1st Aircraft Drone Strike in Canada?

[Helihover]

And another......

107674-in-collisions-with-airplanes-drones-worse-than-birds

 

[GadgetGuy]

And another......

107674-in-collisions-with-airplanes-drones-worse-than-birds

Interesting read. Still not the same as comparing actual bird strike damage to damage documented by actual drone strikes, where no actual drone strikes have ever ocurred.

The P4P at 1388g, is just a hair over 3 pounds. The battery is at the rear. That puts it at the low end of the 2.7 to 4 pound range of quadcopters simulated.
"The team conducted a preliminary computer simulation..."
"The research team evaluated the potential impacts of a 2.7-lb. quadcopter and 4 lb. quadcopter; and a 4-lb. and 8-lb. fixed wing drone on a single-aisle commercial transport jet and a business jet."
"The structural damage severity levels ranged from no damage to failure of the primary structure and penetration of the drone into the airframe. However, the research specifically did not explore the risk to flight imposed by that damage."
I do accept the conclusions of their research: that unmanned aircraft system manufacturers should adopt “detect and avoid” or “geo-fencing” capabilities to reduce the probability of collisions with other aircraft. OA and GEO are both present on the P4P.

 

[jwmcgrath]

It’s all a fascinating read for a curious mind. But I think it’s fair to say that there aren’t now, nor will there ever be, any absolutes.

This drone, striking this plane, at this speed, and this angle, on this surface, will produce this result, isn’t going to happen.

Nor will every drone at every speed and every angle on every surface of every plane ever be fully replicated or understood.

Ultimately it’s entirely fair to say that drones shouldn’t be flying in a circumstance that is likely to pose a danger to any aircraft. Nothing good can come from a drone strike. Lots of bad CAN.

That said, even though this is blatant common sense, there will be endless studies done and enough money to solve global hunger spent trying to prove the obvious.

 

[McCraik]

Although not a study on the actual damage a drone strike would cause still an interesting read about the probability of such an occurrence.

Do Consumer Drones Endanger the National Airspace? Evidence from Wildlife Strike Data

 

[GadgetGuy]

Although not a study on the actual damage a drone strike would cause still an interesting read about the probability of such an occurrence.

Do Consumer Drones Endanger the National Airspace? Evidence from Wildlife Strike Data

Their conclusion: Risk to the NAS is minimal, since drones don't fly in large flocks like birds.

"Although aircraft collide with birds many thousands of times per year, only a tiny fraction of those collisions result in damage to the aircraft, much less human injuries or deaths. The most serious reported incidents typically involved flocks of large birds. Since the addition of UAS to the airspace is similar in many respects to an increase in the bird population, we conclude that 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."

"One damaging incident will occur no more than every 1.87 million years of 2kg UAS flight time."

"Collisions that cause an injury or fatality to passengers on board an aircraft will occur once every 187 million years of operation. This appears to be an acceptable risk to the airspace."

Thanks for sharing. The more viewpoints the better!

 

[Helihover]

A million years?

I’m sure you’ve read about the Blackhawk incident right?

 

[GadgetGuy]

A million years?

I’m sure you’ve read about the Blackhawk incident right?

Quoted directly from the research study cited above, that used far better methods than the first study, IMHO.

What does the Blackhawk incident have to do with their conclusion?

"The helicopter’s main rotor blade, window frame and transmission deck were damaged in the collision, but it landed safely. The motor and an arm from the drone were recovered from the helicopter, investigators said." No one was injured, and no one died, and the drone pilot was flying in two NFZ's at the time.

 

[Helihover]

Quoted directly from the research study cited above, that used far better methods than the first study, IMHO.

What does the Blackhawk incident have to do with their conclusion?

Uh well their estimated time of 1.87 million years per incident seems a little off doesn’t it? How long have drones been around? We already have one confirmed incident regarding a drone causing damage to a manned aircraft (something you keep denying will happen, or is a cause for concern). I believe the damage estimate was somewhere of 275k+.

My point being that a drone strike to a manned aircraft will in fact cause damage and simply not bounce off like you believe.

There have now been 3 studies shown to you along with one real incident, and you still are in complete denial.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Uh well their estimated time of 1.87 million years per incident seems a little off doesn’t it? How long have drones been around? We already have one confirmed incident regarding a drone causing damage to a manned aircraft (something you keep denying will happen, or is a cause for concern). I believe the damage estimate was somewhere of 275k+.

My point being that a drone strike to a manned aircraft will in fact cause damage and simply not bounce off like you believe.

There have now been 3 studies shown to you along with one real incident, and you still are in complete denial.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. Every study and every simulation is flawed when it is based upon mathematical models, instead of actual collision data. I stated earlier that one could come up with any result one desired. Every assumption can be challenged. Every premise can be questioned. Two people looking at the exact same data could come to entirely different conclusions.

People keep citing these studies as proof. They are nothing of the sort. They are mere speculation and projections of what could happen.

I never said a drone couldn't cause damage to a manned aircraft. It is highly unlikely, and the risk of injury or death to persons is even less likely.

I agree with your point that a drone strike to a manned aircraft can cause damage, but that does not mean that it will, or that it is the most likely result.

All three studies have demonstrated how unlikely it is. The single confirmed report of a collision proves the point that the risk of injury and death from such a collision is minimal, as the helicopter with all that described damage still landed safely, and no one was injured and no one died.

Drones don't belong in NFZ's for good reasons, any more than flocks of large birds should be roosting at airport runways. However, the birds are considered an acceptable risk to flight. The rare drone in an NFZ is also an acceptable risk which is to be minimized, just like birds are removed from flight paths and airports, to minimize the risk they pose.