what gets impacted and so worst case is generally assumed - windshield, rotors, fan blades etc., But the probability naturally convolves the location of the impact and the outcome of the impact at that location. It is important, but if it is anything other than vanishingly small then it is going to be regarded as unacceptably high in the aviation world.

I agree, a meteorite could strike an aircraft and bring it down, but there's little to nothing we can do about that remote possibility. I think we all hope that whatever gets done to mitigate the chance of a drone strike is reasonable and not knee jerk reaction like sometimes happens after a mass shooting. Some would love nothing more than to gather up all our guns tomorrow for example. I love flying my drone and hope they never pass a law so restrictive that flying for fun becomes difficult.

 

[cderoche]

And lest we forget, let's remember that Air France flight 4590 (Concord SST) was brought down by a 200 gm piece of fod on the runway. 4 gigantic engines on a big airliner and a piece of metal that weighed a fourth of what the Mavic weighs. Oh... But that's different, right? The point is, small objects can, and have, taken out jets.

The material composition certainly has to be a huge factor. Like say an 6" long stainless steel bolt. Not giant on the weight scale but I'm sure that would do some catastrophic damage. Never found anything that large during one of my many FOD walks we just picked up anything we saw. Although I admit most of what we picked up was probably a waste of time, A-10 Warthogs' engines are quite high up

 

[Lon Denard]

The material composition certainly has to be a huge factor. Like say an 6" long stainless steel bolt. Not giant on the weight scale but I'm sure that would do some catastrophic damage. Never found anything that large during one of my many FOD walks we just picked up anything we saw. Although I admit most of what we picked up was probably a waste of time, A-10 Warthogs' engines are quite high up

Now those are awesome planes!

 

[cderoche]

If drones are this deadly to aircraft they can be used to defend skyscrapers from aircraft strikes!

Make no mistake, The Mavic Pro is a deadly weapon in the right hands!

View attachment 23514

When did photon blasters become an addon option??? Where do I get one?