CASA allowing unlicensed drone ops, <2kg
True, if it went into the engine. A pigeon will do the same, and there are a hell of a lot more of them that we can't regulate.
'Steve Landells, the flight safety specialist at the British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa), said that data on bird strikes was not useful because “birds don’t have a big lump of lithium battery in them”.
He raised the possibility of engine failure in the event of a drone striking a plane. “You end up with very high-velocity bits of metal going anywhere they like.
That could be through fuel tanks, through hydraulic lines and even into the cabin,” he said.
“Losing the engine is not going to cause an aircraft to crash because they are designed to fly with one engine down. But an uncontained engine failure is going to be different every time. That could be very serious indeed.”
“The first thing we want to do is get a drone or at least the critical parts of a drone flying at a windscreen of an aircraft. The indications so far with computer modelling are that you’ll end up with penetration of a windscreen.
“One possibility is that the battery smashes the windscreen and the inside layer of the windscreen shatters and you end up with a lot of glass in the cockpit, probably moving at quite high speed.
“As a pilot, I don’t want to be sitting there when that’s going on.” '
So research is already happening, albeit in a virtual mann
He raised the possibility of engine failure in the event of a drone striking a plane. “You end up with very high-velocity bits of metal going anywhere they like.
That could be through fuel tanks, through hydraulic lines and even into the cabin,” he said.
“Losing the engine is not going to cause an aircraft to crash because they are designed to fly with one engine down. But an uncontained engine failure is going to be different every time. That could be very serious indeed.”
“The first thing we want to do is get a drone or at least the critical parts of a drone flying at a windscreen of an aircraft. The indications so far with computer modelling are that you’ll end up with penetration of a windscreen.
“One possibility is that the battery smashes the windscreen and the inside layer of the windscreen shatters and you end up with a lot of glass in the cockpit, probably moving at quite high speed.
“As a pilot, I don’t want to be sitting there when that’s going on.” '
So research is already happening, albeit in a virtual mann
RENURPP, Les damage than pax on a landed plane that must stop short of the gate because lightning strike happened 15 miles away (at 2 am), and storm moving far from airport. Damm all the Drone were still flying!
Last edited by RENURPP; 19th Apr 2016 at 01:57.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point of this thread is surely not the general nature of the threat from RPVs (drones) but specifically allowing commercial operations using RPVs below 2 kg.
I do not see a change in the risk profile. The recalcitrant thrill seekers flying FPV (first person view) rather than viewing the RPV by eye to control it are still a risk. This change to the rules will not change that at all.
I do not see a change in the risk profile. The recalcitrant thrill seekers flying FPV (first person view) rather than viewing the RPV by eye to control it are still a risk. This change to the rules will not change that at all.
