DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

What happens when a drone gets ingested by an aircraft engine, FAA ready to conduct live test . . .

Wasn't it the NSA that was afraid that a typical guy in a typical trainer was able to bring down the WTC instead of jet fuel guzzling commercial jumbo jet?

So some idiot tried it with his little trainer. He barely broke one glass out of one floor window and it killed him.

Government is always backwards on their priorities.
 
What are the chances of taking an aircraft down with a drone, 1 in a million ?? even if you tried to do it deliberately. If you fly a drone in regulated or controlled airspace your drone must be shot down buy any means available and if they catch the idiot drone pilot lock him or her away for life. There are many millions of birds out there and the chances of a bird strikes on take offs or landing are very high due to birds flying in flocks. Even if a drone pilot was at the end of a runway where aircraft where taking off and landing with a drone I think even a skilled drone pilot would find it difficult to get a drone to hit a aircraft engine directly. Can it happen ?? more than likely yes there are many idiots out there that do stupid things that have dire consequences. Fly low fly using VLOS and keep safe
 
Drone ingestion by jet engine has already been studied extensively. See one 2017 study linked below.

Volume IV – UAS Airborne Collision Severity Evaluation – Engine Ingestion August 2017 Final Report

Looks Like a computer model test.

I would go with the theory that a Mavic or Phantom size drone would likely do less damage than a frozen turkey.
The "hard" parts of a drone are fairly small. You have four motors which are not like solid cylinders of steel but are rather like a small tin can with small magnets glued inside surrounding copper windings and weighing about 55g each for a phantom. Then there are the camera and gimbal. The aluminum belly on the mavic and a small cooling fan motor. The largest mass is going to be the battery. LiPo cells do not have a solid metal casing around them so I wouldn't consider them a hard part.

Of course the only way to know for sure is to run the test. And if the government is willing to fund it I say go right ahead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
This could be VERY interesting and it's WAY over due IMHO.. Click link below for the ARTICLE . . .

What happens when a drone gets ingested by an aircraft engine, FAA ready to conduct live test


Discuss it but be NICE to each other.

To be more thorough, shouldn’t the test include ingestion of an Amazon, UPS, Walmart, commercial size, etc drone? This could show that it’s not only one sector of “droning” (i.e. hobbyists) that has the potential for a serious incident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Barrelblazer
To be more thorough, shouldn’t the test include ingestion of an Amazon, UPS, Walmart, commercial size, etc drone? This could show that it’s not only one sector of “droning” (i.e. hobbyists) that has the potential for a serious incident.


@scoble08 did you ever read the article linked? It never mentioned Hobby/Recreational sUAS or Commercial sUAS. I think this one comment sums up the whole article fairly well:
" In the final phase of this research, this work effort is intended to provide high-fidelity data from the actual ingestion of a market-representative sUAS into a commercial airline mid- to high-bypass gas turbofan engine, with a diameter of approximately 62 inches. "

This isn't a Hobby Vs Commercial Vs Amazon... it's a sUAS vs Commercial Aircraft and the findings will affect each and every one of us in the US who enjoy sUAS operations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas B
While I'm curious to see the results as there is so much uncertainty over this, I fear it isn't going to end well for sUAS operators. Given the number of solid and non-shreddable/shatterable parts in a typical drone, I think the idea that a jet turbine will just shrug off injesting a drone is a pipedream. That also means we're almost certainly looking at more severe damage than might be obtained from a bird in a similar scenario. Best we can probably hope for is that the damage is highly distinctive, as that might help dispell a lot of incidents that might otherwise have been blamed on drones, but that probably also implies that the damage is going to be significant, or catastrophic.

No WAY that commercial pilots (and their employers/unions) are going to take that potential threat - regardless of how likely it is of actually occuring in practice - in their stride and just shrug it off.

Serious question: Roughly what *is* the exposure of a commercial passenger aircraft to a drone, assuming it's not been hacked/custom built to negate NFZs and height limitations? Thinking about the practicality of stricter legislation here, given that if you're going to operate a drone illegally (let alone deliberately approach commercial aircraft), then legal compliance isn't really an issue. e.g. how much time is spent within Class G airspace, but outside the typical NFZs of an airfield? I'm guessing pretty low (albeit potentially much higher for military and private aircraft) - maybe a few minutes at either end of a flight?
 
Issue is, for passenger safety reasons, more related to consequences rather than probability of the event being discussed. Why allow an avoidable risk?
 
Issue is, for passenger safety reasons, more related to consequences rather than probability of the event being discussed. Why allow an avoidable risk?

The industry phrase is ALARP - As Low As Reasonably Practical. A given risk might be perfectly avoidable, but if it costs you $$$$ to do so and the probability of it occuring is near zero then you can make a justifiable case for not having to take measures to mitigate it weighed against the impact should it actually do so. Hence my interest in the "window of opportunity"; the time a commercial aircraft spends in airspace outside an NFZ where conflict with an unmodified drone with enforced NFZs and flight ceiling limits in place could theoretically occur. If that's only a few minutes, then given the volume of the airspace concerned, I think the costs of a technical solution (presumably including some form of integration between ATC and drone-based ADS-B systems) is currently likely to be prohibitive and the probability of collision low enough to say it's outside the scope of ALARP.
 
I fear it isn't going to end well for sUAS operators.
I think the idea that a jet turbine will just shrug off injesting a drone is a pipedream.
Best we can probably hope for is that the damage is highly distinctive, as that might help dispell a lot of incidents that might otherwise have been blamed on drones, but that probably also implies that the damage is going to be significant, or catastrophic.

I think that Zocalo's opinion is the one that is now held by the majority of the general public and also probably by many in the field of aviation. That is why I believe that sUAS operators have absolutely nothing to fear from this test. The worst case scenario is already the current assumption. Of course this statement is based on my opinion that Truth is better than Fear and Speculation.

Hence my interest in the "window of opportunity"; the time a commercial aircraft spends in airspace outside an NFZ where conflict with an unmodified drone with enforced NFZs and flight ceiling limits in place could theoretically occur.

If some one has hard data on this they could crunch the numbers to see if it is true. Major Airports have a five mile radius around them where the controlled airspace extends to the ground. I think that amounts to the same thing as a NFZ. If commercial airliners can ascend and descend 600 feet in 5 miles then there would be a 200 ft. safety margin between where they are and where a drone could be flying legally. So I think that that " window of oportunity" is probably 0%. I don't think legal drone flyers are what they are worried about. I think it is rogue pilots or terrorist they are concerned about.
 
If some one has hard data on this they could crunch the numbers to see if it is true. Major Airports have a five mile radius around them where the controlled airspace extends to the ground. I think that amounts to the same thing as a NFZ. If commercial airliners can ascend and descend 600 feet in 5 miles then there would be a 200 ft. safety margin between where they are and where a drone could be flying legally. So I think that that " window of oportunity" is probably 0%. I don't think legal drone flyers are what they are worried about. I think it is rogue pilots or terrorist they are concerned about.

I think it's effectively 0% too, but I've seen some ridiculously low climb/descent rate figures for aircraft that make me doubt this is always the case, e.g. in scenarios where the aircraft in question *could* change altitude faster, but for whatever reason do not do so. Admittedly not so much for commercial airliners, but more private light aircraft, and especially those with props, so difficult to assess how much bearing that might have on any new legislation or expanded NFZs.

Absolutely I think it's mostly the rogue/terrorist pilots they are afraid of here, but there are also plenty of places where a drone pilot could be operating perfectly legally and *still* come into conflict with a jet aircraft - almost anywhere the military conducts low flying exercises not declared as an NFZ in particular. Rogue/terrorist pilots are *already* breaking the law in many (most?) jurisdictions, so new legislation isn't going to help - harsher penalties if they get caught, perhaps, but legislation alone isn't going to do it. So, let's say the FAA runs the test and catastrophic engine damage results, what happens? I'm expecting another round of anti-drone FUD in the media, of course, but in terms of additional NFZs/regulations (which will be ignored by rogue pilots anyway), what else can the FAA/CAA/etc. actually *do* at this point that'll have any additional benefits at reducing the potential for conflicts, short of waiting for ADS-B type tech and integration with ATCs to develop?
 
Low flying military aircraft are definitely a risk. I fly in a Military Operations Area (MOA) with a 100 foot AGL floor. I fly only Saturdays and Sundays when the MOA isn't operational. Other days I guess I could call the airbase to find out if it would be safe to fly. If I did fire up my Mavic there on a weekday I doubt that I would get any warning message. I guess I should try it out to see. I think some sort of drone education program for new drone pilots would go a lot farther as far as safety goes than more regulations beyond what is already in the works with the Remote ID laws.

But what if the unexpected happens when they run this Drone ingested in a commercial jet engine test. For instance what if the ingestion of a drone only causes vibrations from internal damage and loss of performance and the aircraft could be landed with all engines functioning. I think this would affect the risk assessment. In this case an airport would not have to totally shutdown if there is a drone sighting. Each airline could decide for themselves whether to take the financial risk of loosing an engine which may or may not be repairable. Now playing the odds would be thinkable because that 0.01% chance, or whatever it figures to be, would involve only money and inconvenience, not human lives.
 
Drone ingestion by jet engine has already been studied extensively. See one 2017 study linked below.

Volume IV – UAS Airborne Collision Severity Evaluation – Engine Ingestion August 2017 Final Report

I have two issues with that report as follows:

1. It is a computer simulation. I understand that it is a reasonable, well thought out attempt to simulate actual conditions, but, there are so many variables that I don't accept it as guaranteed prediction of what will happen. (As an architect I have seen NUMEROUS computer building energy simulations that were off base by MASSIVE amounts, so I am somewhat jaded by computer simulations in general.) I don't have a problem with computer simulations of engine ingestion being done, as long as one accepts their limitations and understands that real world conditions may vary significatly. (This could cut either way, and actual ingestion damage could be MUCH worse.)

2. They were using a Phantom 3 which is SIGNIFICANTLY heavier than the Mavic series and most currently popular consumer UAS. In addition, the frame structure is not foldable and presents different constraints than a collapsable Mavic (or Evo, or Anafi, etc). I don't blame the authors for this, as they were using what was "mainstream" in 2017, but I feel that the day's of Phantoms are numbered, and I get the sense that DJI feels the same way. (I hope that this is taken into account in the final study.)

I have mixed feelings about the actual ingestion test. I am certain that if you throw anything with any metal into a running jet engine, some damage will occur. I am uncertain of the extent of the damage. Will the test be done with a .55 lb DJI Mavic Mini or a 55 lb DJI AGRAS MG-1S? (My hope is that they will start with a sub .55 lb drone and work their way up in weight.) Will it be a large or small jet engine? Last time I checked, they aren't giving drones away, and they certainly aren't handing out jet engines either, so the odds of testing 10 different sized drones individually in 10 different sized jet engines is pretty remote. I am curious what will actually be used.

I feel that the actual ingestion report will show significant engine damage and that will be another nail in recreational flyings coffin. (In an FOD study the removable tip of a screwdriver shredded multiple turbine blades, and that was way smaller than one drone motor, let alone four.) Youtube videos will get watched over and over again by the general public and the tabloid headlines will be "FLYING DEATH MACHINES COULD POSSIBLY KILL THOUSANDS OF TRAVELERS." I am concerned that the study won't address the statistical odds of a recreational drone actually getting ingested in the first place and, how that compares to the statistical odds that drone damage is a greater risk (not just greater damage) than bird strikes or FOD damage.

I understand why folks might want an actual test, I doubt that the results will be helpful to my hobby, and, I am sure that it will all be quite interesting!

Peter T
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terry63
I have two issues with that report as follows:

1. It is a computer simulation. I understand that it is a reasonable, well thought out attempt to simulate actual conditions, but, there are so many variables that I don't accept it as guaranteed prediction of what will happen. (As an architect I have seen NUMEROUS computer building energy simulations that were off base by MASSIVE amounts, so I am somewhat jaded by computer simulations in general.) I don't have a problem with computer simulations of engine ingestion being done, as long as one accepts their limitations and understands that real world conditions may vary significatly. (This could cut either way, and actual ingestion damage could be MUCH worse.)

2. They were using a Phantom 3 which is SIGNIFICANTLY heavier than the Mavic series and most currently popular consumer UAS. In addition, the frame structure is not foldable and presents different constraints than a collapsable Mavic (or Evo, or Anafi, etc). I don't blame the authors for this, as they were using what was "mainstream" in 2017, but I feel that the day's of Phantoms are numbered, and I get the sense that DJI feels the same way. (I hope that this is taken into account in the final study.)

I have mixed feelings about the actual ingestion test. I am certain that if you throw anything with any metal into a running jet engine, some damage will occur. I am uncertain of the extent of the damage. Will the test be done with a .55 lb DJI Mavic Mini or a 55 lb DJI AGRAS MG-1S? (My hope is that they will start with a sub .55 lb drone and work their way up in weight.) Will it be a large or small jet engine? Last time I checked, they aren't giving drones away, and they certainly aren't handing out jet engines either, so the odds of testing 10 different sized drones individually in 10 different sized jet engines is pretty remote. I am curious what will actually be used.

I feel that the actual ingestion report will show significant engine damage and that will be another nail in recreational flyings coffin. (In an FOD study the removable tip of a screwdriver shredded multiple turbine blades, and that was way smaller than one drone motor, let alone four.) Youtube videos will get watched over and over again by the general public and the tabloid headlines will be "FLYING DEATH MACHINES COULD POSSIBLY KILL THOUSANDS OF TRAVELERS." I am concerned that the study won't address the statistical odds of a recreational drone actually getting ingested in the first place and, how that compares to the statistical odds that drone damage is a greater risk (not just greater damage) than bird strikes or FOD damage.

I understand why folks might want an actual test, I doubt that the results will be helpful to my hobby, and, I am sure that it will all be quite interesting!

Peter T
The logistical nightmare of repeating all possibilities of a real life function is unbearable in being able to program such a monstrosity. Just a simple program recreating just simple variables is usually impossible to do on the first build. There's always bugs and numbers that crunch as far as the computer knows, but are physically impossible in the real world.


Computer models are only as good as the rendering given no interruptions that affect the continuous operation of the simulation (they're really bad about this).

Aw you''d be right size in this case would matter. Weight does more damage, but given the right plastic in the wrong place can make things go wrong. Just get it caught between the gears and we have drift-off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pftarch
For those of you who are keyboard warrior drone pilots and have never sat in a Fixed Wing or Helicopter powered by a turbine engine...I suggest you calm down and keep your inexperience to yourself. Have flown both and had bird strikes in my dual engine 1900 HP AH-64D Apache, it will cause an engine failure...and its a bird. You throw hard pieces like a thick battery in it. The engine will catch on fire, shutdown and possibly explode. There are several components to turbine engines that are sensitive, after the intake comes the compression then combustion...it can't compress if it's blocked, if it can't compress, it can't combust, hence no power. Look at CPT Sully and the Potomac landing...just a few birds right. Brought down a commercial jet. Don't for one second think our little sUAS can't bring one down. If you don't think it can, you should send your 107 cert back to the FAA and stop flying. Why do you think we have to have our 107 in the first place now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas B
For those of you who are keyboard warrior drone pilots and have never sat in a Fixed Wing or Helicopter powered by a turbine engine...I suggest you calm down and keep your inexperience to yourself. Have flown both and had bird strikes in my dual engine 1900 HP AH-64D Apache, it will cause an engine failure...and its a bird. You throw hard pieces like a thick battery in it. The engine will catch on fire, shutdown and possibly explode. There are several components to turbine engines that are sensitive, after the intake comes the compression then combustion...it can't compress if it's blocked, if it can't compress, it can't combust, hence no power. Look at CPT Sully and the Potomac landing...just a few birds right. Brought down a commercial jet. Don't for one second think our little sUAS can't bring one down. If you don't think it can, you should send your 107 cert back to the FAA and stop flying. Why do you think we have to have our 107 in the first place now?
 
Just because it's small, doesn't mean a big accident. Turbines are not engines 107 guys are familiar with. You put alittle FOD in it, the fans break, the fans break, its over no compression..no combustion. Lights out. Think about that when you fly your drone, better yet. When your sitting on next Boeing 777 and there's a drone pilot saying ahhhh. It won't hurt
 
Look at CPT Sully and the Potomac landing...just a few birds right. Brought down a commercial jet.... Don't for one second think our little sUAS can't bring one down.


Whether a bird or a UAS can bring down an airliner is an interesting issue. But is the real issue not what is the actual risk of it occurring and the cost/benefit of various forms of risk mitigation?

  • Do Consumer Drones Endanger the National Airspace? Evidence from Wildlife Strike Data (March 2016)

"We estimate that 6.12x10−6 collisions will cause damage to an aircraft for every 100,000 hours of 2kg UAS flight time. Or to put it another way, one damaging incident will occur no more than every 1.87 million years of 2kg UAS flight time. We further estimate that 6.12x10−8 collisions that cause an injury or fatality to passengers on board an aircraft will occur every 100,000 hours of 2kg UAS flight time, or once every 187 million years of operation."

Excerpts:
The risk to the airspace caused by small drones (for example, weighing up to 2kg, or 4.41 pounds) flying in solitary formation is
minimal. Bird strikes provide an excellent parallel phenomenon for estimating the magnitude of damage a small UAS could cause by colliding with a manned aircraft. But as previously mentioned, without an estimate of UAS strike frequency, the magnitude of damage is insufficient to properly gauge risk. The size of the effect has to be multiplied by the chance of it actually occurring. In 2014, there were 13,414 reported collisions with birds and flying mammals, counting incidents in which flocks of birds hit an aircraft as a single collision. As there are on the order of 10 billion birds in US airspace, this means that plausibly 1 bird in 1 million collides with an aircraft every year. Even if we take UAS operators to be about as deliberate and skilled at avoiding aircraft as birds, we cannot similarly estimate that 1 UAS in 1 million will collide with aircraft every year. Not only are UAS operators able to reason about human- piloted aircraft and airfield landing patterns better than birds are, UAS have very short battery lives and may sit idle for months at a time.

In contrast, an observational study of bird behavior near wind turbines found the average bird spends roughly equal amounts of time flying as perching. Flight time is much more variable, however, with some migratory birds potentially flying as long as six months nonstop. FAA commonly refers to “acceptable risk levels” for general aviation in terms of fatalities per 100,000 flight hours. Using the aforementioned finding that birds spend roughly half their lives in flight, the fact that there were 13,414 bird strikes in 2014, and an estimate of 10 billion birds in US airspace, we estimate that there are 3.06x10−5 bird strikes (both damaging and not) per 100,000 bird flight hours.10 This risk level is comparable to the 5x10−5 fatality risk cited by the drone registration task force as acceptable for general aviation, without even adjusting for the probability of injury or fatality Our analysis has been based on actual bird strikes, not near misses or simple sightings. We find in general that small UAS under 2kg pose a negligible risk to the safety of the national airspace.

We estimate that 6.12x10−6 collisions will cause damage to an aircraft for every 100,000 hours of 2kg UAS flight time. Or to put it another way, one damaging incident will occur no more than every 1.87 million years of 2kg UAS flight time.

We further estimate that 6.12x10−8 collisions that cause an injury or fatality to passengers on board an aircraft will occur every 100,000 hours of 2kg UAS flight time, or once every 187 million years of operation. This appears to be an acceptable risk to the airspace. Since the probability of any collision with any UAS is around 3.06x10−5 per 100,000 flight hours.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zocalo
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
131,066
Messages
1,559,494
Members
160,049
Latest member
kramme