Drones pose real risk for airplanes, new study finds...

[BigAl07]

This video was just released and it's sort of accurate at least more than most.

Drones pose real risk for airplanes, new study finds
TUE, NOV 28

Here is a link to the report just released that fueled the above video:
ASSURE UAS Airborne Collision Severity Evaluation Final Report

 

[N017RW]

Saw that report on NBC Nightly News last night.

 

[sar104]

Pages 27 and 32 of the FAA presentation are worth reading as summaries if nothing else, since they should dispel the notion that airliners are not at risk of serious damage in collisions with Phantom-sized UAVs, or that bird strikes are equivalent to UAV impacts.

On the positive side, they have established that airliner windshields are quite resistant to such impacts. I’d like to see some equivalent simulations for helicopter and GA fixed-wing aircraft, since many of those don’t even survive bird strikes.

It looks like they were using LS-Dyna for their simulations, which seems like a reasonable choice, and did a good job of characterization for the material models used.

 

[BigAl07]

On the positive side, they have established that airliner windshields are quite resistant to such impacts. I’d like to see some equivalent simulations for helicopter and GA fixed-wing aircraft, since many of those don’t even survive bird strikes..

It's coming my friend and listed near the back of the document:

Page 33

Phase 2 ‐ FY18 ‐ FY19
 Study additional manned airframes such as rotorcraft and general aviation.
 Partnership with industry Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEMs) from the peer
review committee (GE, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls Royce, and Honeywell) to define a
representative engine model to further research sUAS engine ingestion.
 Conduct additional UAS component tests for various impact conditions (structural
and rotational) as requested during the peer review with OEMS and FAA Chief
Scientific Technical Advisors (CSTAS).
 Phase 3 ‐ 4th Quarter FY18 ‐ FY19
 Begin Testing of fan blade assembly.
 Develop plan and identify assets/partners/parameters/metrics for engine ingestion
testing using out of service engines; Peer review with OEMS and FAA CSTAS.
 Phase 4 ‐ FY20
 Execute engine ingestion test using out of service engine; Peer review with OEMS and
FAA CSTAS

 

[sar104]

It's coming my friend and listed near the back of the document:

Page 33

Phase 2 ‐ FY18 ‐ FY19
 Study additional manned airframes such as rotorcraft and general aviation.
 Partnership with industry Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEMs) from the peer
review committee (GE, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls Royce, and Honeywell) to define a
representative engine model to further research sUAS engine ingestion.
 Conduct additional UAS component tests for various impact conditions (structural
and rotational) as requested during the peer review with OEMS and FAA Chief
Scientific Technical Advisors (CSTAS).
 Phase 3 ‐ 4th Quarter FY18 ‐ FY19
 Begin Testing of fan blade assembly.
 Develop plan and identify assets/partners/parameters/metrics for engine ingestion
testing using out of service engines; Peer review with OEMS and FAA CSTAS.
 Phase 4 ‐ FY20
 Execute engine ingestion test using out of service engine; Peer review with OEMS and
FAA CSTAS

Yes - I didn’t mean to imply that it wasn’t - just saying that I would like to see the results published because I expect them to be quite different to the airliner simulations.

 

[BigAl07]

Yes - I didn’t mean to imply that it wasn’t - just saying that I would like to see the results published because I expect them to be quite different to the airliner simulations.

I suspect some people are going to be shocked at what little energy it takes to destroy a GA windscreen.

It will be good to have some scientific data to reference even though it may cause tighter regulations than what we are currently playing with.

 

[GMack]

Saw that report on NBC Nightly News last night.

Yeah, CBS Today show is running the report now as well the "Worse than a bird strike!" along with showing a P4. Another with an Inspire 1 obstructing a police officer by being 50 feet from him showing the arrest of the pilot too. Helicopter pilot needing a drone spotter onboard. This will add more fuel to the anti-drone crowd.

 

[sar104]

Yeah, CBS Today show is running the report now as well the "Worse than a bird strike!" along with showing a P4. Another with an Inspire 1 obstructing a police officer by being 50 feet from him showing the arrest of the pilot too. Helicopter pilot needing a drone spotter onboard. This will add more fuel to the anti-drone crowd.

Unfortunately it will, but it will also most likely be met with more denial by many on the hobby side of the sUAS community, which will be equally damaging. In my opinion what this needs is acknowledgment of the problem and the evolution of an sUAS-centric version of the AMA to coordinate reasonable guidelines that are defensible under Part 101. There is a real vacuum there right now.

The alternative is that Congress legislates to remove the protection of the Special Rule and then Part 101 will probably look like much Part 107, which is not necessarily a bad thing since, from a NAS safety perspective, non-recreational operations don't represent a bigger or different hazard than recreational. In fact Part 107 operations are probably far less of a threat than recreational, both due to sheer numbers and because of the unambiguous Part 107 rules, the training and certification, and the obvious penalties for breaking the rules.

 

[BigAl07]

The alternative is that Congress legislates to remove the protection of the Special Rule and then Part 101 will probably look like much Part 107, which is not necessarily a bad thing since, from a NAS safety perspective, non-recreational operations don't represent a bigger or different hazard than recreational. In fact Part 107 operations are probably far less of a threat than recreational, both due to sheer numbers and because of the unambiguous Part 107 rules, the training and certification, and the obvious penalties for breaking the rules.

This ^^^^^

This should have happened months ago (really it never should have gone LIVE to begin with). Hobbyists should have the same regulations and rules as commercial operators at least to an extent. Just like driving on the highway.. Commercial Ops have the same speed limits and stop as the same stop lights as civilian cars/trucks.

 

[sar104]

This ^^^^^

This should have happened months ago (really it never should have gone LIVE to begin with). Hobbyists should have the same regulations and rules as commercial operators at least to an extent. Just like driving on the highway.. Commercial Ops have the same speed limits and stop as the same stop lights as civilian cars/trucks.

Precisely - the only difference being that Congress did not preemptively prohibit regulation of privately-owned vehicles.

 

[Indiana_pyro]

This ^^^^^

This should have happened months ago (really it never should have gone LIVE to begin with). Hobbyists should have the same regulations and rules as commercial operators at least to an extent. Just like driving on the highway.. Commercial Ops have the same speed limits and stop as the same stop lights as civilian cars/trucks.

Not actually true. DOT hours of service applies to commercial drivers. I can actually run out of hours driving a load of commercial explosives at 8.00 pm when I get to the magazine to unload and cannot drive the truck any further that day. However, I can climb out of the truck, legally purchase my own explosives, place them in my personal vehicle and transport them to my approved storage 2 hrs away and because the purchase is for personal (hobby) use- I'm not under DOT regulations as far as hazmat placards or DOT hours of service.

Further more- I can use one of our pick up trucks to transport explosives and have to placard and record and follow DOT hrs of service. I have to stop at all RR crossings and scales. As soon as I'm unloaded - I'm no longer a commercial vehicle and civilian laws apply. The same pick up truck load of personal (hobby) explosives - different rules.

Commercial trucks in Indiana cannot run the same speed on the interstate as civilian vehicles.

Basically, In commerce has a whole new set of rules than personal use (hobbyist) The government has a history of doing this rather its right or wrong. If your gonna make money doing the same thing someone else does for fun- your gonna work for it.

 

[BigAl07]

@Indiana_pyro in order to get in and drive that "personal vehicle" at some point you demonstrated to an examiner that you knew laws AND that you could safely operate a personal vehicle (at least to some degree as a new driver). Why would a hobbyist operator not need to know safety and best practices as well?

Notice I said "At least to an extent". You seemed to have glossed over that portion of my comment you quoted.

I'm not saying everyone needs to understand "Commercial" ops but in all honestly there is almost nothing in the Part 107 that a hobbyist wouldn't benefit from knowing as well. I think hobbyist will have to take a test at some point and I fully support it 100%.

 

[Indiana_pyro]

I didn't over look you statement al all sir- To an extent- hobbyist do have some of the same rules. May not be the needed rules or enough rules but never the less. I would make a hard bet on the hobbyist ever having the same set of rules as the commercial pilot. The government doesn't have a history of doing this as in the example I stated above.

 

[BigAl07]

I didn't over look you statement al all sir- To an extent- hobbyist do have some of the same rules. May not be the needed rules or enough rules but never the less. I would make a hard bet on the hobbyist ever having the same set of rules as the commercial pilot. The government doesn't have a history of doing this as in the example I stated above.

Let me take a moment to clarify my intent as I've done a poor job to this point.

As it stands right now, Part 107 falls way short in terms of what a Commercial UAS Operator needs to know and 1,000,000% short in requiring any form of flight proficiency demonstration. A monkey can be trained to take a test and pass it "eventually". But then requiring same monkey to apply what they "learned" and then to prove through hands on flight demonstration that they can safely manipulate the controls is something different.

From my somewhat jaded point of view.... the current Part 107 should be the baseline for all UAS operations (starting with hobbyist) and Commercial Ops need more testing, hands on demonstrations, and higher standards placed upon us.

No I do not think that every UAS hobbyist needs to have the same testing and standards as Commercial Ops. I feel like today's Part 107 needs a massive upgrade and as it stands now should be the min for UAS flights in NAS. I'd like to see Commercial Ops split into several categories depending on complexity and risk associated. The guy flying a Phantom3S around a home for REA pictures doesn't have the same complexity or risks as someone flying an M210 with IR and RTK over a group of First Responders after a disaster with media watching, county commissioners watching, and 1,000's of people watching for the worst case scenario happening in front of them.