Drone strike
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PDR
You mean the type of go-pro camera that penetrated Schumacher's helmet causing severe head injury?
You really believe that minor metallic items ingested into an engine cannot lead to FOD?
Remember an engine doesn't have to suffer a failure to lead to major risks; just engine vibration led to the Kegworth air crash due to several holes in the cheese lining up.
Most of them carry tiny little video cameras weighing a few tens of grammes with the structural properties of a deep-fried mars bar.
You really believe that minor metallic items ingested into an engine cannot lead to FOD?
Remember an engine doesn't have to suffer a failure to lead to major risks; just engine vibration led to the Kegworth air crash due to several holes in the cheese lining up.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GoPro camera mounts are very rugged designed for extreme sports use amongst other things. GoPro cameras mounted on drones tend to use lightweight open frame fastenings to save weight.
The majority of drones use lightweight materials filled with expanded foam to provide rigidity where necessary.
Battery packs are not the hard metal cased variety you stick in a torch but multiple layers of plastic type materials wound into layers.
Neodymium magnets shatter into small pieces when exposed to severe shock. Motor cases are formed from relatively soft metals. Larger aircraft are preceded by a pressure shock wave that will probably break up smaller drones and spread the resulting debris over a fairly large area, if any of the debris actually manages to hit the aircraft.
A typical consumer grade drone being ingested and passing through the core of a jet engine is about as likely to cause damage as a duck of similar size and weight. So the risk is not negligible, but neither is it so high as to be a major cause of panic and poorly introduced legislation and restrictions.
Larger commercial drones fitted with high quality stabilised gimbals and expensive camera systems should only be flown and in the hands of professional operators who know the law and restrictions on flight. Anything weighing upwards of 5 Kg represents a severe hazard to any aircraft and also to people and property on the ground if things go wrong. There is certainly a case to be made for licensing and professional training of this category of UAVs.
The cheap sub £50 toys for kids are not the problem, the issue is with the £1500 upwards machines. These devices are not being flown by kids, they are being used by adults seeking an edgy video to post on YouTube without any consideration of the risks to others. These idiots need to be tracked down and dealt with using existing laws. A five year jail sentence ought to be an adequate deterrent if enforced properly.
The majority of drones use lightweight materials filled with expanded foam to provide rigidity where necessary.
Battery packs are not the hard metal cased variety you stick in a torch but multiple layers of plastic type materials wound into layers.
Neodymium magnets shatter into small pieces when exposed to severe shock. Motor cases are formed from relatively soft metals. Larger aircraft are preceded by a pressure shock wave that will probably break up smaller drones and spread the resulting debris over a fairly large area, if any of the debris actually manages to hit the aircraft.
A typical consumer grade drone being ingested and passing through the core of a jet engine is about as likely to cause damage as a duck of similar size and weight. So the risk is not negligible, but neither is it so high as to be a major cause of panic and poorly introduced legislation and restrictions.
Larger commercial drones fitted with high quality stabilised gimbals and expensive camera systems should only be flown and in the hands of professional operators who know the law and restrictions on flight. Anything weighing upwards of 5 Kg represents a severe hazard to any aircraft and also to people and property on the ground if things go wrong. There is certainly a case to be made for licensing and professional training of this category of UAVs.
The cheap sub £50 toys for kids are not the problem, the issue is with the £1500 upwards machines. These devices are not being flown by kids, they are being used by adults seeking an edgy video to post on YouTube without any consideration of the risks to others. These idiots need to be tracked down and dealt with using existing laws. A five year jail sentence ought to be an adequate deterrent if enforced properly.
FX Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Greenwich
Age: 67
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems there is a minority on here who will only agree that drones represent a danger when an AAIB is looking at a pile of smoking metal and human remains.
Is it not obvious that anything being ingested into a jet engine, smashing into a cockpit, stabiliser etc represents a danger?
We only need the holes in the cheese to line up once -- which despite the odds against they sometimes do -- for there to be a tragedy.
Is it not obvious that anything being ingested into a jet engine, smashing into a cockpit, stabiliser etc represents a danger?
We only need the holes in the cheese to line up once -- which despite the odds against they sometimes do -- for there to be a tragedy.
Apologies if this has been asked earlier but what damage can a drone do to a commercial airliner that a remote controlled aircraft/helicopter (which have been available for decades) can't?
Apologies if this has been asked earlier but what damage can a drone do to a commercial airliner that a remote controlled aircraft/helicopter (which have been available for decades) can't?
What IS different is the kind of operator.
The traditional R/C aircraft or helicopter needs skill to build and learn to fly, often in a club environment.
The new generation of 'drones' come out a box ready to go, and can be flown with GPS assistance with zero skill...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do find it odd that people are worried that some idiot/terrorist might manage to fly a drone into an airliner on approach, yet many on here operate quite happily into countries with widespread access to pistols and rifles.
Anybody who believes that it is easier to bring down/damage and airliner with a drone rather than a bullet needs their sanity testing.
Anybody who believes that it is easier to bring down/damage and airliner with a drone rather than a bullet needs their sanity testing.
Tourist, there is deliberate and malicious assault on an aircraft and then there is casual, dangerous negligence.
Guns fired at aircraft would probably belong to the former category, while UAVs dangled in their path would mainly belong in the latter I would imagine.
So it isn't really comparable.
Guns fired at aircraft would probably belong to the former category, while UAVs dangled in their path would mainly belong in the latter I would imagine.
So it isn't really comparable.
Is it not obvious that anything being ingested into a jet engine, smashing into a cockpit, stabiliser etc represents a danger?
We only need the holes in the cheese to line up once -- which despite the odds against they sometimes do -- for there to be a tragedy.
PDR
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously, ingesting anything other than air into an engine is not a good thing.
But the Guardian article cited earlier, claiming that bits of engine could go through the fuel tanks or the passenger cabin is nonsense - engine casings/housings are designed to contain any and all bits that might fly off the engine core?
It won't matter if it's a goose or a drone ingested, the engine will fail and the parts will be contained safely.
So, what about the chances of a bird strike versus a drone strike? I suggest that the ratio of birds in the sky to drones in the sky is way over 100,000 to 1 - maybe orders of magnitude greater. If an engine is destroyed, the smart money will go on "it's a bird".
That of course doesn't include the prospect of a deliberate 'attack' on an aircraft by drone(s).
But the Guardian article cited earlier, claiming that bits of engine could go through the fuel tanks or the passenger cabin is nonsense - engine casings/housings are designed to contain any and all bits that might fly off the engine core?
It won't matter if it's a goose or a drone ingested, the engine will fail and the parts will be contained safely.
So, what about the chances of a bird strike versus a drone strike? I suggest that the ratio of birds in the sky to drones in the sky is way over 100,000 to 1 - maybe orders of magnitude greater. If an engine is destroyed, the smart money will go on "it's a bird".
That of course doesn't include the prospect of a deliberate 'attack' on an aircraft by drone(s).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking from experience, it's far easier than you might think.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the risk to light aircraft is far higher than commercial multi engined jet aircraft. Light aircraft tend to fly at low altitudes in uncontrolled airspace and are much more likely to end up in conflict with model and drone aircraft. Light aircraft have fewer redundant systems and are more likely to be crewed by a single qualified pilot. They are more likely to be damaged by a collision with even a lightweight object. Surely light aircraft pilots are the ones who should be shouting the loudest for stricter controls on model aircraft and UAVs/drones?
A single, at this moment, suspected, collision with a drone by a large commercial airliner has caused a slew of headlines and calls for action despite no damage or evidence of a collision being found (from reports I've read).
So why aren't all the PPLs, flying instructors and hours builders not up in arms campaigning for action? They seem to be the people most at risk.
A single, at this moment, suspected, collision with a drone by a large commercial airliner has caused a slew of headlines and calls for action despite no damage or evidence of a collision being found (from reports I've read).
So why aren't all the PPLs, flying instructors and hours builders not up in arms campaigning for action? They seem to be the people most at risk.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the risk to light aircraft is far higher than commercial multi engined jet aircraft. Light aircraft tend to fly at low altitudes in uncontrolled airspace and are much more likely to end up in conflict with model and drone aircraft. Light aircraft have fewer redundant systems and are more likely to be crewed by a single qualified pilot. They are more likely to be damaged by a collision with even a lightweight object. Surely light aircraft pilots are the ones who should be shouting the loudest for stricter controls on model aircraft and UAVs/drones?
A single, at this moment, suspected, collision with a drone by a large commercial airliner has caused a slew of headlines and calls for action despite no damage or evidence of a collision being found (from reports I've read).
So why aren't all the PPLs, flying instructors and hours builders not up in arms campaigning for action? They seem to be the people most at risk.
A single, at this moment, suspected, collision with a drone by a large commercial airliner has caused a slew of headlines and calls for action despite no damage or evidence of a collision being found (from reports I've read).
So why aren't all the PPLs, flying instructors and hours builders not up in arms campaigning for action? They seem to be the people most at risk.
Based on my statistically insignificant experience, I'd agree that a small aircraft collision is more likely.
Light aircraft pilots (I speak as one) are not indifferent to the risks of being taken out by a drone, but we also habitually take on a lot more risk than they do. My chances of killing myself are a few orders magnitude higher per hour than those of an airline pilot, and drone strikes only add a little to this.
The man on the street is likely to care more about the safety of airliners, as he's more likely to spend time in airliners. They're a more attractive target for anyone malicious, and there's a lot of money invested in their safety.
Also, I have a big remote control helicopter and have a degree of sympathy for the hobby - I wouldn't like to see it regulated out of existence.
The man on the street is likely to care more about the safety of airliners, as he's more likely to spend time in airliners. They're a more attractive target for anyone malicious, and there's a lot of money invested in their safety.
Also, I have a big remote control helicopter and have a degree of sympathy for the hobby - I wouldn't like to see it regulated out of existence.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 52N
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with GOULI. The threat to CAT aircraft from irresponsible drone operators is clearly a real and growing problem, all that seems to be uncertain is the degree of damage one would do in a collision or engine ingestion with an airliner. But few of you seem to consider the group of aviators who are most vulnerable to a drone strike, it is the general aviation community by which I mean everyone who operates a flying machine from a microlight or glider to a cabin class twin.
Airliners spend very little of their total flight time at low level, maybe a minute on climbout and five minutes on the approach whereas the average GA aircraft will fly virtually all the time at altitudes which are easily achieved by even toy drones, especially in the London FIR. And whilst an airliner is a sturdily built structure, with cockpit glass capable of surviving the high velocity chicken test there are many light aircraft (especially BMAA and LAA types) which have at best only thin Perspex between the pilot’s face and an oncoming object, and airframes made of fabric covered wood. Even if a drone missed the windscreen, it might well score a bullseye on the single engine air intake and cause a partial if not complete engine failure and resulting forced landing.
The consequences of a drone strike with a light or microlight aircraft are clearly considerably more serious than with an airliner, ranging from immediate pilot incapacitation to severe airframe damage or power loss. Add that to the much greater exposure because of the time spent at low level (particularly when flying beneath controlled airspace) and the real threat to air safety in the UK from drones becomes very clear, it’s with GA aircraft not Boeings and Airbusses.
The CAA don’t seem to be taking this threat seriously; the only rule for a drone operator seems to be that he must keep the machine below 400ft (is that above ground level or sea level?), away from aircraft and airfields and within sight. But how is little Johnny going to be able to judge 400ft anyway or even know if he is flying in controlled or regulated airspace? If he is concentrating on keeping his drone in sight, he is by definition not looking for other aircraft. I expect that even if a drone operator was caught red-handed and successfully prosecuted it would probably result in a fine of three weeks pocket money and maybe a couple of weeks picking up litter along the A34, whereas the CAA are now proposing unlimited fines for any hapless private pilot who infringes controlled airspace.
Airliners spend very little of their total flight time at low level, maybe a minute on climbout and five minutes on the approach whereas the average GA aircraft will fly virtually all the time at altitudes which are easily achieved by even toy drones, especially in the London FIR. And whilst an airliner is a sturdily built structure, with cockpit glass capable of surviving the high velocity chicken test there are many light aircraft (especially BMAA and LAA types) which have at best only thin Perspex between the pilot’s face and an oncoming object, and airframes made of fabric covered wood. Even if a drone missed the windscreen, it might well score a bullseye on the single engine air intake and cause a partial if not complete engine failure and resulting forced landing.
The consequences of a drone strike with a light or microlight aircraft are clearly considerably more serious than with an airliner, ranging from immediate pilot incapacitation to severe airframe damage or power loss. Add that to the much greater exposure because of the time spent at low level (particularly when flying beneath controlled airspace) and the real threat to air safety in the UK from drones becomes very clear, it’s with GA aircraft not Boeings and Airbusses.
The CAA don’t seem to be taking this threat seriously; the only rule for a drone operator seems to be that he must keep the machine below 400ft (is that above ground level or sea level?), away from aircraft and airfields and within sight. But how is little Johnny going to be able to judge 400ft anyway or even know if he is flying in controlled or regulated airspace? If he is concentrating on keeping his drone in sight, he is by definition not looking for other aircraft. I expect that even if a drone operator was caught red-handed and successfully prosecuted it would probably result in a fine of three weeks pocket money and maybe a couple of weeks picking up litter along the A34, whereas the CAA are now proposing unlimited fines for any hapless private pilot who infringes controlled airspace.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The traditional R/C aircraft or helicopter needs skill to build and learn to fly, often in a club environment.
How can a subject such as this be in debate?!
Flying drones or any other aerial devices near to an airport is WRONG.
I sometimes wonder how many people still have the ability to differentiate between right and wrong when I read these columns ...
Accept the premise that these devices should not be in airspace such as the approach to Heathrow and the question of whether a jet engine will survive the injection of a drone becomes an academic debate, not a question of life and death.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with GOULI. The threat to CAT aircraft from irresponsible drone operators is clearly a real and growing problem, all that seems to be uncertain is the degree of damage one would do in a collision or engine ingestion with an airliner. But few of you seem to consider the group of aviators who are most vulnerable to a drone strike, it is the general aviation community by which I mean everyone who operates a flying machine from a microlight or glider to a cabin class twin.
Airliners spend very little of their total flight time at low level, maybe a minute on climbout and five minutes on the approach whereas the average GA aircraft will fly virtually all the time at altitudes which are easily achieved by even toy drones, especially in the London FIR. And whilst an airliner is a sturdily built structure, with cockpit glass capable of surviving the high velocity chicken test there are many light aircraft (especially BMAA and LAA types) which have at best only thin Perspex between the pilot’s face and an oncoming object, and airframes made of fabric covered wood. Even if a drone missed the windscreen, it might well score a bullseye on the single engine air intake and cause a partial if not complete engine failure and resulting forced landing.
The consequences of a drone strike with a light or microlight aircraft are clearly considerably more serious than with an airliner, ranging from immediate pilot incapacitation to severe airframe damage or power loss. Add that to the much greater exposure because of the time spent at low level (particularly when flying beneath controlled airspace) and the real threat to air safety in the UK from drones becomes very clear, it’s with GA aircraft not Boeings and Airbusses.
The CAA don’t seem to be taking this threat seriously; the only rule for a drone operator seems to be that he must keep the machine below 400ft (is that above ground level or sea level?), away from aircraft and airfields and within sight. But how is little Johnny going to be able to judge 400ft anyway or even know if he is flying in controlled or regulated airspace? If he is concentrating on keeping his drone in sight, he is by definition not looking for other aircraft. I expect that even if a drone operator was caught red-handed and successfully prosecuted it would probably result in a fine of three weeks pocket money and maybe a couple of weeks picking up litter along the A34, whereas the CAA are now proposing unlimited fines for any hapless private pilot who infringes controlled airspace.
Airliners spend very little of their total flight time at low level, maybe a minute on climbout and five minutes on the approach whereas the average GA aircraft will fly virtually all the time at altitudes which are easily achieved by even toy drones, especially in the London FIR. And whilst an airliner is a sturdily built structure, with cockpit glass capable of surviving the high velocity chicken test there are many light aircraft (especially BMAA and LAA types) which have at best only thin Perspex between the pilot’s face and an oncoming object, and airframes made of fabric covered wood. Even if a drone missed the windscreen, it might well score a bullseye on the single engine air intake and cause a partial if not complete engine failure and resulting forced landing.
The consequences of a drone strike with a light or microlight aircraft are clearly considerably more serious than with an airliner, ranging from immediate pilot incapacitation to severe airframe damage or power loss. Add that to the much greater exposure because of the time spent at low level (particularly when flying beneath controlled airspace) and the real threat to air safety in the UK from drones becomes very clear, it’s with GA aircraft not Boeings and Airbusses.
The CAA don’t seem to be taking this threat seriously; the only rule for a drone operator seems to be that he must keep the machine below 400ft (is that above ground level or sea level?), away from aircraft and airfields and within sight. But how is little Johnny going to be able to judge 400ft anyway or even know if he is flying in controlled or regulated airspace? If he is concentrating on keeping his drone in sight, he is by definition not looking for other aircraft. I expect that even if a drone operator was caught red-handed and successfully prosecuted it would probably result in a fine of three weeks pocket money and maybe a couple of weeks picking up litter along the A34, whereas the CAA are now proposing unlimited fines for any hapless private pilot who infringes controlled airspace.
And, yes, the 400' limit set by government is 400' above ground level. Again, the DJI software enforces that limit by default but can be overridden by setting preferences.
This is just DJI: I can't speak for other manufacturers of drones.
