Drone strike
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nah, they don't come close to dominating the market. Cheaper drones from companies like Hubsan, SYMA, UDI, etc., probably outsell the above by 20:1 if not more in terms of units sold, and most of them are not geo-fenced (or even have GPS!)
Besides it's trivial to bypass geofencing. Plus more and more kids these days are making their own custom drones for cheap. Virtually none of the popular flight controllers enforce geo-fencing. KK, Pixhawk, Multiwii, etc.
Besides it's trivial to bypass geofencing. Plus more and more kids these days are making their own custom drones for cheap. Virtually none of the popular flight controllers enforce geo-fencing. KK, Pixhawk, Multiwii, etc.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The software constrains the height AGL? How does that work in practice?
If the drone is using GNSS height, that implies it must have access to a terrain model to derive height AGL.
If it's using baro height, the same applies, with the added complication that the drone/controller needs to know the QNH.
Both sound a bit unlikely.
If the drone is using GNSS height, that implies it must have access to a terrain model to derive height AGL.
If it's using baro height, the same applies, with the added complication that the drone/controller needs to know the QNH.
Both sound a bit unlikely.
The height is calculated above take-off point. (It's a bit more complicated than that, but you don't want a multi-page description).
The DJI drone has a barometer. Max flight time for the most popular model, the Phantom, is a bit over 20 minutes, so changes in local air pressure are not likely to be significant in that time.
Last edited by msjh; 19th Apr 2016 at 09:28.
I think you will find those stats relate to sales volume (cash value) rather than units sold. This is clearly indicated by the way they seem to suggest equal quantities of drones sold for commercial and recreational use, which is clearly not the case.
In any representation of sales volume the DJI numbers will be exaggerated because they are massively more expensive than their competitors.
In any representation of sales volume the DJI numbers will be exaggerated because they are massively more expensive than their competitors.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find those stats relate to sales volume (cash value) rather than units sold. This is clearly indicated by the way they seem to suggest equal quantities of drones sold for commercial and recreational use, which is clearly not the case.
In any representation of sales volume the DJI numbers will be exaggerated because they are massively more expensive than their competitors.
In any representation of sales volume the DJI numbers will be exaggerated because they are massively more expensive than their competitors.
The Parrot Bebop is about 1/2 the cost of the DJI Phantom. However it has less functionality.
That's not massively more expensive; it's price/performance; a Mercedes vs a Golf. The data is clear; at present, DJI dominate.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have any hard data to support that?
In any event, this thread is not about who dominates in the drone environment; it's about whether a drone is likely to harm an airliner in a collision and how to avoid such a collision happening.
In any event, this thread is not about who dominates in the drone environment; it's about whether a drone is likely to harm an airliner in a collision and how to avoid such a collision happening.
Have any hard data to support that?
Attended a trade event in Germany a couple of weeks ago.
Major UK distributor/retailer admitted privately that sales of 'consumer camera drones' since Christmas had "gone into free-fall"...
3DR are effectively giving up on consumer drones, sales of the Solo have been poor.
They've also pulled most of their DIY products.
Which leaves DJI, who are concentrating more on pro/high end consumer.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest models are even more sophisticated than I imagined being fitted with an object tracking stabilised camera and collision avoidance sensors to the front of the drone. Airspeeds of 45mph can be achieved with flying times of around 23 minutes per charge. The collision avoidance system is only intended for dealing with stationary objects such as trees, pylons, buildings and people, so no use with something as fast as an aircraft. Collision avoidance also is disabled when the device is operated in "sports" mode. An autonomous route can also be programmed which would allow the drone to fly for many miles and to considerable altitudes without any operator supervision. Fly and forget! 
PDR
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PDR1
But that is rather the point, the drone involved in the collision with the A320 wasn't being operated legally. People are always going to push the limits of the technology available to them just to see what is possible.
I could envisage a situation where a couple of mates decide to see if a drone can fly a few miles between their back gardens autonomously. Totally against the law, but they aren't thinking about that, they are consumed by the technology and cleverness of it all. Only problem is, they live either side of a regional airport and the drone geofencing software has been disabled because it interfered with their ability to get earlier shots of planes landing and taking off.
No malice intended, just pure curiousity. Not a great deal different to the idiots with other devices; I wonder how far this lights something up? Same mentality!
But that is rather the point, the drone involved in the collision with the A320 wasn't being operated legally. People are always going to push the limits of the technology available to them just to see what is possible.
I could envisage a situation where a couple of mates decide to see if a drone can fly a few miles between their back gardens autonomously. Totally against the law, but they aren't thinking about that, they are consumed by the technology and cleverness of it all. Only problem is, they live either side of a regional airport and the drone geofencing software has been disabled because it interfered with their ability to get earlier shots of planes landing and taking off.
No malice intended, just pure curiousity. Not a great deal different to the idiots with other devices; I wonder how far this lights something up? Same mentality!
Indeed. So if these people won't abide by current regulations, and preventing import is a virtual impossibility, what would be gained by adding further regulations?
Surely the solution lies in more effective policing and enforcement of the current regulations rather than adding more unpoliced and unenforcible ones?
And throwing hysterical tantrums every time there's a non-accident isn't going to help. The last 24 hours of pilot-blathering in the press and on these pages has achieved nothing other than to say to the illegal drone-hobbyists "well you know we told you that a drone hitting an airliner would be seriously bad ****? Tirns out we were wrong, so you can just carry on as you were without worrying about killing anyone".
That's kinda inevitable where people turn crying wolf into a lifestyle choice.
PDR
Surely the solution lies in more effective policing and enforcement of the current regulations rather than adding more unpoliced and unenforcible ones?
And throwing hysterical tantrums every time there's a non-accident isn't going to help. The last 24 hours of pilot-blathering in the press and on these pages has achieved nothing other than to say to the illegal drone-hobbyists "well you know we told you that a drone hitting an airliner would be seriously bad ****? Tirns out we were wrong, so you can just carry on as you were without worrying about killing anyone".
That's kinda inevitable where people turn crying wolf into a lifestyle choice.
PDR
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Toulouse
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of talk about the hard bits in these RC drones but no-one has mentioned that they are mostly powered by large packs of Lithium Polymer batteries. Yes I know they are fairly soft etc etc.
But they do not like impact or puncture damage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUFxlf4fXjo
And that is just a tiny one.
But they do not like impact or puncture damage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUFxlf4fXjo
And that is just a tiny one.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The hardest parts of a drone are the motor shafts which will be a few inches long and perhaps 5-10mm diameter - they will be made of hardened steel.
Small stuff with GoPro maybe not so bad, big heavy pro stuff is another matter. And the large drone quoted to be spotted in the London TMA is just the thing that carries that.
Lots of talk about the hard bits in these RC drones but no-one has mentioned that they are mostly powered by large packs of Lithium Polymer batteries. Yes I know they are fairly soft etc etc.
But they do not like impact or puncture damage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUFxlf4fXjo
And that is just a tiny one.
But they do not like impact or puncture damage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUFxlf4fXjo
And that is just a tiny one.
I've been using lithium polymer batteries for nearly a decade (I would guess I have about 70 lipo packs in my garage workshop right now, from the tiny 130mAh single cells up to some 5,000mAh 6-cell monsters), and videos like that are massively misleading. You really have to try very hard to get a lipo to do that kind of thing. I've actually tried it - I've deliberately overcharged them (charging by direct connection to 6v/cell), I've over-currentted them (charged at 10C and discharged at over 100C by directly shorting them). I've cut the envelopes, banged nails through them, overheated them, given them violent impacts with a brick wall (the most extreme being by way of my best Andy Murrey tennis serve impression from 10 feet).
I've certainly managed to damage these cells so they didn't work any more. Some got a bit hot, and some smouldered slightly. But none did these "greek fire" impressions you see on youtube. And I'm by no means alone.
There's usually a bunch of lithium-cobalt cells in the ELBs on aeroplanes, of course. So I'd stay well away from any aeroplanes if they are a concern to you...
PDR
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Toulouse
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite so. I also have a large array of Li-Po batteries and never any issues. A friend at the club crashed a large EDF (6S) model and it burnt just like video before he could get near it. Not saying its guaranteed to happen but it has been documented to happen often enough.
And throwing hysterical tantrums every time there's a non-accident isn't going to help.
The last 24 hours of pilot-blathering in the press .....
That's kinda inevitable where people turn crying wolf into a lifestyle choice.
That's kinda inevitable where people turn crying wolf into a lifestyle choice.
Can I ask - are you prepared to admit there's a potential problem and danger associated with a drone colliding with an aircraft in flight?
Serious incident. An incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred.
Note 1.-- The difference between an accident and a serious incident lies only in the result.
Accident
An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which:
a) a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of
- being in the aircraft, or
- direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from the aircraft, or
- direct exposure to jet blast,
except when the injuries are from natural causes, self inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew: or
b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:
- adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and
- would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component,
except for engine failure or damage. when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories: or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tires, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin: or
c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.
Incident.
An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation.
So I repeat - this was a non-accident. It's a "knowing what you're talking about" thing. Do you do appreciate that sort of hysterical ignorance doesn't help anyone or anything one bit?
Can I ask - are you prepared to admit there's a potential problem and danger associated with a drone colliding with an aircraft in flight?
I then observe than of this set of risks the risk of drone-collision has a lower probability of "bad ****" than many other risks which have no been subject to extreme regulatory controls (pilot fatigue and pilot mental stability being the obvious examples). Ergo society has ALREADY determined that further regulations or enforcement actions are not warranted to mitigate the drone-collision threat.
QED
PDR