Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Drones threatening commercial a/c?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Drones threatening commercial a/c?

Old 24th Feb 2018, 09:18
  #861 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by PDR1 View Post
The actual collision was with a tree which failed to "give way to any manned aircraft". Presumably you'd now expect the tree to have been arrested and placed in front of a grand jury?

* There would be a presumption, but there are plenty of circumstances in which blame for a collision would lie with the helicopter pilot
I know it's not going to help the debate a great deal, but in order to stick to the facts, there can't be a collision with a tree, unless the tree is moving.

The co in collide refers to two moving objects coming together. Your car can collide with a car coming towards your car, or your car can hit a tree.

A collision can't involve one moving and one static object. That's just not what the word means.
airpolice is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2018, 09:21
  #862 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post

The regulators should grow some balls and make drone operators keep out of the way regardless, unless they are under ATC control or the operator has radio contact with the aircraft. See and Avoid relies, to a large extent, on the fact that pilots of both aircraft will do so. Drones can't do that, so keep them away!
At what size/mass limit do you suggest that "drones"become subject to regulation?

A cigarette packet sized $25 device, could destroy a turbine engine if it was ingested.

Are you suggesting that the government should now regulate all model aircraft?
airpolice is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2018, 09:46
  #863 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,768
At what size/mass limit do you suggest that "drones"become subject to regulation?
Answered your own question...

A cigarette packet sized $25 device, could destroy a turbine engine if it was ingested.
Are you suggesting that the government should now regulate all model aircraft?
They ARE regulated: "keep away from airports". And they do. And of course the pilot of a model aeroplane is probably far more alert to the threat (and the rules for operation) to real aircraft than 90% of the riff-raff steering their drones through the sky.

In any case, my gripe wasn't so much with the regulation but the preposterous suggestions that aeroplanes should keep out of the way of drones that the (aeroplane) pilots see.

Another example of a disruptive technology where the rule-makers are too weak to come down hard immediately and nip the threats in the bud.
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 24th Feb 2018, 12:55
  #864 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11
There is now a preliminary report on the R22 incident on the NTSB website -

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...14X61821&key=1
sxjack is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2018, 17:07
  #865 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,653
Originally Posted by airpolice View Post
I know it's not going to help the debate a great deal, but in order to stick to the facts, there can't be a collision with a tree, unless the tree is moving.

The co in collide refers to two moving objects coming together. Your car can collide with a car coming towards your car, or your car can hit a tree.

A collision can't involve one moving and one static object. That's just not what the word means.
Not so.

While that may be the usual everyday meaning of collision, aviation Occurrence Categories (as defined in ICAO ADREP, ECCAIRS, etc) include several example instances of a collision between an aircraft and a static object.

For example CTOL (Collision with obstacle during takeoff/landing), GCOL (ground collision with an aircraft, person, ground vehicle, obstacle, building, structure, etc).
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2018, 05:01
  #866 (permalink)  
462
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Wales (currently NZ)
Posts: 19
I have not posted before, but considered the following is very important and relevant:


Flights have been delayed and one was forced to divert away from Auckland Airport because a drone was spotted on the approach today 6 March 2018.


Following quote from the New Zealand Herald:

Air New Zealand flight NZ92 from Haneda, Tokyo to Auckland was diverted 500km away to Ohakea Air Force base near Palmerston North.
"Because drone sightings result in aircraft operations being suspended for a minimum of 30 minutes, the pilots of NZ92 needed to divert and refuel before returning to Auckland," an Air NZ spokesperson said.

Following the report of a drone sighting, about 20 planes circled Auckland Airport until they were given the all-clear to land.

A Police spokesman said police received a report of a drone in the Whitford area that was in airspace near the approach of an incoming aircraft that was making its way to Auckland Airport, around midday today.
"The Eagle helicopter was called to the area however the drone in question wasn't located and currently there are no lines of inquiry at this time," he said.
An Airways New Zealand statement said the pilot of a Q300 aircraft alerted air traffic control to the presence of a drone in controlled airspace.
"In accordance with standard procedures air traffic controllers reported the event to police and halted aircraft operations for 30 minutes," the statement said.
"During this time around 20 aircraft chose to hold in the air until they received clearance to land and one aircraft chose to divert."

Sorry, I tried to post the link, but I am only permitted to do this after ten posts.

Last edited by 462; 6th Mar 2018 at 05:36.
462 is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2018, 05:24
  #867 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Mainland
Posts: 26
Here's the link:

Drone at Auckland Airport diverts flight, causes delays - NZ Herald
Karearea is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2018, 14:56
  #868 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 86
Drone vs airliner

The Chinese have conducted some tests regarding a collision, interesting video.


https://vids.onsizzle.com/caactv-sin...a-29858413.mp4
DroneDog is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2018, 15:12
  #869 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 81
Posts: 699
Makes a change from frozen chickens I suppose! However the biggest problem must be from engine ingress.
funfly is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2018, 19:01
  #870 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Two moving objects hitting each other is a collision.
If one moving object is stationary it is an allision.
However for this to work you need to consider that the moving aircraft are ships: in this case airships.
I'll get my coat.
Flapping_Madly is offline  
Old 10th May 2018, 06:15
  #871 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 681
FAA taps 10 pilot projects to help make FAA rules for drone integration

The projects are among 10 announced by the U.S. Transportation Department on Wednesday that will help it assess how to regulate drones and integrate them safely into U.S. air space. The United States has lagged other countries in experimentation with drones, something the program hopes to correct.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1IA2WC
Mark in CA is offline  
Old 30th May 2018, 10:30
  #872 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 1
this from the BBC today (UK drone users face safety tests and flight restrictions - BBC News)

UK drone users face safety tests and flight restrictions

UK drone users may have to pass online safety tests under legislation being introduced to the Commons on Wednesday
Restrictions around airport boundaries have also been clarified stopping any drone flying within 1km of them.
The changes, which are set to come into effect between 30 July and 30 November, follow a rise in the number of drone near-misses with aircrafts.
Aviation Minister Baroness Sugg said the measures were needed to "protect" aircraft and their passengers.
In addition to the safety tests, people who own drones weighing 250g or more will have to register with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
Some drones, usually cheaper models, weigh less than 250g. But most - especially those with built-in cameras - weigh more.
Before, the regulations had applied to aircraft that weigh 20kg or less.
All drones will also be banned from flying above 400ft (121.9m), a rule which had been mentioned previously in the CAA's Drone Code but will now be enshrined in law
Users who fail to adhere to the flight restrictions could face unlimited fines, up to five years in prison, or both.
Owners of drones over 250g, who do not register with the CAA or complete the safety test, could be fined up to £1,000

Last edited by golfbananajam; 30th May 2018 at 10:31. Reason: added missing line
golfbananajam is offline  
Old 30th May 2018, 10:58
  #873 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Co. Down
Age: 78
Posts: 502
Over 50 years ago our CFI called the police when someone flew a big kite from a public park 200 yards from the threshold of 22 (long since displaced of course). They weren't interested until he told them it was a criminal offence under the Air Navigation Order, after which they were very helpful. As in so many fields today, governments can devise all the legislation they like but it's only as effective as its enforcement.
Geriaviator is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2018, 11:47
  #874 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 13
Just saw another video on testing drone-wing collisions:

mosteo is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2018, 07:32
  #875 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: paris
Posts: 21
Any airline policy to lower drone collision risk?
poitiers is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2018, 20:40
  #876 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 623
Originally Posted by mosteo View Post
Just saw another video on testing drone-wing collisions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-xg0
DJI's response...

Kevin Poormon

University of Dayton Research Institute

300 College Park

Dayton, OH 45469



Dear Mr. Poormon:

I represent DJI, the world's largest manufacturer of small unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones. We lead the industry in developing systems to help ensure drones continue to safely share the airspace with traditional air traffic. DJI takes aviation safety seriously. It is integral to who we are as an organization and as aviation professionals. We have proactively incorporated dozens of safety features into our products, including altitude limitation, airport geofencing, return-to-home failsafe systems, computer vision anti-collision sensors, and pilot knowledge testing. We also support research professionals who work alongside the industry and regulators to provide academic grounding to aviation safety efforts.

It is thus distressing to see how the University of Dayton Research Institute has recklessly created and promoted a video that falsely claims to depict a dangerous condition posed by one of our products. Your “Risk in the Sky?” video, blog post and media tour created a collision scenario between a drone and an airplane wing that is simply inconceivable in real life:
  • Your video assumes a Mooney M20 light aircraft is flying at its maximum possible speed of 200 mph, and encounters a drone apparently flying faster than its maximum possible speed of 33.5 mph. The plane could only achieve such speed at full cruise, typically more than a mile above ground. At the altitudes where that plane would conceivably encounter a Phantom drone, it would fly less than half as fast — generating less than one-fourth of the collision energy.
  • Your video was created contrary to established U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) crash test parameters, which assume a bird striking an airplane at its sea-level cruising speed — which is typically 161 mph to 184 mph for Mooney M20. Your video deliberately created a more damaging scenario, and was widely cited as evidence for what could happen to a large commercial jet — even though the Mooney M20 is a small plane with four seats.
  • Your video was not created as part of a legitimate scientific query, with little description of your testing methodology and no disclosure of data generated during the test. Your blog post describes a similar test performed with a simulated bird that caused “more apparent damage,” but your decision not to post or promote that video indicates your bias toward sowing fear. This contrasts with the reputable research performed by the Alliance for System Safety of UAS through Research Excellence (ASSURE), the FAA Center of Excellence for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, which meticulously tests a variety of impact scenarios in order to provide the public, the FAA, and the UAS industry, with supportable conclusions about risk. You have done nothing of the sort.
Given UDRI's wide-ranging publicity efforts in print, broadcast and online media, it seems clear that your misleading video and incendiary blog post seem designed to generate paid research work for UDRI at the expense of the reputation of drone technology broadly, and DJI's products specifically. Your public comments deliberately present an entirely improbable, if not impossible, event as a commonplace risk routinely faced by airplane pilots.

To elaborate on the points outlined above, the impact velocity tested, 238 mph, far exceeds any conceivable collision speed between a Mooney M20 and a DJI Phantom 2. The M20J Pilots Operating Handbook lists the maximum structural speed of a Mooney 20 at 174 knots, which is 200 mph. Cruise speed will typically be 140-160 knots (161-184 mph), more than a mile above ground. The Phantom, and our other drones, have built-in altitude limitation features. Thus in the altitudes no higher than several hundred feet above ground where a drone is likely to operate, the Mooney M20 would be taking off or landing at speeds between 70-88 knots (81-101 mph).

As for the other aircraft in this scenario, DJI has not manufactured the Phantom 2 drone for years, but its published specifications indicate a top speed of 15 meters/second, or 33.5 mph. In other words, it is virtually impossible for these two aircraft to encounter each other at the speed of your test. Given that kinetic energy, and therefore resulting damage, increases by the square of velocity, the arbitrary increase in your test velocity results in dramatically more damage.

More to the point, a test deliberately designed to generate the worst conceivable outcome is contrary to the FAA's established testing parameters, which seek to measure the risk that an aircraft is most likely to encounter. The relevant Federal Aviation Regulation states an airplane must be capable of successfully completing a flight despite striking a bird at the equivalent of the aircraft's cruise speed measured at sea level, which as stated above is 161-184 mph for the Mooney M20. Your test was thus performed at a speed 54 mph to 77 mph faster than a responsible collision test would require, creating a case that is unrealistic and damaging to the reputation of our company's products.

Reputable testing institutions have meticulously tested a variety of impact scenarios in order to provide the public, the FAA, and the drone industry with supportable conclusions about risk. ASSURE has set the standard for this work by releasing detailed reports with careful documentation of their testing methodology and hundreds of pages of data. By contrast, the limited information available about your demonstration prevents anyone from determining other flaws in your methodology and conclusions.
Your video and blog post have been promoted in media around the world, yet nowhere in any of your print or television appearances have you qualified the limited and unrealistic nature of your test. As a safety researcher, surely you understand the detrimental impact on public perception when purported scientific research is not presented with appropriate caveats and with an opportunity for peer review and alternative views.

Unbalanced, agenda-driven research does substantial harm to our industry and to our company. Policymakers at all levels of government have responded to sensational media coverage by proposing and enacting new restrictions on drone ownership and use. These limitations prevent people and businesses from using drones safely for beneficial purposes, such as performing hazardous inspections or finding missing people. At least 195 people around the world have been rescued from peril by drones, many of them saved by small drones such as DJI Phantoms. By misleading the public and promoting fear about drones, you are undermining their benefits and encouraging restrictions on their lifesaving uses.

We respectfully demand that you withdraw your research, remove the alarmist video from circulation, and issue a corrective statement to the public and to all of the media outlets you have appeared in, acknowledging that the configuration of the test was invalid given the flight envelopes of the two aircraft tested, FAA testing standards, and the limited value of a single test. Yours very truly,
Brendan M. Schulman
Vice President of Policy & Legal Affairs
cc:

Dr. Allan Crasto, Director, UDRI

Mary Ann Poirier Recker, Vice President and General Counsel, University of Dayton
Nige321 is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 12:03
  #877 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 13
Very interesting, thanks!
mosteo is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 15:15
  #878 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chester
Age: 72
Posts: 7
Lets get real

I have been alarmed as a member of the British Model Flying Association for about 50 years of the threat to our freedom of the skies these newcomers pose. Our membership has negotiated a good work around so we may continue our peaceful and responsible pursuance of the hobby, based on our flying tests etc. No doubt drone operating clubs would echo the sentiments and keep out of the way of man-carrying machines and their property. It isn't us you are after. Its the little ignoramuses who can get their hands on a sophisticated and easily operated bit of kit.
So why don't we insist they build in gps driven exclusion areas into all drones, whatever the weight. It can't be all that expensive if a number of them have 'return to base' switches and fantastic stabilisation computers already, can it? Such exclusion zones could also exclude prison airspace too, so excluding another antisocial use. ARTF models have been around for years now with little GA conflict but it is the advent of drones that has attracted the irresponsible and the lunatic fringe.
Sorry if this has already been said but it does seem a simple fix.
oldshoremore2 is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 18:32
  #879 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,297
Originally Posted by Nige321
;SNIP.
A bit of a straw man the repeated reference back to Mooney performance. There are several small jet GA aircraft that could be impacted by a UAS/Drone that could be traveling at 250kts the legal limiting speed below 10,000ft. The internet is full of bragging 'drone' pilots showing how high they managed to get their drone some to the extent that they lost the command link due to the range and/or ran out of endurance. The world is waiting for _the_ midair collision that will happen.
Ian W is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2018, 17:15
  #880 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bourton-on-the-Water
Posts: 871
FlightGlobal reports: ( https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/drone-missed-heathrow-bound-787s-engine-by-10ft-452882/?cmpid=NLC FGFG FGFIN-2018-1023-GLOB&sfid=70120000000taAh )
...unmanned aerial vehicle was flown within 10ft of a Boeing 787 on approach to London Heathrow.

The aircraft had been operating at 3,200ft on approach to runway 27L on 25 June, according to the UK Airprox Board.

It says a “drone-like object” was seen to pass just below the right wing, avoiding an impact with the starboard engine.
This refers to Airprox 2018154, and the Airprox Board report goes on to say - my bold:
The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.
It's surely only a matter of time...

airsound
airsound is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.