Impact Damage

[AeroJ]

For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, here's a very interesting article, courtesy of the ever-excellent DroneDJ.com, on what happens when you fire a DJI Phantom 2 into a plane wing at 250 mph...

Even small drones, like a DJI Phantom, pose a risk to manned aircraft [video] - DroneDJ

I'm no expert, but I can see 'some problems' with their tests, and public 'conclusions', so posting it here for general discussion...

 

[AH-1G]

Consider if it were sucked into the engine?

 

[DoomMeister]

I think all bird flight should be cleared through ATC, then all manned flight could be safe from bird strikes also.

This is a moot point all around if everyone flies where they are supposed to. If sUAS craft are kept within 400’ AGL and general aviation above 500’ AGL and areas around airports have the altitude limits posted and adhered to (like this map for the US sUAS Map Data), there should be no cause for all the stinking hoopla!

The other thing that keeps sticking in my craw is the #%*?*%# privacy topic. No matter where you go, someone has their cell phone out making a video of whatever and posts it to YouTube, Facebook, etc. and nobody seems to have a problem with that. Yet, take the same camera technology and put it on a sUAS and everybody starts having a hissy fit about invasion of privacy. What a set of double standards.

Amazon and all the other big players in this “takeover” of low altitude airspace are lining the pockets of our legislators. If they really think they will win in the long run, think again. If I can’t fly my drone, I’ll be damned if you fly yours!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ty Pilot]

I think all bird flight should be cleared through ATC, then all manned flight could be safe from bird strikes also.

This is a moot point all around if everyone flies where they are supposed to. If sUAS craft are kept within 400’ AGL and general aviation above 500’ AGL and areas around airports have the altitude limits posted and adhered to (like this map for the US sUAS Map Data), there should be no cause for all the stinking hoopla!

The other thing that keeps sticking in my craw is the #%*?*%# privacy topic. No matter where you go, someone has their cell phone out making a video of whatever and posts it to YouTube, Facebook, etc. and nobody seems to have a problem with that. Yet, take the same camera technology and put it on a sUAS and everybody starts having a hissy fit about invasion of privacy. What a set of double standards.

Amazon and all the other big players in this “takeover” of low altitude airspace are lining the pockets of our legislators. If they really think they will win in the long run, think again. If I can’t fly my drone, I’ll be damned if you fly yours!!!!!!!!!!!

+1,000,000,000

 

[DoomMeister]

+1,000,000,000

That is up from what my wife showed me last night by a factor of 20.

Oops! Thought this was a response to the security breach on Facebook. My bad

 

[NorWiscPilot]

What gets me about articles like this, and specific comments contained, are the lack of real world application.

For instance:

1) the approach speed of most aircraft is under 150 knots or 170 mph.

Meaning: for a drone to aircraft impact to occur at 250 mph, that drone would like have to be way beyond allowable limits, let alone the impracticality as in “even the ‘do not care what the rules are’ fliers would have difficulty reaching an aircraft doing 250 mph.

2) “with more and more drones in the air, the likelihood of a collision with manned aircraft increases.” True, if: the increase in drone traffic is focused in areas of manned aircraft flight (e.g. airports).

If our increasing drone pilot brotherhood follows the rules and stays clear of manned aviation, the increase in stated probability does NOT happen!

In other words, it is the opinion of this writer that articles such as referenced here are nothing but what many have already stated: something to get the lawmakers and uninformed populace to panic, and give in to those with their not so hidden agendas.

Jeff

 

[The Boathouse]