Agree re unknowns. I do recall they suggesting the aircraft would have still been able to fly though.
They did exactly as reported, which doesn't make the test either incomplete or unscientific, independent of whether you have further questions on the subject. Perhaps they will now get funding to extend the parameter space.
If that was the case, and I don't disagree, then the result was to confirm that a drone would cause damage to a plane. Well, call me shocked.
However, in putting the limited (and really, pointless) incomplete information out there they are serving to mislead people. Half truths are still partially true but they are also as much a lie.
That's right, and I'm glad to hear that you are not shocked. But what about all the other contributors to this forum who have been insisting for years that a little toy drone couldn't possibly hurt a big, bad airplane? Perhaps it was educational for them?
And there you have lost me again. What does this mean? That no results should ever be published unless they have tested every conceivable combination of aircraft, UAV, impact speed and impact location? A test result is not, in any way, a half-truth. Who has been misled by this, and it what way? You just admitted that the result simply confirms that such an impact can damage an aircraft, and that it doesn't even surprise you.
I wonder what some folks here would consider to be acceptable damage to a plane in which they are a passenger. Or a plane they own..
Hurt? As in cause it to crash? I don't know of anyone that doubted a drone would cause some type of damage... I think most people _questioned_ if it would cause a plane to crash. I also think most people were questioning what would happen when a drone flew into a jet engine. This test had _nothing_ to do with a jet airplane. It was good of the article to make that fact clear. Oh wait... it did not.
As mentioned above, how clear wa it that this was not a commercial jet aircraft? A person had to go hunt on their own for a picture of the plane that the wing belonged to. What if they did the test 10 times and only this one impact caused that much damage? What if they also tested a larger plane and there was no structural damage to the wing? The information and then the reaction from the public would e completely different. "Tests" can be used to prove anything you want. I could use them to prove the earth was flat. Heck, in the 50's tests showed that cigarettes were good for people. So yes, done incorrectly or incompletely, the half truths can misinform people.
So given that, I think it explains why DJI wants the video removed.
Granted - if you don't read the report or watch the video, you might mistakenly assume that it was a commercial airliner. That represents far too low a common denominator.
Even reading the report you'd not know. It names the type of aircraft but I doubt most people will know that this is a 3 passenger prop plane just by the model mentioned. Also, I've seen reports claiming it is a "commercial passenger" plane. I don't think of a 3 passenger plane as being a "commercial passenger" plane.
The company that put out the report makes money by testing collisions with aircraft. To me it seems like they put out this misleading report just to acquire possible new work... not to educate people in any way.
Again, goes to reason why DJI is asking them to remove the video.
It's not an aircraft collision facility - it's the Impact Physics Group at the University of Dayton Research Institute. They most likely are effectively advertising their services in this field with this scoping study but, again, they are not responsible for what happens when technologically illiterate readers try to make sense of a report, and they are not responsible for inaccurate media coverage of their work. It's not misleading in any way - it is a completely straightforward report of a test, including test specifications.
I might just add here SAR that UD can probably be trusted to competently perform an experiment of this nature. They claim, on their website, that in 2017 they ranked 1st Nationally (among all colleges and universities) for all sponsored materials engineering research and development, federally sponsored engineering research and development, and Department of Defense research and development- based on Govt reported funding figures. Clearly it’s not Wally World in their labs.
Oh yes - these guys are serious researchers in the field of impact and shock. I'm familiar with some of their work.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2016
- Messages
- 1,611
- Reaction score
- 973
Yes and this is the message here. And I think it's enough! If drones can do a hole into the wing, and we see that it can, everything else is not important. The hole in the wing is by itself a serious damage to the aircraft regardless the consequence. So obey the drone flying rules.
Perhaps downgrading readers of the report helps your point but it is not correct.
When a company reports 1/2 truths in order to mislead people with the intent to gain business... I can't hold them responsible for their actions?
You are missing most of the point. First, no one is advocating not following the laws.
Second... birds also damage planes. How many drones have hit planes and how many birds have hit and caused damage to planes?
Given the facts, should we be more concerned about birds or drones causing damage to planes? I'll answer.... BIRDS! They are far (_far_) more likely to cause damage to planes then drones... something like 10000% more likely.
I'm just putting things into perspective.
I don't understand your position here. You keep asserting that the study was wrong, or misleading or a half-truth, but you don't, of course, provide any evidence to back up that assertion. Virtually everything you have written on this has been wrong, and yet you keep posting it over and over again. Why are you so offended by a simple, well-executed, fully-described test of a Phantom hitting a light aircraft wing? Are you just trolling at this point?
No - you are not putting anything into perspective - you are trying to deflect from the point of this test, which has nothing to do with the probability of bird or drone collisions. And now you are making up random numbers too.
I've not stated it was wrong. There is so little real information that it almost could not be wrong.
I provided plenty of evidence:
Breaking News: DJI Demands Withdrawal of Drone Crash Video - DRONELIFE
Breaking News: DJI Demands Withdrawal of Drone Crash Video - DRONELIFE
"In a test designed to mimic a midair collision of a drone and a commercial transport aircraft". Test this yourself... ask 5-10 people what they think of when someone mentions a "commercial transport aircraft" and see what they say. Let me know if anyone thinks of a 3 passenger prop plane. I guess I drive a "commercial car"... as it has a back seat.
To bring this back to what this thread was talking about... DJI's point was that a drone collision (at least not with a Phantom) would not occur at a speed of 238mph as tested. This is a cruising speed of that plane and that speed is flown at a much greater altitude than the Phantom can fly. What? The University did not mention this? Naw, not misleading at all. Why am I offended by this? I'm not offended... I'd just like to see some accurate data being reported and not something that (yet again) misleads the public into thinking drones are some huge risk to aircraft.
Just to be clear... because someone is going to take that out of context, of course... by risk, I am not saying a drone won't hit another aircraft.... they will. I'm weighing the real world risk as it compares to everything else. Bird strikes are a _FAR_ greater risk.... but we don't see the panic about those. If we all drone 10mph fewer people would die each year... but we don't. Risk is not only the exposure to harm, it is the _probability_ of harm as well.
So, yes... I still think the article was misleading at least and really just a scare tactic.
One data point does not count as research.
Research should be impartial, this video clearly has a motive.
Most people who don't have drones won't even watch the whole thing. The icon from the video will be enough for people to spout false knowledge. "I saw it on CNN, a drone can blast a hole in an airplane wing"
Research should be impartial, this video clearly has a motive.
Most people who don't have drones won't even watch the whole thing. The icon from the video will be enough for people to spout false knowledge. "I saw it on CNN, a drone can blast a hole in an airplane wing"
Similar threads
