"Damage was confined to '...a few minor scratches on the left wing.' "
It was "yellow" and "40cm by 10cm".
DJI is off the hook!
...assuming it even was a drone, instead of some other type of unidentified flying/falling object!
The alarmists can relax. This only confirms that minor scratches are the most likely damage to any aircraft, and not the predicted Armageddon. It's like a mosquito hitting a car! Splat!
Agreed that they should never be sharing the same airspace, but even when they are, and actually make physical contact, a commercial plane will not be plummeting to the ground. Small private planes with direct strikes to the windshield or propeller are most vulnerable, but no more so than from falling ice from a commercial airliner above them. Private pilots are far more at risk from themselves or a mechanical malfunction, than from drones. Pilot error is their greatest risk. Maybe we should ground all private pilots until all possibility of their own pilot error has first been eliminated!
Agreed that they should never be sharing the same airspace, but even when they are, and actually make physical contact, a commercial plane will not be plummeting to the ground. Small private planes with direct strikes to the windshield or propeller are most vulnerable, but no more so than from falling ice from a commercial airliner above them. Private pilots are far more at risk from themselves or a mechanical malfunction, than from drones. Pilot error is their greatest risk. Maybe we should ground all private pilots until all possibility of their own pilot error has first been eliminated!
Due to the speeds involved- unfortunately you're far from correct. I've hit birds at relatively low speeds in jets while taking off and landing. The results are sometimes spectacular- dents in radomes and even damaged wing leading edges. A drone strike at 200kts would likely penetrate a windshield and would definitely destroy a jet engine.Agreed that they should never be sharing the same airspace, but even when they are, and actually make physical contact, a commercial plane will not be plummeting to the ground. Small private planes with direct strikes to the windshield or propeller are most vulnerable, but no more so than from falling ice from a commercial airliner above them. Private pilots are far more at risk from themselves or a mechanical malfunction, than from drones. Pilot error is their greatest risk. Maybe we should ground all private pilots until all possibility of their own pilot error has first been eliminated!
Actually, it does matter. That 1.8kg bag of flesh and bones is distributed over a certain surface area as it makes impact. Concentrate that mass down to a small enough impact zone and at some point penetration is going to be achieved.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The birds you have hit don't prove anything. Dents and minor damage to leading wing edges aren't going to take down an airplane. Penetration of a jet windshield and destruction of an engine by a Phantom, Mavic, or Spark are still entirely speculative on your part.
Well, speculative like most things on this forum, I suppose. But unless you're an aircraft engineer- probably better informed than your speculation.We'll have to agree to disagree. The birds you have hit don't prove anything. Dents and minor damage to leading wing edges aren't going to take down an airplane. Penetration of a jet windshield and destruction of an engine by a Phantom, Mavic, or Spark are still entirely speculative on your part.
Drones and manned aircraft do not belong in the same airspace simultaneously within collision distance. Neither do birds and manned aircraft. Since there are far more birds than drones in manned airspace, and we are all about eliminating the greatest risks, significantly more resources should be devoted to educating birds on the risks they pose to manned aircraft, and installing trackers on them broadcasting their location at all times. Hopefully the FAA will get right on that!Well, speculative like most things on this forum, I suppose. But unless you're an aircraft engineer- probably better informed than your speculation.
I've had the experience of hitting birds on takeoff with damage to my airplane which forced the discontinuation of my flight with an immediate return to land. These events were with me at a relatively low speed. I'd hate to speculate what would happen if I hit a Phantom battery at 250 knots (or, god-forbid, 460knots at cruise). I know that would take out an engine were I so unlucky to directly ingest a drone. (Heck, even Canada geese at 140 knots can do that.) My experience suggests that at the very least it would render a windshield unuseable- cracked and impossible to see through.
Ahh... humour. Argh, argh, argh...Drones and manned aircraft do not belong in the same airspace. Neither do birds and manned aircraft. Since there are far more birds than drones in manned airspace, and we are all about eliminating the greatest risks, significant more resources should be devoted to educating birds on the risks they pose to manned aircraft, and installing trackers on them broadcasting their location at all times. Hopefully the FAA will get right on that!
The biggest risk to me, at significantly lower altitudes are other drones, and bird strikes, but the birds are likely more at risk than my P4P's, which can take a winging and keep on ticking! Several drone near misses documented on video, only noticed later. Would have been nice to know where they were, while flying, to avoid them. I'm all in favor of your suggestions, but I fear they are far too expensive at the present, without a substantial increase in cost of all drones, and any drone not having the necessary transponder puts all the others at risk, just like now. Be safe and fly safely!Ahh... humour. Argh, argh, argh...
We already have "Birdmen" who use a variety of techniques to reduce the risk of bird/aircraft collisions at most major airports. Seriously. It's a 24/7 job, probably pays pretty well and they drive cool trucks.
Drones and manned aircraft already share the same airspace- obviously with the military but also when considering low-level civil aircraft, be they piston-powered Cessnas or unpowered gliders.
Commercial aircraft have a system called TCAS to reduce the risk of collision. Some elements of that 30-year-old technology could easily be updated and incorporated into today's drones. As a pilot- I'd love to see a transponder-equipped drone on my NAV display. Maybe it won't take evasive action, but if I have 3 or more miles warning- I can.
We're talking about systems that would make the sky safer and more useable for all of us. Why wouldn't you want that? With the photography that I like to do- I'd love to take my drone up to 5 or 6,000 feet. I'd be willing to pay for a transponder or subject myself to licensing and testing if these things allowed for great utilization of my Phantom.
There was a time when GPS was prohibitively expensive. Look at 'em now. Once the current system is redesigned to fit on a chip- mass production will make them affordable. Anyway, like it or not- these sort of things will be mandated at some point in the near future. Maybe not for your drone's safety- but for mine in the front seat of my triple 7.The biggest risk to me, at significantly lower altitudes are other drones, and bird strikes, but the birds are likely more at risk than my P4P's, which can take a winging and keep on ticking! Several drone near misses documented on video, only noticed later. Would have been nice to know where they were, while flying, to avoid them. I'm all in favor of your suggestions, but I fear they are far too expensive at the present, without a substantial increase in cost of all drones, and any drone not having the necessary transponder puts all the others at risk, just like now. Be safe and fly safely!
Indeed. Time cures all, one way or another!There was a time when GPS was prohibitively expensive. Look at 'em now. Once the current system is redesigned to fit on a chip- mass production will make them affordable. Anyway, like it or not- these sort of things will be mandated at some point in the near future. Maybe not for your drone's safety- but for mine in the front seat of my triple 7.
The operative word being "could." Bird strikes "could" also cause more damage to planes than drones! Since no actual drones have struck aircraft, unlike legions of birds, it's all speculation and guesswork from computer models and simulations that are hypothetical.
You're refuting an FAA study at a respected university by a professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering? GadgetGuy- you're climbing further and further out on a limb here.The operative word being "could." Bird strikes "could" also cause more damage to planes than drones! Since no actual drones have struck aircraft, unlike legions of birds, it's all speculation and guesswork from computer models and simulations that are hypothetical.
"The experiments were a mixture of computer simulations and lab tests."
"could potentially cause more damage" were their initial "findings."
Fake news! Where's the beef?
I can run computer simulations and lab tests that "could potentially" demonstrate the possibility of anything! Anything is possible. How likely is it, though? "While the research studied the potential for damage to an aircraft, it did not estimate the probability of a collision between an unmanned drone and a plane."
I am not refuting anything. Neither the headline, nor the study have proven anything. Reading past the inconclusive headline, you find in the details of the article that the entire study itself, in the quotes cited, establishes nothing other than a mere possibility, without any quantification, or estimate of error.
