Another close call at 2500+ feet

[Bad Andy]

I am also a pilot and find it hard to believe a dji drone could do much damage to small aircraft, let alone a large one. About the same weight as a seagull, and I fly near 100s of those every day. [edited by Moderator]

By all means, you should test your beliefs on an aircraft you own and are flying.

Please report back to us with a video and a write-up of your results.

 

[LARA images]

...until you apply PHYSICS to the problem.

Have you seen the video of the phantom vs the airplane wing?

Interesting that you'd mention physics, because DJI called nonsense on this 'experiment', since the impact velocities used in the lab exceed the speed of a phantom AND the cruise speed of a Mooney wing:

"Your video assumes a Mooney M20 light aircraft is flying at its maximum possible speed of 200 mph, and encounters a drone apparently flying faster than its maximum possible speed of 33.5 mph. The plane could only achieve such speed at full cruise, typically more than a mile above ground. At the altitudes where that plane would conceivably encounter a Phantom drone, it would fly less than half as fast — generating less than one-fourth of the collision energy."

 

[sar104]

Interesting that you'd mention physics, because DJI called nonsense on this 'experiment', since the impact velocities used in the lab exceed the speed of a phantom AND the cruise speed of a Mooney wing:

"Your video assumes a Mooney M20 light aircraft is flying at its maximum possible speed of 200 mph, and encounters a drone apparently flying faster than its maximum possible speed of 33.5 mph. The plane could only achieve such speed at full cruise, typically more than a mile above ground. At the altitudes where that plane would conceivably encounter a Phantom drone, it would fly less than half as fast — generating less than one-fourth of the collision energy."

It's a bit conservative - if that were even true - but that's how outcomes are bounded experimentally. But in fact the maximum cruise speed of that range of aircraft is around 240 mph, so their argument is moot anyway.

 

[BigAl07]

Interesting that you'd mention physics, because DJI called nonsense on this 'experiment', since the impact velocities used in the lab exceed the speed of a phantom AND the cruise speed of a Mooney wing:

"Your video assumes a Mooney M20 light aircraft is flying at its maximum possible speed of 200 mph, and encounters a drone apparently flying faster than its maximum possible speed of 33.5 mph. The plane could only achieve such speed at full cruise, typically more than a mile above ground. At the altitudes where that plane would conceivably encounter a Phantom drone, it would fly less than half as fast — generating less than one-fourth of the collision energy."

You've been reading the wrong blogs my friend. Where did you get the data from that last sentence? Thin air maybe?

Let's spend some time and talk REAL #'s:
*Mooney 201’s max speed, or Vne, is 201mph (see the correlation with the name and the speed?)
*Mooney 232’s Vne is 232mph (again see the link to name and speed?)

P4P speed spec:
S-mode: 45 mph (72 kph) ~ Against Mooney 201 @ 201mph = 246mph
A-mode: 36 mph (58 kph) ~ Against Mooney 201 @ 201mph = 237mph
P-mode: 31 mph (50 kph) ~ Against Mooney 201 @ 201mph = 232mph

So you see that "magical" 238mph is VERY realistic and doable.

In regards to "Flying to altitudes where that aircraft flies" I'm going to quote another RPIC who is also a manned aircraft pilot with years of experience in aviation to pull from:

Mooney 201’s max speed, or Vne, is 201mph. A Mooney 232’s Vne is 232mph. A 260 Comanche easily busts 200mph in cruise (I’ve flown them faster), as do the composite skinned Lancair’s and Cirrus general aviation aircraft. Let’s not forget the fast and low flying helicopters. Leaving 200mph out of the argument, many general aviation aircraft fly descents and the approaches well above normal cruise speeds, especially if flying an ILS approach in busy terminal airspace. They are frequently told to “ keep your speed up on final due to faster following traffic”. My C-152 had an average cruise speed of 100 knots but I always flew a 130 knot descent. A drone flying 35mph colliding with the 152 wing would have the combined energy from the speed of both aircraft. The speed equation would work out to 187mph.

What would happen after a drone broke through the skin of the wing is the only real question. If it went through the wing of a Grumman Tiger or Cheetah it might impact and puncture a hole in the fuel bladder. If the drones battery shorted during impact there would be a fuel fire that would not be survivable because the airplane could not be landed fast enough to save the day. If it impacted the control rods for a Mooney’s ailerons it could cause loss of aircraft flight control.

Thinking that only an approved method test will provide accurate info is foolish. I knew a truck driver killed by a box of Kleenex that stuck the side of his head in a 45mph traffic accident. That condition certainly was never part of automobile safety testing yet the truck driver is still dead.

BTW, the federally mandated max airspeed in a terminal control area is 200 knots, which works out to 230mph, and that speed is flown all the time by different aircraft. The max speed below 18,000’ outside if a terminal control area is 250 knots and is also flown thousands of times a day in this country. Drones are absolutely a serious threat to manned aviation and anyone thinking they are not because a serious event has not happened yet has serious problems with their reasoning processes, or lacks any knowledge relative to the construction and operation of manned aircraft. They also don’t realize most fly airplanes to get from point A to point B as fast as possible and unless trying to save fuel fly faster than “average” cruise speed.

Also here is an article by someone who is experienced, credentialed and very much a Subject Matter Expert: Engineer. Pilot. A&P mechanic ~ gave another fine example of how Brendan totally missed the boat and actually gave false information in their narrative to try and suppress REAL WORLD data just because they happened to use a DJI product. Here's the link for those who haven't been following the debate (aka DJI debacle):
An Aeronautical Lesson for DJI’s lawyer, Brendan Schulman


So in reality the speed of both aircraft and the possibility for a DJI aircraft to impact a manned aircraft exactly like depicted in the video are VERY realistic. Those numbers aren't just pulled out of thin air randomly I would imagine those designing the tests used the same specifications the rest of us can look up to come up with their test criteria.

For the record, I do not blame DJI for trying to debunk the test. It looks bad for them because it appears to be a DJI aircraft doing all the damage. In reality the brand of the sUAS makes absolutely no difference. Any brand could have been used and DJI would still feel the heat simply because they are undoubtedly the market leader on the planet for sUAS sales. I'm sure it was a donated aircraft and just happens to be DJI. It could have been Yuneec or Autel or anything but the #'s are realistic and the results tell the truth IMHO.

 

[Bad Andy]

I think that if folks are going to hyper-focus on physics while supporting DJI's defense, they should probably broaden their focus to scrutinize the cherry-picking of facts and practices that DJI conducted in order to assemble their defense. After all, if physics is science and science is undeniable fact, then why choose to be completely un-scientific about every other factor?

What cherry-picking, you ask?

How about choosing an older, far slower Mooney.

Or making broad assumptions about where such an aircraft might be at what speeds.

Or playing down the potential velocity of a Phantom.

Etc.

 

[sar104]

I think that if folks are going to hyper-focus on physics while supporting DJI's defense, they should probably broaden their focus to scrutinize the cherry-picking of facts and practices that DJI conducted in order to assemble their defense. After all, if physics is science and science is undeniable fact, then why choose to be completely un-scientific about every other factor?

What cherry-picking, you ask?

How about choosing an older, far slower Mooney.

Or making broad assumptions about where such an aircraft might be at what speeds.

Or playing down the potential velocity of a Phantom.

Etc.

I understand why DJI might be upset about the use of one of their aircraft in this study, but their attempt to discredit it has nothing to do with science or physics. I don't believe that anyone in the company can really think that if, for example, the impact velocity were reduced to 200 mph that the outcome would be significantly different.

As for the arguments defending DJI thrown up on this and other forums, few have really been about physics. Most of those posters haven't the faintest idea about the physics involved, and almost uniformly have simply disputed elements of the scenario - parroting the DJI objections, or proposing unphysical objections to the frame of reference relative to the working fluid.

The level of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias on display has been spectacular. If the issue is the design of the DJI equipment or their customer service, the armchair experts agree that DJI is incompetent and just a cynical business entity. If DJI defends its business against publicity that puts dangerous piloting in a bad light, then its corporate position is infallible. A microcosm of the modern internet society.

 

[BigAl07]

The level of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias on display has been spectacular. If the issue is the design of the DJI equipment or their customer service, the armchair experts agree that DJI is incompetent and just a cynical business entity. If DJI defends its business against publicity that puts dangerous piloting in a bad light, then its corporate position is infallible. A microcosm of the modern internet society.

BINGO!

I can go against you (DJI) if it benefits me but I can't let anyone else go against you because it might affect me or doesn't fit my narrative right now.

In other-words:

I want my cake and eat it too . . .
or
Do as I say not as I do . . .

 

[Raptorman0909]

No matter how stupid or dangerous these idiots are we still have knuckleheads on this very forum that avert there vision and pretend this can't be true or if true, what's the problem. They will end our access to the airspace if they continue this disillusion.


Brian

 

[LARA images]

You've been reading the wrong blogs my friend. Where did you get the data from that last sentence? Thin air maybe?
... the #'s are realistic and the results tell the truth IMHO.

Your numbers seem solid, Al. Thank you.

 

[Deleted member 29014]

I think a lot of pilots mistake a lot of things for drones.

DJI needs to fix these problems before the idiots who don't care get drones banned.

It used to be UFOs!! Now it's DRONES!!!

 

[Noah8105]

This must have been a fairly large drone for the pilot to even see it. Does not sound like a recreational drone, maybe a military drone?

or maybe much more of a commercial definetly not a quad

 

[Raptorman0909]

I don't know if this has been posted before but this is from the Mentor Pilot channel -- a commercial pilot that has a channel and talks about commercial aviation.

In the video the drone pilot is surely the dumbest most ignorant **** I can imagine. How could anyone think this was OK?

Brian

 

[BigAl07]

I don't know if this has been posted before but this is from the Mentor Pilot channel -- a commercial pilot that has a channel and talks about commercial aviation.

In the video the drone pilot is surely the dumbest most ignorant **** I can imagine. How could anyone think this was OK?

Brian

Good find Brian.

Something doesn't "feel" right about that video. I can't put my finger on it but the plane looks too "Clean and Bright" for the rest of the landscape. I'm gonna put my money on CGI instead of a real airplane.

 

[captainmilehigh]

Gotta agree Allen. I don’t see any strobes, landing lights, nav lights, anything that makes me believe this is an actual aircraft.

Was a little too far away to see gear retract, but should have seen the final gear retract sequence on climb out. It takes a while to retract all four mains and the nose gear on the Airbus 380.

 

[Raptorman0909]

I have no idea where the video came from and I've seen similar video with a drone within a couple hundred meters of a commercial jet in flight. But, on second look there does appear to be some suspicious things. I don't see blurring behind the engines as you'd expect from all that heat pouring out of them. OTH, the quality of the video is not so great so maybe that explains things.


Brian

 

[BigAl07]

Gotta agree Allen. I don’t see any strobes, landing lights, nav lights, anything that makes me believe this is an actual aircraft.

Was a little too far away to see gear retract, but should have seen the final gear retract sequence on climb out. It takes a while to retract all four mains and the nose gear on the Airbus 380.

I have no idea where the video came from and I've seen similar video with a drone within a couple hundred meters of a commercial jet in flight. But, on second look there does appear to be some suspicious things. I don't see blurring behind the engines as you'd expect from all that heat pouring out of them. OTH, the quality of the video is not so great so maybe that explains things.


Brian

I did some digging and apparently there are a LOT of people online claiming this one was a fake. Of course there are many proclaiming it's real but their reasons are almost comical. Something just doesn't add up on this one.

Read the comments on this one... some of them... bless their hearts LOL

Crazy drone footage of an A380 takeoff

Crazy drone footage of an A380 takeoff Real or Fake ?

Did A Drone Film This A380 Jet? Real/Fake - Full Analysis

 

[sar104]

Good find Brian.

Something doesn't "feel" right about that video. I can't put my finger on it but the plane looks too "Clean and Bright" for the rest of the landscape. I'm gonna put my money on CGI instead of a real airplane.

I did some extensive research on that video when it was first released. Some of it I reported in a thread on MavicPilots. I also managed to correlate it with a couple of specific dates based on the flight path and the other flight taxiing at the time. My conclusion was that it is likely real.

 

[Raptorman0909]

I did some extensive research on that video when it was first released. Some of it I reported in a thread on MavicPilots. I also managed to correlate it with a couple of specific dates based on the flight path and the other flight taxiing at the time. My conclusion was that it is likely real.

Reviewing it again I think I just see the heat distortion, but the quality of the video doesn't give me much confidence about that. And I did see a strobe flash that others suggest they didn't. So, I'm not sure what to make of this. If this is faked then someones pretty darn good at it, but again, I just wish this was in 4K as I suspect it would have been shot in.

A couple years back I remember seeing another similar video, this time landing if I remember correctly. I seem to remember it being in Israel, but given the security there that seems unlikely. I just can't remember the details but it was similar in that the plane and drone came within a few hundred meters in flight.


Brian

 

[Raptorman0909]

I did some digging and apparently there are a LOT of people online claiming this one was a fake. Of course there are many proclaiming it's real but their reasons are almost comical. Something just doesn't add up on this one.

Read the comments on this one... some of them... bless their hearts LOL

Crazy drone footage of an A380 takeoff

Crazy drone footage of an A380 takeoff Real or Fake ?

Did A Drone Film This A380 Jet? Real/Fake - Full Analysis

I see that DroningOn has a followup video on this subject with some interesting updates including a potential suspect that is ... wait for it ... an airline pilot.

There does appear to be some question on the date this was shot as a resident of the island that lives within a couple miles indicated that the fields seen in the video do not look like they do in the video and therefore the video maybe somewhat older.


Brian

 

[sar104]

Reviewing it again I think I just see the heat distortion, but the quality of the video doesn't give me much confidence about that. And I did see a strobe flash that others suggest they didn't. So, I'm not sure what to make of this. If this is faked then someones pretty darn good at it, but again, I just wish this was in 4K as I suspect it would have been shot in.

A couple years back I remember seeing another similar video, this time landing if I remember correctly. I seem to remember it being in Israel, but given the security there that seems unlikely. I just can't remember the details but it was similar in that the plane and drone came within a few hundred meters in flight.


Brian

The image distortion from the exhaust gases is quite clear.