|
PDR
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. |
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. |
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. |
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... |
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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by angels
(Post 9348036)
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. PDR |
yet many on here operate quite happily into countries with widespread access to pistols and rifles. |
Originally Posted by 2dPilot
(Post 9347797)
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). |
Originally Posted by MATELO
(Post 9348095)
When was the last time an aircraft was shot at in the UK?
Could be 5 mins ago. Mostly they miss even in countries where it happens regularly. |
Speaking from experience, it's far easier than you might think. |
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. |
Originally Posted by G0ULI
(Post 9348196)
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. 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. |
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. |
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.
|
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. |
Er, could I remind everyone this is a public forum. Often frequented by journalists and other 'black hats'.
|
Originally Posted by Marchettiman
(Post 9348222)
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. 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. http://dronelife.com/wp-content/uplo...8/IMG_1328.jpg |
Originally Posted by abgd
(Post 9348243)
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.
For "5-10mm dia" read 3-5mm dia in all but the very largest examples. For "hardened steel" read "mild steel in all but the very few and rather expensive examples". All of this information is easily discoverable with a few seconds of research, yet the myths and postulations prevail <sigh> PDR |
I sincerely hope the culprit is caught and faces prison timer and a eye watering fine.
A throughly irresponsible act that screws it up for everybody else. The popular 3 makes of drone are DJi - 3DR - Yuneec These guys dominate the market and their drones are geo fenced, i.e if you try to enter restricted airspace the drone will not enter it. You are blocked from flying into prohibited areas and there is nothing you can do about it. The drone will refuse to fly. Also the drones require regular connection to the internet to update the OS and the list. Failure to do so results in drone that will not fly. The culprits doing this stunt were probably using a really old drone of a custom build. I am fairly confident they will be caught once the police recover the remains of the drone. |
they will be caught once the police recover the remains of the drone. |
I believe so, After impact that thing was toast so if it was above a restricted area i suspect the drone operator scarpered.
If they can recover certain components they may have an idea of previous flights / perhaps even footage. At the very least they can approach component suppliers as i have said this was a custom drone and they might be able to trace who purchased what. |
The popular 3 makes of drone are DJi - 3DR - Yuneec These guys dominate the market and their drones are geo fenced, i.e if you try to enter restricted airspace the drone will not enter it. 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. |
I have not heard of anyone yet hacking DJi's code, maybe I am wrong and it can be done but nothing on the forums i have seen.
You run the risk of bricking it. I have seen articles of GPS jamming and false GPS signal injection but no hacks yet. Yes you can build your own with a pixhawk etc, hence i am sure that the drone involved in this episode was a home brew. Do the other drones have the legs or range of DJI's machines, I am thinking of lightbridge, and its a guess the the drone operator in this case wanted to see/film where he was flying (aircraft landing) via his video downlink. Yunecc's video link is reported to be only 500m line of sight were as DJi can go for a few km. |
Originally Posted by msjh
(Post 9348251)
And, yes, the 400' limit set by government is 400' above ground level. Again, the DJI software enforces that limit by default
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. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 9348409)
Both sound a bit unlikely.
If so, you could not achieve 400 feet AGL above nearby higher terrain, but you could achieve 400+ feet AGL over nearby lower terrain. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 9348409)
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. And before people get too fixated with the idea that a small number of commercial ready-to-go drones will control the market - have a look at websites like Hobbyking, where brew-your-own stuff (including control boards) are available for peanuts with websites full of "how to2 pages and videos to show all but the most numpteous how to create your own multicopter with your own tailored FCS software. PDR |
Drone's debris location
I have been told that the area for the drone's debris is believed to be, at this stage, located in Richmond-Surrey, specifically it is believed that the drone was being flown by somebody operating the device from within Richmond Park.
I guess approximate location reported directly by the pilots (or calculated by distance from runway vs impact time) therefore I think it is only a matter of time before this sort of drone is found by either the Police or locals.:mad: |
If the drone was flying from Richmond Park it would have to travel a minimum of a kilometre northish of its launch position in order to hit an aircraft on the 27L approach.
|
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?) No there are more rules, see ANO166 plus exemption E4049 and ANO 167. Alsosee CAP658 and CAP722. Height is defined as height above point of launch. Yunecc's video link is reported to be only 500m line of sight were as DJi can go for a few km To achieve this range would require a video transmitter illegal in the UK(OFCOM IR 2030). To fly beyond visual range would be illegal in the UK(ANO166). |
Any hobbyist can -and often does- build a drone out of a kit with a carbon fiber cross, a few brushless motors and some electronics. In fact, a visit to any photo show will demonstrate that the heavyduty photo drones for pro video cameras are basically custom constructions by smaller firms. These things cannot be legislated out of existence, anymore than the first kit-built cars would be suppressed back in the era of the horse carriage.
Pilots of small planes learnt to share the sky with huge airliners; now huge airliners and GA will need to learn to share the skies in some way with the smalller drones that are going to be used for cargo and surveying tasks in cities and over fields. Farmers who use drones to survey hundreds of square miles of crops in the US midwest, or livestock in South America, have a right to use tools to get their jobs done, just as much as a pilot setting down at Heathrow has a right to land without a laser in his eyes or an idiot with a toy in his path. The sky hasn't fallen - a new technology has appeared, and sclerotic bureaucrats need a kick in the butt so they start to establish a new set of rules. Edmund |
For "a few inches" read "under two inches in all but the very largest examples". For "5-10mm dia" read 3-5mm dia in all but the very largest examples. For "hardened steel" read "mild steel in all but the very few and rather expensive examples". All of this information is easily discoverable with a few seconds of research, yet the myths and postulations prevail <sigh> PDR DJI ESC and Brushless Motor I can't speak for the DJI motor shafts, but all the aftermarket motors such as scorpions, Emax advertise that the shafts are hardened. I would be surprised frankly if the DJI shafts are not, as it's not a hugely expensive thing to do and has lots of advantages. S-5525 Shaft Kit - Scorpion Power System http://www.merqc.com/files/Datasheet/emax.pdf There will also be an ounce or so of mild steel in the stator. If you know of any certification standards that suggest a jet engine should be able to ingest four of these without becoming very unhappy indeed - or even some smaller steel items - then please post links to them. |
The blanket jamming of a range of frequencies is against international agreements, so would be highly illegal. Law enforcement and the military may exercise limited exemptions when dealing with specific incidents such as suspect packages.
The majority of drones use the same band of frequencies as wifi internet routers, so jamming the airwaves around airports would deny local residents use of wifi. In any case the drones use complex software algorithms to be able to receive (and transmit) control signals through heavy interference. Even the cheapest toy drones will automatically tune to the clearest, most interference free radio channel while pairing with a controller. Most will also automatically change frequncy to another channel if the control signal is lost for any reason. The actual radio transmitters and receivers used are mass produced and not particularly well tuned. Tolerances are a bit broad as you might expect with items built to the lowest cost. However these shortfalls can be countered by using software to filter out the wanted signals from interference and jamming. It is far cheaper to write some computer software than spend money on tight engineering design. Jamming signals are just not effective in modern digital radio systems. |
p.s. utter tosh. The risks are to the cockpit or engines. The stabiliser will be structurally fine. I am well aware of the risks of birdstrikes my fair share including birds that have got through the metal of my aircraft on occasion The only new bit of info is that in at least this case it caused no damage. The actual damage caused may well have been temporarily handled within the scope of the MEL/CDL (or whatever relevant document) The costs incurred may well be paid for after this subject is no longer news worthy |
I have not heard of anyone yet hacking DJi's code, maybe I am wrong and it can be done but nothing on the forums i have seen. You run the risk of bricking it. Also I believe with the upcoming GEO System firmware users will be able to "self-certify" that they have authorization to fly near an airport (>1.5mi), and deactivate geofencing themselves via a code from DJI's website. All you need is a DJI account which can easily be set up anonymously. Similarly on DJI's larger, "pro" oriented drones / flight controllers (e.g., A2) one can simply turn off geofencing. |
Honestly I'm trying to post this TIC but given some of the posts I've read this seems somewhat appropriate. You know who you are....
Drone pilot furious after ?uninsured? passenger jet crashes into him |
This, if anything, suggests that the doom mongers are over-egging things. Drone hits plane. Plane not damaged. Initial indications from an initially miniscule research set suggests that drone strikes do not hurt aircraft. As more collisions happen, I'm quite sure that eventually one will go down an engine. That will be more indicative of whether there is actually a problem. Solid Rocket Booster partial O-Ring burn throughs happened on several occasions early in the shuttle programme. Flagged up by engineers and other "doom mongers" such as John Young as an accident waiting to happen but not acted on: Result was the Challenger accident and FWIW Richard Feynman's statement that "nature cannot be fooled"... Foam strikes damaged Shuttle orbiter tiles on multiple occasions..again engineers, no doubt again being "doom mongers", had serious concerns.. but that problem was not acted upon because it was inconvenient and difficult to do so. It was only after the Columbia accident that it was decided to run a full scale test of a block of insulating foam hitting a wing LE at a representative velocity.... I don't want to see a ban on drones, but I'm finding it hard to understand the apparent reluctance of some to accept that it might be not be a good idea for unregulated drones to be sharing the same airspace as commercial air traffic. |
"Incident was harmless"
[QUOTE=Kitiara;9347149]This particular incident appears to have been harmless.
But it does serve to further underline the issue that drones present a very real and immediate danger to commercial aviation. Like I say, this incident was harmless, but it doesn't take too much imagination to consider what a person with malicious intent and an armed drone could achieve.[/QUOTE A few feet left or right could easily have resulted in engine ingestion. Costing a carrier a couple of quid (£s). There but for the grace ........" Harmless? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:50. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.