Drones threatening commercial a/c?
Just saw another video on testing drone-wing collisions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-xg0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-xg0
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:
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
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.
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
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chester
Age: 77
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nige321
;SNIP.
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 )
This refers to Airprox 2018154, and the Airprox Board report goes on to say - my bold:
It's surely only a matter of time...
airsound
...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.
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.
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.
airsound
It's surely only a matter of time...
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how easy it is to identify an object passing you at 150mph and perhaps below or above you?
While watching departures at Heathrow recently, I watched as a Buzzard turned up and began circling to the South of the last couple of hundred yards of the runway. The bird's pattern was slightly elliptical so took the bird closer to the runway with each circuit. An aircraft departed and the bird was below and slightly to one side of the aircraft. The bird wasn't bothered by the sight and sound of his huge brother roaring by and continued focusing on his potential prey. A second aircraft then departed and this time the bird was slightly closer and slightly higher than previously. About this time, the controller was heard warning departing aircraft of the possibility of a drone being flown in the area. This warning was soon modified to include "but reports say it may be a bird", which of course it was. This incident highlighted how difficult it must be to identify something the size of a buzzard, 100 ft or so below and to one side and appearing in your peripheral vision for a matter of a second or two.
I once caught a Red Kite racing a landing G450. I guess the Kite decided it couldn't eat the G450 so cleared off:
Ship Photos, Container ships, tankers, cruise ships, bulkers, tugs etc
While watching departures at Heathrow recently, I watched as a Buzzard turned up and began circling to the South of the last couple of hundred yards of the runway. The bird's pattern was slightly elliptical so took the bird closer to the runway with each circuit. An aircraft departed and the bird was below and slightly to one side of the aircraft. The bird wasn't bothered by the sight and sound of his huge brother roaring by and continued focusing on his potential prey. A second aircraft then departed and this time the bird was slightly closer and slightly higher than previously. About this time, the controller was heard warning departing aircraft of the possibility of a drone being flown in the area. This warning was soon modified to include "but reports say it may be a bird", which of course it was. This incident highlighted how difficult it must be to identify something the size of a buzzard, 100 ft or so below and to one side and appearing in your peripheral vision for a matter of a second or two.
I once caught a Red Kite racing a landing G450. I guess the Kite decided it couldn't eat the G450 so cleared off:
Ship Photos, Container ships, tankers, cruise ships, bulkers, tugs etc
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how easy it is to identify an object passing you at 150mph and perhaps below or above you?
While watching departures at Heathrow recently, I watched as a Buzzard turned up and began circling to the South of the last couple of hundred yards of the runway. The bird's pattern was slightly elliptical so took the bird closer to the runway with each circuit. An aircraft departed and the bird was below and slightly to one side of the aircraft. The bird wasn't bothered by the sight and sound of his huge brother roaring by and continued focusing on his potential prey. A second aircraft then departed and this time the bird was slightly closer and slightly higher than previously. About this time, the controller was heard warning departing aircraft of the possibility of a drone being flown in the area. This warning was soon modified to include "but reports say it may be a bird", which of course it was. This incident highlighted how difficult it must be to identify something the size of a buzzard, 100 ft or so below and to one side and appearing in your peripheral vision for a matter of a second or two.
I once caught a Red Kite racing a landing G450. I guess the Kite decided it couldn't eat the G450 so cleared off:
Ship Photos, Container ships, tankers, cruise ships, bulkers, tugs etc
While watching departures at Heathrow recently, I watched as a Buzzard turned up and began circling to the South of the last couple of hundred yards of the runway. The bird's pattern was slightly elliptical so took the bird closer to the runway with each circuit. An aircraft departed and the bird was below and slightly to one side of the aircraft. The bird wasn't bothered by the sight and sound of his huge brother roaring by and continued focusing on his potential prey. A second aircraft then departed and this time the bird was slightly closer and slightly higher than previously. About this time, the controller was heard warning departing aircraft of the possibility of a drone being flown in the area. This warning was soon modified to include "but reports say it may be a bird", which of course it was. This incident highlighted how difficult it must be to identify something the size of a buzzard, 100 ft or so below and to one side and appearing in your peripheral vision for a matter of a second or two.
I once caught a Red Kite racing a landing G450. I guess the Kite decided it couldn't eat the G450 so cleared off:
Ship Photos, Container ships, tankers, cruise ships, bulkers, tugs etc
It's surely only a matter of time...
https://www.aviation24.be/forums/vie...hp?f=7&t=64753
source 'sounds' reliable
https://www.aviation24.be/forums/vie...hp?f=7&t=64753
https://www.aviation24.be/forums/vie...hp?f=7&t=64753
Hardly conclusive. Maybe it was reported as a birdstrike because that's what it was ?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
source 'sounds' reliable
https://www.aviation24.be/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=64753
https://www.aviation24.be/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=64753
Bird strike or drone strike?
... and despite the claim that they were not disclosing the airline, the winglet says "Ryanair".
Last edited by .Scott; 13th Nov 2018 at 12:26. Reason: Added winglet statement.
aerodrome bordeaux-leognan-saucats.
But he did not take the photo of the dented radome.
Supposedly the pilots of the 'impacted' flight took the photo and identified the object as a drone.
Of course, one cannot exclude he holds a grudge against that airline and made this story up.
On the other hand....
Anyhow, if this story ever turns out to be true, the drone collision is not the worst part of the story.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First UK conviction for reckless UAV flying
A Russian-speaking man from Cambridgeshire has become the first person in the UK to be convicted of illegally flying a drone beneath a police helicopter during a search operation.
First UK conviction for reckless drone flying
First UK conviction for reckless drone flying
Everyone keeps saying he's the first.
What about this one...
What about this one...
Following an investigation by Shipston Police Safer Neighbourhood Team 37 year old Richard SMITH pleaded guilty to 15 offences that took place over the course of four drone flights between December 2016 and January 2017.His conviction at Leamington Spa Magistrates Court today (05/07/2017) has resulted in a £259 fine with £30 surcharge and £185 costs imposed. An order to retain the drone used in commission of the offences has also been issued.The investigation began following a report of YouTube video footage showing concerning drone flights taking place across South Warwickshire. PC Craig Purcell was able to obtain evidence of a drone being flown in the following manner;1) Up to 2km from the operator and well beyond his visual line of sight.
2) Over the main road, houses and school of Lower Quinton village
3) Through fog and above the cloud base
4) Within the restricted airspace of Wellesbourne Airfield
5) Purposely flown to a distance that caused the aircraft to lose signal and initiate the 'failsafe' return to home mode.There were a number of other issues noted and many of the offences took place with a non standard DJI Phantom 3 drone that had been modified with software and hardware to increase the flight distance capabilities.Despite having never flown a drone and with no understanding of the laws in place PC Purcell was immediately able to find the relevant legislation online and see where the issues lay. The investigation took place quickly and the Officer noted similarities to driving offences.Following conviction PC Purcell has said,"We see many video examples across the Internet of people purchasing their first drone and failing to adhere to laws put in place to protect members of the public. People need to be aware that you can't just buy one of these machines, throw it into the air and start flying wherever you want without thought.The cost of drone technology is reducing rapidly. The second hand market is bringing costs down even further meaning a 1kg to 2kg drone can be bought by somebody who has no idea how many times it has been crashed in the past or if it is structurally still sound.The courts have recognised the issue today and with the decision to deprive Mr SMITH of his drone on conviction we hope this sends a strong message to those who are giving the responsible hobbyist community a bad name."
2) Over the main road, houses and school of Lower Quinton village
3) Through fog and above the cloud base
4) Within the restricted airspace of Wellesbourne Airfield
5) Purposely flown to a distance that caused the aircraft to lose signal and initiate the 'failsafe' return to home mode.There were a number of other issues noted and many of the offences took place with a non standard DJI Phantom 3 drone that had been modified with software and hardware to increase the flight distance capabilities.Despite having never flown a drone and with no understanding of the laws in place PC Purcell was immediately able to find the relevant legislation online and see where the issues lay. The investigation took place quickly and the Officer noted similarities to driving offences.Following conviction PC Purcell has said,"We see many video examples across the Internet of people purchasing their first drone and failing to adhere to laws put in place to protect members of the public. People need to be aware that you can't just buy one of these machines, throw it into the air and start flying wherever you want without thought.The cost of drone technology is reducing rapidly. The second hand market is bringing costs down even further meaning a 1kg to 2kg drone can be bought by somebody who has no idea how many times it has been crashed in the past or if it is structurally still sound.The courts have recognised the issue today and with the decision to deprive Mr SMITH of his drone on conviction we hope this sends a strong message to those who are giving the responsible hobbyist community a bad name."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone keeps saying he's the first.
What about this one...
What about this one...
There is a day long demo of drone conspicuity tech at Manchester Airport EGCC on 21st Nov 2018.
https://www.operationzenith.com/
The trial involves equipment supplied by UAvionix..
https://uavionix.com/blog/uavionix-u...near-airports/
https://www.operationzenith.com/
The trial involves equipment supplied by UAvionix..
https://uavionix.com/blog/uavionix-u...near-airports/
I think the distinction being made here is that the Leamington Spa miscreant was the first to be convicted under the provisions of the UK Air Navigation Order that relate to flying in proximity to people and to an airfield, whereas the Cambridgeshire conviction was the first (as the article states) involving proximity to another aircraft.
Neither of those was the first drone-related conviction in the UK, which was in April 2014.
The demonstrations were a success and, as a result, NATS will begin using this system in the UK from December 2018.
https://www.altitudeangel.com/blog/g...e-drone-trial/
https://www.altitudeangel.com/blog/g...e-drone-trial/