More negative press in the UK

[wattage]

Not good. Front page of BBC news today, apparently the quad was at "serious risk of collision" with an A320 on final approach.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30369701

 

[Noël]

Pffffff...

"The risk of a 10 kilogram object hitting a plane is a real one that pilots are very concerned about" he said.

 

[PhantomFanatic]

This is exactly the press our hobby doesn't need! After the FAA figures out the rules of commercial drone use, I fear that private drone use will be next.

Where can I get someone to put out that kind of money for a Christmas present? But, I'm not a parent, so I'm out of touch with the reality of the amount one would spend on a kid's gift.

 

[Noël]

It's not only kids who get Christmas present!

 

[msinger]

I doubt the majority of people will be using drones for commercial use when it's legal. Judging from the age of the people on this forum who have revealed their identity, I think mostly big kids are flying these right now

 

[MadMitch88]

I'm not an aerospace engineer --- but why dont they install "rebar cages" over the front of jet engines?

It wouldnt be hard to construct a "rebar cage" that could totally mitigate a bird strike or hitting a 2-pound plastic toy, correct?

I doubt it would take complex physics calculations to prove my idea --- launch a 10 lb. goose at a rebar mesh at 500 MPH and all you gonna get is blood spatter and feathers coming out the other end! Try doing it with a Phantom and all you'll get is white plastic dust and some teeny tiny electronic particles !!

Problem solved, mates. Your welcome .... send the $1 million check to my PayPal account.

 

[FlyingFox]

This is old news and was published at the time , wonder why it's re surfaced , I'm all for safety and condone idiots flying near airports or over the 400' height , but wonder why this has been re published .

 

[fly-catchers]

This is old news and was published at the time , wonder why it's re surfaced , I'm all for safety and condone idiots flying near airports or over the 400' height , but wonder why this has been re published .

It seems to have stemmed from todays "Sunday Times" where it both got the front page (!) and an article inside about "Santa's drones threaten air disaster"! So a no news day and a christmas connection! Despite a drawing of somebody flying a Phantom directly towards an airliner I very very much doubt it was actually a Phantom. But its an easy target!

bill

 

[SteveMann]

I'm not an aerospace engineer --- but why dont they install "rebar cages" over the front of jet engines?

It wouldnt be hard to construct a "rebar cage" that could totally mitigate a bird strike or hitting a 2-pound plastic toy, correct?

I doubt it would take complex physics calculations to prove my idea --- launch a 10 lb. goose at a rebar mesh at 500 MPH and all you gonna get is blood spatter and feathers coming out the other end! Try doing it with a Phantom and all you'll get is white plastic dust and some teeny tiny electronic particles !!

Problem solved, mates. Your welcome .... send the $1 million check to my PayPal account.

A ten pound goose, or a 3 pound Phantom would probably not cause a crash, but at worst cause an engine shutdown because of broken compressor blades. But to your idea, the intake nacelle of jet engines is a finely tuned instrument of aerodynamics. Adding a bird cage to it would introduce many evils including compressor flutter which would destroy the engine in a few seconds.

 

[MadMitch88]

A ten pound goose, or a 3 pound Phantom would probably not cause a crash, but at worst cause an engine shutdown because of broken compressor blades. But to your idea, the intake nacelle of jet engines is a finely tuned instrument of aerodynamics. Adding a bird cage to it would introduce many evils including compressor flutter which would destroy the engine in a few seconds.

Well your aerospace knowledge is far above mine --- but I always thought modern jetliners can still fly with one engine disabled?

A large flock of birds poses a much greater threat to commercial airliners because of the potential to knock out all engines (ie, Flight 1549 that Sully landed in the Hudson) --- but drones wont pose this kind of danger unless it's a coordinated attack by a terrorist group --- but even then VERY technically difficult to achieve --- probably need to have HUNDREDS of drones hovering at the end of a runway.