So the myth is busted.... Drones won't bring down planes....

[Ian in London]

Interesting to read some proper research finally carried out on the damage that drones can cause to commercial aircraft.
Small drones may damage helicopters but won't damage planes during take off or landing speeds. Jet engines are already designed to cope with large bird strikes, and it seems the windscreens can cope too.

Might finally start being used as a counter-reference to the press' endless scaremongering.

>>
Findings by the Department for Transport (DfT), British Airline Pilots’ Association (BALPA) and the Military Aviation Authority (MAA) published today in a summary report, reveal drones weighing 400 grams could damage the windscreens of helicopters in particular. However, airliner windscreens were found to be much more resistant. It would take a heavier drone of around 2 kilograms to critically damage an airliner windscreen, and only if the airliner is flying at a high speed; not during take-off and landing.
>>
Drones to be registered and users to sit safety tests under new government rules - GOV.UK

Drones and manned aircraft collisions: test results - GOV.UK

(Windscreen = windshield)

Ian

YouTube / Ian in London

 

[mavicn00b]

Still yet to see a video of someone taking a drone and sucking it into a jet engine to see if the engine explodes or not. Same way engine makers do the rubber chicken test.

 

[RavenStorm]

Still yet to see a video of someone taking a drone and sucking it into a jet engine to see if the engine explodes or not. Same way engine makers do the rubber chicken test.

Yep,, that would be to easy to prove the point that a drone would would or would NOT take out a jet engine ..

Side note, lan, thanks, I caught one of your YouTube vids and ended up buying the Loc8tor, let me tell you my stress of loosing my mavic has dropped about 80% .. thanks

 

[Ian in London]

Yep,, that would be to easy to prove the point that a drone would would or would NOT take out a jet engine ..

Side note, lan, thanks, I caught one of your YouTube vids and ended up buying the Loc8tor, let me tell you my stress of loosing my mavic has dropped about 80% .. thanks

Yes, I was surprised they didn't mention engines, but when you consider how much plastic there is most drones, I guess that wasn't perceived a threat.

Glad you like the vids Ravenstorm. It's all about having fun and not stressing!

Cheers,

Ian

YouTube / Ian in London

 

[Logger]

@Wellsi did you actually read the report?
If you had I would expect your sensationalist headline to say "drones won't bring down airliners " and not say they won't bring down planes. Where I fly I would be far more likely to conflict with a general aviation plane than an airliner.

Extract.

• Non-birdstrike certified helicopter windscreens have very limited resilience to the impact of a drone, well below normal cruise speeds.
  
  
•  The non-birdstrike certified helicopter windscreen results can also be applied to general aviation aeroplanes which also do not have a birdstrike certification requirement.
  

 

[Ian in London]

@Wellsi did you actually read the report?
If you had I would expect your sensationalist headline to say "drones won't bring down airliners " and not say they won't bring down planes. Where I fly I would be far more likely to conflict with a general aviation plane than an airliner.

Extract.

• Non-birdstrike certified helicopter windscreens have very limited resilience to the impact of a drone, well below normal cruise speeds.
  
  
•  The non-birdstrike certified helicopter windscreen results can also be applied to general aviation aeroplanes which also do not have a birdstrike certification requirement.

Hi Logger

Of course I read the report. I used the term Plane as most people would take it; namely a commercial passenger jet that is usually the centre of the sensationalist press stories....

Ian


YouTube / Ian in London

 

[Logger]

Oh well, pilots may beg to differ.
Thanks for posting the report though.

I was underflown by a plane several weeks ago. A reckless bonanza pilot, illegally low flying along a beach at about 60', when my Mavic had moments before been up to the 300' over same spot.

Here are a couple of instances of small planes and birds.

Investigation: AO-2011-133 - Birdstrike - Cessna 182P, VH-TIS, 2 km East Ayr (ALA), Qld, 15 October 2011

Bird strike blows out windshield of Cessna passenger flight to Cape Cod prompting emergency landing | Daily Mail Online

 

[Ian in London]

Oh well, pilots may beg to differ.
Thanks for posting the report though.

I was underflown by a plane several weeks ago. A reckless bonanza pilot, illegally low flying along a beach at about 60', when my Mavic had moments before been up to the 300' over same spot.

Here are a couple of instances of small planes and birds.

Investigation: AO-2011-133 - Birdstrike - Cessna 182P, VH-TIS, 2 km East Ayr (ALA), Qld, 15 October 2011

Bird strike blows out windshield of Cessna passenger flight to Cape Cod prompting emergency landing | Daily Mail Online

You make a fair point Logger; I'm certainly not disputing it.... As said, I just used the term planes as a general catch all for what we hear about in the press all too often.... I've had small planes fly under 400 ft near my house in the countryside and I've often thought "glad I wasn't flying my Mavic!" My dad worked in aircraft engineering for 30 years and I just get tired of the sensationalist and frankly groundless scaremongering you get with stories claiming hundreds of people may die because of a droning idiot...... I defo don't want an idiot to prove it either way, but I thought it good to finally get some information on proper scientific testing by relevant bodies into this....

Cheers,

Ian


YouTube / Ian in London

 

[gnirtS]

Mavic is 750g, phantom is a lot more. So they'll do a lot more damage than a 400g test. Yes they're plastic but they do contain hard bits - through a mavics battery at someones head as hard as you can - it'll hurt.

They could in the engines damage a turbine blade or at least cause grounding needing inspection. They could hit static ports, crack radomes or antennas depending where they hit.
Id be far more worried about damage to light aircraft which are more vulnerable.

Drone's arent going to down a plane. But they can cause damage or require inspection for damage and even that costs big money.

 

[Logger]

...
Drone's arent going to down a plane. But they can cause damage or require inspection for damage and even that costs big money.

Beg to differ. If they pass through the windscreen and strike the occupants a downing due incapacitation is possible. As can be seen by the the Cessna 182 linked above, windscreen damage can also have an adverse effect on some planes performance.

 

[Rick]

So the myth is busted.... Drones weighing more than 400 grams could bring down planes....

 

[Ian in London]

So the myth is busted.... Drones weighing more than 400 grams could bring down planes....

Not really..... they could damage a small plane's windscreen. The point of this post was to try and counter the paranoid press stories we read too often about passenger jets near heathrow and the like.....

Ian


YouTube / Ian in London

 

[Rick]

Not really..... they could damage a small plane's windscreen. The point of this post was to try and counter the paranoid press stories we read too often about passenger jets near heathrow and the like.....

Ian


YouTube / Ian in London

Hi Ian,
I really don't want to appear as a sensationalist or antagonise you for what you believe is the way the British/global media portray drone related incidents. I find the title of this thread could quite easily have been written either way depending on what side of the fence you sit regarding the future accessibility of drone ownership. Sure the press are prone to exaggeration and misrepresentation but that isn't limited to the drone issue: anything it seems is fair game to certain bodies of the media as the majority of people know.
It's when it affects one's own specific interest that it becomes more noticeable and appears that all reports, given the track record, must be unfair or unjust. This is then exacerbated by the small minority of idiots that are continually breaking the rules besmirching the reputation of the majority of conscientious drone owners.
However, the reactions from some members here to some of the more wild reported incidents, whether true or not, do nothing to help in the cause of educating the non drone owning general public that the vast majority of owners are considerate, and try to stay within the guidelines laid down by their global geographic location.
I appreciate your intentions and your view. I fear for the future of drone usage and ownership in it's current form of "available for all".

On an aside, I felt very sorry for you when I read your post some time back re losing your drone. The explanation you gave and the admission that you could have done something different with the benefit of hindsight made your posting all the more genuine. Anyone that hasn't seen your video should do so for the tips you gave on staying calm, staying logical and taking time to figure out the problem as best as you are able.

 

[Ian in London]

Hi Ian,
I really don't want to appear as a sensationalist or antagonise you for what you believe is the way the British/global media portray drone related incidents. I find the title of this thread could quite easily have been written either way depending on what side of the fence you sit regarding the future accessibility of drone ownership. Sure the press are prone to exaggeration and misrepresentation but that isn't limited to the drone issue: anything it seems is fair game to certain bodies of the media as the majority of people know.
It's when it affects one's own specific interest that it becomes more noticeable and appears that all reports, given the track record, must be unfair or unjust. This is then exacerbated by the small minority of idiots that are continually breaking the rules besmirching the reputation of the majority of conscientious drone owners.
However, the reactions from some members here to some of the more wild reported incidents, whether true or not, do nothing to help in the cause of educating the non drone owning general public that the vast majority of owners are considerate, and try to stay within the guidelines laid down by their global geographic location.
I appreciate your intentions and your view. I fear for the future of drone usage and ownership in it's current form of "available for all".

On an aside, I felt very sorry for you when I read your post some time back re losing your drone. The explanation you gave and the admission that you could have done something different with the benefit of hindsight made your posting all the more genuine. Anyone that hasn't seen your video should do so for the tips you gave on staying calm, staying logical and taking time to figure out the problem as best as you are able.

Thanks for that Ric.
If I could edit the title of this post, I would have as soon as it was pointed out the difference of the words planes versus airliner to me..... As you can tell, I do take this hobby seriously and genuinely try to improve others' actions as well, but I get so tired of people bad mouthing us, especially when it's on these very forums. Hence I thought it good to have a bit of definitive research. It would be very good to see their results on the engine and fuselage testing too. No one is doubting the possibility of damage, and I am personally all for this new control; geo-fencing seems to be the only way forward here as long as it's done intelligently and not pointlessly restrictive.

Ta for the comments on the "Dover Incident" Making that video was actually quite cathartic and helped my knowledge of the various behaviours that kick in as you fly and as the battery gets lower and lower. I got a replacement; I'm flying happy again and it's summer. All good.

Cheers,


Ian


YouTube / Ian in London

 

[Franks my Dog]

I have just as much concern over "sensational" titles like this as I do the "sensational" leads that grab your attention saying a tiny 200 gram toy will bring a B777 crashing down. Both are for the most part innacuate in that they tell a very small part of the story.

A bit of background; I spent 36 years "driving a bus"; DC-9, B737, 727, 767, Lockheed L1011, etc for a large international carrier based in Canada. In that time I amassed a good number of hours in the air. During those hours & years I've seen, experienced & borne the "impact" of a considerable number of UAS strikes (for ease of reading, the term "unmanned aerial systems" should be understood as including birds, being "unmanned aerial BIOLOGICAL systems").

I could spend a long time imparting a great many anecdotal stories of various incidents I've been party to; each strike that occurs is highly unique in nature; when it occurred, aircraft type, altitude, flight phase, speed & several other points of comparison, & they would remain anecdotal. I've also spent many hours sitting and watching impact testing conucted by both Transport Canada & the FAA, all much more controlled & scientific.

The VAST majority of impacts occur either landing or departing, with the balance favoring landing about 60/40. Landing phase is the time when any aircraft is at greatest risk; It is normally maintaining speeds only marginally above stall; in no case more than 250 kts within 3 miles of the airfield. Thrust levels are at the lowest point of any time during the entire flight; often at or just above idle. Both jet & internal combustion engines take time to accelerate to nominal performance. The aircraft is dirty; flaps & gear extended, thrust reduced, low, slow & sluggish. Of all the strikes I experienced in my career, I would guess 90+% occurred in this flight phase, and under those conditions. Of all of those strikes, I had exactly ONE bird strike that did NOT cause substantial damage. ONE. Every other one resulted in, at a minimum, tens of thousands of dollars in repairs to put the aircraft back in service. a couple of them resulted in bills in the hundreds of thousands or millions. I have had windscreens destroyed before my eyes through impacting SWALLOWS. I have had a jet engine stove-piped by a single seagull. in every instance but one, the damage has been significant, and life-threatening.

Thankfully, pilots get considerable recurring training on obstacle avoidance and mid-air collision. But, and this is a Big "but", when presented with an impending impact with ANYTHING; every pilot ever has reacted in exactly the same way initially; AVOID it! Turn, climb, descend, throttles up..any or all of those things, instantly. Then, the training kicks in and you follow company procedures, but the damage is already done; you've likely hit whatever it was and sustained damage, you've also dramatically altered the aircrafts physical position while in flight, and done so at the most inopportune time.

At it's worst, the result is a crash, at best, it means grounding the aircraft for hours or days repairing the damage.
Comments like those made in the original post here are dramatically, potentially tragically inaccurate. an airfraft as small as a DJI Spark would indeed turn a commercial jet aircraft into a lawn dart. Easily. The greater the size & weight , the greater the odds of a drone causing a catastrophic failure in a large aircraft

 

[CoolBreeze]

Thanks for that Ric.
If I could edit the title of this post, I would have as soon as it was pointed out the difference of the words planes versus airliner to me..... As you can tell, I do take this hobby seriously and genuinely try to improve others' actions as well, but I get so tired of people bad mouthing us, especially when it's on these very forums. Hence I thought it good to have a bit of definitive research. It would be very good to see their results on the engine and fuselage testing too. No one is doubting the possibility of damage, and I am personally all for this new control; geo-fencing seems to be the only way forward here as long as it's done intelligently and not pointlessly restrictive.

Ta for the comments on the "Dover Incident" Making that video was actually quite cathartic and helped my knowledge of the various behaviours that kick in as you fly and as the battery gets lower and lower. I got a replacement; I'm flying happy again and it's summer. All good.

Cheers,


Ian


YouTube / Ian in London

Thank you for detail explanation explaining how your drone was lost. I feel your lost.

My flights are normally over water and land without access. Little to no room for mistakes. I will trust the Mavic is smarter then myself and your example is another reason to use RTH and trust Mavic's computer.

Have you tryed searching for lost drone with your new drone, or offered a reward for finding and return?

 

[danman999]

Here in the US general aviation is a large swath of air traffic. General aviation means much more turboprops and pistons than turbines. Light aircraft that a drone could easily bring down in a variety of scenarios.
Also, a possible collision by a large passenger jet does not always mean a drone sucked into an engine. Damaged pitot tubes in a highly automated flight deck, particularly on an aircraft that is low and slow, can be disastrous.
Note to moderator: would it be possible to have a sub-board for people who actually hold an aircraft pilot's license to give proper information and guidance to those who don't?

 

[Logger]

... and another interpretation of the same research

UK test flies drones into damaging collisions with aircraft

 

[UAVMan]

Is this really a discussion? Whether something hitting a plan is going to damage it....?

I have many pilot friends flying airliners who dread bird strikes and are currently asking their union to lobby the government to force new laws through regarding drones.

We as responsible drone users shouldn't be questioning whether 400 or above blah blah blah. Just keep the peace and stay safe, then there's no excuses for bad press.

 

[michjor]

I think the issue is causing mechanical failure to another aircraft. Here's a link to show how fragile the fins on a commercial jet engine are. A fleshy soft bird flames out the engine and causes an emergency. A lipo battery and drone parts would cause more damage.