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?