Originally Posted by
GlenQuagmire
Nope - that was the one bit of video that I could find and it is a drone fired at 238 mph into a mooney wing. The result of that research was that it wouldn't bring down a mooney. My point was that I have seen no research at all for an airliner. Nothing hitting an airliner wing, nothing going through a jet engine, nothing hitting a windscreen. If the aircraft manufacturers think that drones present a significantly greater risk than bird they are acting in an entirely reckless way by not backing that up with research. If the various aviation authorities around the world believe that a drone could bring down an airliner and are prepared to shut a major international airport for 30 hours without any apparent significant research to back that up I am amazed!
Has anyone fired a drone through a jet engine? Can anyone post a link? Is there any evidence based research around at all that doesn't rely on a thirty year old light aircraft?
It seems the research has been done - on a shoe-string and with results that will NOT set your mind at rest.
ASSURE simulations show sUAS collisions inflict more physical damage than that of an equivalent size and speed bird-strike. sUAS components are much stiffer than birds, which are mostly composed of water. Therefore, bird-strike certification regulations are not appropriate for unmanned aircraft. Additionally, regulators do not require and manufacturers do not design commercial and business aircraft to withstand collisions from other aircraft.
Press release:
ASSURE Research sUAS vs Commercial Aircraft
Actual Research Report:
ASSURE UAS Airborne Collision Severity Evaluation Final Report
My concern is that the choice of sUAS made the research very one-dimensional. It would have been better to use examples from the highest weight sUAS down to the smaller 'toy' quadcopters. I would also have expected examples of an Amazon package delivery sUAS complete with largest sizes of package carrying various levels of frangibility package content. It seems that the choices made are more to assuage concern than to formally research the boundary conditions. I would also expect some level of insurance requirements linked to the hazard presented by the UAS and its payload.