Breaking News: DJI Demands Withdrawal of Drone Crash Video - DRONELIFE

  • Thread starter Deleted member 62848
  • Start date
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.

That statement was not made by the research group, or in their report, or in their video, where they clearly described the test as a collision with a general aviation aircraft, and named the aircraft in question. They are not responsible for news outlets misreporting their work.

As for speed and altitude, you will find plenty of examples of Phantom 2s being taken to high altitude - it had no altitude limit. And once again you have made it clear that you do not even remotely understand the distinction between risk and consequence. This was not a test of risk. What is so hard to understand about that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: With The Birds
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.
Perspective? Your making stuff up now....

Its hard to see what your point is.... There might be more chance the aircraft could be struck by lightning on the ground than hit by a drone- so what? The test wasn't about likelihood of an occurrence (Drone impact, bird strike whatever).

To the extent you seem to be suggesting the risk presented to manned AC operations by UAV is trivial you may have missed the reality there also. Our greatest concern should be with those things there is some opportunity to control. Your argument is like saying we can ignore any risk that might be presented by jet ski's being permitted to operate where people are swimming because there is far greater chance they will be attacked by a shark than hit by a jet ski.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sar104
That statement was not made by the research group, or in their report, or in their video, where they clearly described the test as a collision with a general aviation aircraft, and named the aircraft in question. They are not responsible for news outlets misreporting their work.
So.... perhaps the news outlet misunderstood the report? Hmmmm, odd.

As for speed and altitude, you will find plenty of examples of Phantom 2s being taken to high altitude - it had no altitude limit.
There are so many P2's being flown and being sold that I could see them becoming more and more of an issue. What is reality is that they simply used a P2. It's their representation of the drone market today and in the future. After all, if the P2 specifically the issue.. manned aircraft has nothing to worry about.

And once again you have made it clear that you do not even remotely understand the distinction between risk and consequence. This was not a test of risk.
People have been paying me good money for the past 25 years to understand risk and consequence. I'm hopeful that I understand what they are. I've worked in the Property and Casualty insurance industry most of the time adjusting claims. Risk and consequence has come up a few times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nick Mendocino
So.... perhaps the news outlet misunderstood the report? Hmmmm, odd.

If they were talking about commercial airliners then they either misunderstood it or they decided to spice it up. That's not at all uncommon.

There are so many P2's being flown and being sold that I could see them becoming more and more of an issue. What is reality is that they simply used a P2. It's their representation of the drone market today and in the future. After all, if the P2 specifically the issue.. manned aircraft has nothing to worry about.

The P2 is not the issue of course. What they did is what is commonly done in scoping tests - they bounded the problem, at least with respect to impact velocity. There are heavier drones than the Phantom in the airspace but in GA terms they picked a conservatively high, but not impossible, impact velocity. I would have done the same.

People have been paying me good money for the past 25 years to understand risk and consequence. I'm hopeful that I understand what they are. I've worked in the Property and Casualty insurance industry most of the time adjusting claims. Risk and consequence has come up a few times.

I realize that, but then why do you keep confusing the goal of this study - impact consequence - with impact probability?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
If they were talking about commercial airliners then they either misunderstood it or they decided to spice it up. That's not at all uncommon.

Risk in the Sky? : University of Dayton, Ohio
By Pamela Gregg, Communication Administrator, UDRI

(UDRI as in University of Dayton Research Institute ... where the "test" was done.

"In a test designed to mimic a midair collision of a drone and a commercial transport aircraft at 238 miles per hour...'

"The test was intended to compare a bird strike and a drone strike, using a drone similar in weight to many hobby drones and a wing selected to represent a leading edge structure of a commercial transport aircraft, "

"The drone and gel bird were the same weight and were launched at rates designed to reflect the relative combined speed of a fully intact drone traveling toward a commercial transport aircraft moving at a high approach speed."

The P2 is not the issue of course. What they did is what is commonly done in scoping tests - they bounded the problem, at least with respect to impact velocity. There are heavier drones than the Phantom in the airspace but in GA terms they picked a conservatively high, but not impossible, impact velocity. I would have done the same.
This thread was about DJI not wanting their drone depicted as the issue. When I mentioned that DJI products don't fly to the altitudes where that aircraft flies at 238mph, you mentioned that the P2 does. So _you_ included the P2 as part of this tet and therefore, the part of the problem.

If the P2 is not a real issue and none of DJI's other consumer drones can fly to an altitude where the tested wing can achieve 238mph then I'd say DJI have a _very_ good reason for asking the video to be taken down. The article put out by the University goes on to mention commercial delivery drones as another possible issue. Same problem.... they won't be at those altitudes. Actually, in a short while _NO_ drones will legally be at those altitudes.

So again, knowing this... what does this 'test" really show us? How about a take a bowling ball, through it at a plane and then tell everyone that bowling balls are a great threat to manned commercial air transport planes. If I used a bowling ball with the name 'Brunswick" on it... I'd expect Brunswick to do the same as DJI.

II realize that, but then why do you keep confusing the goal of this study - impact consequence - with impact probability?
I don't think I'm confusing the goal... I'm pointing out that it was misleading (which you now appear to agree with.. as you see that other news organizations focused on the "commercial transport aircraft" part from the Universities article) and that DJI had a good reason for wanting the video taken down. I've never denied that a P2 illegally at altitude could cause some type of damage to a small aircraft wing that could cause the same safety issued as a bird strike and that no consumer drone that DJI currently makes can fly at that same altitude.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nick Mendocino
This thread was about DJI not wanting their drone depicted as the issue. When I mentioned that DJI products don't fly to the altitudes where that aircraft flies at 238mph

Huh? The 238mph is a combined speed of the two aircraft. The Mooney 201 (201mph) and Phantom 4 could meet and exceed that test 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

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 hole a 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 in the article I referenced way back in this thread from someone who is : 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 are 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.
 
Huh? The 238mph is a combined speed of the two aircraft. The Mooney 201 (201mph) and Phantom 4 could meet and exceed that test 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

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:



Also in the article I referenced way back in this thread from someone who is : 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 are 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.

I've pretty much given up trying to inject any logic into this discussion. If you make the point that the collision is possible - hence the test - the argument is immediately changed to misreporting of the test by news agencies, as if that were a problem with the test itself. Point out why that's not relevant and the argument is changed again to probability of collision, which had nothing to do with the test.

One very tiresome aspect of this, and the Mavic discussion forum is the binary nature of so many posts - either blind criticism of DJI or blind support of DJI.
 
Risk in the Sky? : University of Dayton, Ohio
By Pamela Gregg, Communication Administrator, UDRI

(UDRI as in University of Dayton Research Institute ... where the "test" was done.

"In a test designed to mimic a midair collision of a drone and a commercial transport aircraft at 238 miles per hour...'

"The test was intended to compare a bird strike and a drone strike, using a drone similar in weight to many hobby drones and a wing selected to represent a leading edge structure of a commercial transport aircraft, "

"The drone and gel bird were the same weight and were launched at rates designed to reflect the relative combined speed of a fully intact drone traveling toward a commercial transport aircraft moving at a high approach speed."

This thread was about DJI not wanting their drone depicted as the issue. When I mentioned that DJI products don't fly to the altitudes where that aircraft flies at 238mph, you mentioned that the P2 does. So _you_ included the P2 as part of this tet and therefore, the part of the problem.

If the P2 is not a real issue and none of DJI's other consumer drones can fly to an altitude where the tested wing can achieve 238mph then I'd say DJI have a _very_ good reason for asking the video to be taken down. The article put out by the University goes on to mention commercial delivery drones as another possible issue. Same problem.... they won't be at those altitudes. Actually, in a short while _NO_ drones will legally be at those altitudes.

So again, knowing this... what does this 'test" really show us? How about a take a bowling ball, through it at a plane and then tell everyone that bowling balls are a great threat to manned commercial air transport planes. If I used a bowling ball with the name 'Brunswick" on it... I'd expect Brunswick to do the same as DJI.

I don't think I'm confusing the goal... I'm pointing out that it was misleading (which you now appear to agree with.. as you see that other news organizations focused on the "commercial transport aircraft" part from the Universities article) and that DJI had a good reason for wanting the video taken down. I've never denied that a P2 illegally at altitude could cause some type of damage to a small aircraft wing that could cause the same safety issued as a bird strike and that no consumer drone that DJI currently makes can fly at that same altitude.

Yes - their blog/press release is clearly wrong on that point.
 
Visually, it appears to me the gel bird did more damage than the drone...

So what's next...the Phantom 5 that you build yourself with easily "breakaway" parts?

RoOSTA
 
Last edited:
I do not believe this demonstration was accurate or fair! I truly believe if they fired a bologna sandwich in that same environment it would have went through the wing also.
So in reality a drone would be moving around in the air almost to the point of floating somewhat with air currents. The same would also go for the wing. To me, that seems to leave a lot of variable as to the force that would be applied there were to be actual contact that would probably be occurring between the Drone and the wing very much into all of this would certainly be different.
I don't claim to be any kind of aeronautical scientist or anything like that but that test just does not seem real world!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nick Mendocino
I do not believe this demonstration was accurate or fair! I truly believe if they fired a bologna sandwich in that same environment it would have went through the wing also.
So in reality a drone would be moving around in the air almost to the point of floating somewhat with air currents. The same would also go for the wing. To me, that seems to leave a lot of variable as to the force that would be applied there were to be actual contact that would probably be occurring between the Drone and the wing very much into all of this would certainly be different.
I don't claim to be any kind of aeronautical scientist or anything like that but that test just does not seem real world!
You are joking yes? Trying to get the pot stirred up here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sar104 and BigAl07
I do not believe this demonstration was accurate or fair! I truly believe if they fired a bologna sandwich in that same environment it would have went through the wing also.
So in reality a drone would be moving around in the air almost to the point of floating somewhat with air currents. The same would also go for the wing. To me, that seems to leave a lot of variable as to the force that would be applied there were to be actual contact that would probably be occurring between the Drone and the wing very much into all of this would certainly be different.
I don't claim to be any kind of aeronautical scientist or anything like that but that test just does not seem real world!


With all due respect, did you even read the thread and see ALL of the very accurate and valid points made to support the video?

So in reality a drone would be moving around in the air almost to the point of floating somewhat with air currents.
So you're saying the air flowing over the wing would "protect" the wing from an impact and push the sUAS over the wing and out of the way? Negative. That's not physics or aerodynamics work even if we really want them to work that way.
 
I do not believe this demonstration was accurate or fair! I truly believe if they fired a bologna sandwich in that same environment it would have went through the wing also.
So in reality a drone would be moving around in the air almost to the point of floating somewhat with air currents. The same would also go for the wing. To me, that seems to leave a lot of variable as to the force that would be applied there were to be actual contact that would probably be occurring between the Drone and the wing very much into all of this would certainly be different.
I don't claim to be any kind of aeronautical scientist or anything like that but that test just does not seem real world!

I don't claim to be a gynecologist, which is why I don't post random nonsense on that subject.
 
I had a run in a couple years ago and not long after getting my P4P. I had just departed on my way to a formation when I heard a plane. I stop, looked around, and eventually saw it a few miles away. It then turned towards me so I descended to about 20 feet. The plane circled the formation I was heading towards and after it completed a loop I thought it would be on its way but no, it made a second loop. It probably descended to about 300 feet but it was going pretty fast -- I'd guess near 200mph. See for yourself ... near the beginning of the video.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Technically, the pilot was exceeding what he/she should do as there were people and vehicles around. OTH, this place is miles away from any built up area so it's maybe a little grey about the rules. The bottom line is ... you need to have your head on a swivel AND your ears open -- chances are you will hear it before you see it.


Brian
 
I do not believe this demonstration was accurate or fair! I truly believe if they fired a bologna sandwich in that same environment it would have went through the wing also.
So in reality a drone would be moving around in the air almost to the point of floating somewhat with air currents. The same would also go for the wing. To me, that seems to leave a lot of variable as to the force that would be applied there were to be actual contact that would probably be occurring between the Drone and the wing very much into all of this would certainly be different.
I don't claim to be any kind of aeronautical scientist or anything like that but that test just does not seem real world!


At one level the most important factors are relative speed and mass -- the hardness of the object plays a role for sure, but if a piece of foam is going fast enough it can destroy the leading edge of a craft. This actually happened with the space shuttle Columbia and all 7 crew members died during re-entry.

We frequently get wingnuts that think planes are immune from drone impacts because the pressure wave ahead of the wings and cabin would push the drone out of the way, but these same wingnuts can't quite explain how a drone would be immune yet a lighter and less dense bird would not -- planes strike birds every single day.

I'd have hoped that the wingnuts that promote BS as fact and fact as fiction would give up there commitment to insanity, but, alas, that is not the case...


Brian
 
So the study was designed to show that it is not impossible for a drone strike to damage a light aircraft wing. The impact velocity was possible only if the aircraft and the drone were each flying near top speed in precisely opposite directions and the impact was perfectly centered on the leading edge of the wing.

The probability of these conditions occurring in the wild is near zero, and probability is a very important number in assessing the overall danger posed. There is a non-zero possibility that you will be struck on the head by a meteor or a piece of space junk, or a chunk of nasty ice falling from a leaky restroom tank on an airliner. But that doesn't justify a requirement to always wear a hard hat when outdoors, because the probability of a strike is so low.
 
So the study was designed to show that it is not impossible for a drone strike to damage a light aircraft wing. The impact velocity was possible only if the aircraft and the drone were each flying near top speed in precisely opposite directions and the impact was perfectly centered on the leading edge of the wing.

The probability of these conditions occurring in the wild is near zero, and probability is a very important number in assessing the overall danger posed. There is a non-zero possibility that you will be struck on the head by a meteor or a piece of space junk, or a chunk of nasty ice falling from a leaky restroom tank on an airliner. But that doesn't justify a requirement to always wear a hard hat when outdoors, because the probability of a strike is so low.

The test was to see what damage would occur if it hit a wing, they were not testing to see what damage would occur if it missed. When they test AC for bird strike damage they fire a bird, often a frozen chicken, at the test object such as the windscreen -- when they do this they do not try to miss.

Birds hit planes every single day so impacts are most definitely possible. Are you suggesting that there is some mechanism the protects planes from drone strikes -- if so I'd be glad to hear about it as this could eliminate the need for any limits on drone flight around planes.


Brian
 

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,357
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31