Drones: Waiting for the Disaster

Interesting debate I started. Some other points:

* Not all drones weigh 3 lbs. The size and weight vary greatly. I'm guessing that hitting even a three pounder at 180 knots in my Cirrus could do a LOT of damage, including injury to me in the cockpit.

* Regarding "no different than a bird strike," hello? Many have been killed or hurt by encounters with small birds. And what about the Hudson River? I myself was in an MD80 that hit a bird weighing less than 3 lbs. We lost 1 of 2 engines and did an emergency landing. Can a jet engine ingest a drone? Would a Cessna prop or a Pilatus prop do OK chewing through a drone?

* The issue is quantity. When I learned to fly, there was no such thing as Class B. As air traffic increased and people died, restrictions - the right ones - were put into place. As the skies become filled with millions of drones with cameras, does that not change the safety picture? RC has always had a limited audience. Drones have mass appeal, due to their ability to capture images, reliability, ease of use, and cost.

I'm not saying ban them. I'm saying, and this is my prediction: unless we take this more seriously, some day people will get killed. Is it one pilot? Is it a traveling family with children? Or is it a larger passenger airliner?

No one knows. But I believe that's what will happen. Hopefully the discussion gets more serious before then.
 
And not saying you are wrong but..

We dont know how fast the plane was going and someone smarter than me can probably figure out what the increased force of the impact is when speed is increased. IE impact force is 4x greater if the collision speed is doubled?

Second.. That sure looked like a glancing blow to the RC plane. If the plane hit the wing of the RC plane if sure wouldn't cause same damage that a direct hit would cause.

How about this.. Any of the pilots and aircraft owners who are unfazed by the thought of a 3lb drone hitting their plane want to give it a try? The resulting video will be a big hit on youtube!



tehmightypirate said:
Not saying you're wrong, I imagine a large quad-copter could do quite a bit of damage in the right place, but here is a video of a quite large model aircraft hovering (almost like a drone) and be smacked by a bi-plane doing a high-speed low approach. Biplane suffered minor damage, even after hitting it with a wing.

Click to expand...
 
Irish_Armada said:
That right there. That would be awesome! The Chevy/Ford truck commercials will need to adjust their commercial footage a bit of the American rancher tho... :D
Click to expand...


It sure would save time and money and a lot of bouncing around if it worked right. :yes:

You can take it a $tep further and launch one from home autonomously that will follow a pre-set GPS coordinate path, and check everything you want checked that you program into it.

I read an article that said some large farms are using drones with spectrum type imaging devices to determine fertilizer rates, weed spray, bug infestation, etc...
 
txflyer said:
I read an article that said some large farms are using drones with spectrum type imaging devices to determine fertilizer rates, weed spray, bug infestation, etc...
Click to expand...
I am interested in this sort of thing and follow it somewhat. Would you mind providing the citation? I'd like to follow up on it.
I don't know of any place it's done in the U.S., and as we know it is not considered legal by the FAA.
 
jnmeade said:
I am interested in this sort of thing and follow it somewhat. Would you mind providing the citation? I'd like to follow up on it.
I don't know of any place it's done in the U.S., and as we know it is not considered legal by the FAA.
Click to expand...


I don't have it.

The article may have been an editorial that was slanted towards large farms were eyeing the possibilities of it, but it wasn't operational. I just remember reading large farmers were optimistic about drones capabilities and uses for operations such as crop analysis, soil state, etc. using spectrum and other techniques. :dunno:

I wish I had one with night vision and a 30mm cannon on it for these damn feral hogs around here. I'd show the FAA some illegal ****! :D;)


Fps_8be84c_2364724.jpg
 
jnmeade said:
I am interested in this sort of thing and follow it somewhat. Would you mind providing the citation?
Click to expand...

In a related area, http://www.ceresimaging.net/ uses UAV-based image feed to analyze the water stress and nutrient content of crop fields, presenting their analysis in easily understandable, actionble form. Based in CA, US, they are working with number of local farms, improving their beta-stage product.

Agriculture will soon probably be one of the largest drone users, a lot of happening in that area. http://www.pressdemocrat.com/home/2980362-181/drones-could-become-common-in

Since we're on the collision avoidance topic: http://www.prenav.com/
 
Last edited:
Pedals2Paddles said:
The mass hysteria and fear of disaster is completely overblown. You can thank the media for this. Apparently inbetween race baiting, they needed something else to get people riled up over. So they talk about a 3lb plastic toy like it's a Predator circling over every unsuspecting neighborhood and knocking planes out of the sky.

I hate to break it to you, but model aircraft have been flying around for decades. And they have been flying away or crashing upon loss of control for decades as well. The only thing different now is the quantity and availability. It's become very easy for the average consumer. It used to take skill to construct, train, and fly. Now it takes an hour to charge the battery, plug it in, and you're up.

Educate yourself about what these things are, what they are not, and what the risk really is before you join the media's panic bandwagon. If you really thing this 3lb flying plastic toy is going to cause a pile of dead bodies, you need to change the channel.
Click to expand...

This isn't the same as RC airplanes.

RC planes are relatively expensive and relatively difficult to fly, they traditionally haven't had cams or quad rotors or GPS or beyond-line-of-sight capabilities. Those are the things that make today's drones so cheap to buy, easy to fly, and appealing to dunderheads and pilots alike. They're fun - no doubt.

And one of the first things people want to find out is "how high can it go?"

The quad-copter revolution has enabled any nitwit to go out and park a quad right in the middle of your traffic pattern without knowing anything about airspace or aviation at all. Many (and I'd say most) quad copter owners don't know squat about airspace.

Also, the numbers of drones being gobbled up completely eclipses (already - and it will only increase) the numbers of RC hobby aircraft that ever existed prior to the advent of quads and the like.


ClimbnSink said:
Exactly. It ain't a big deal. The people that hurt their kids with drones are the same people who would have killed their kids with lawn darts a couple of decades ago.
And remember share the sky with all users or you won't have any sky to play in.:nono:
Click to expand...

Well no one is advocating not sharing the skies. We just recognize that two vehicles sharing the same piece of sky at the same time = death only for the manned aircraft.

There should be clear and simple rules and a public education campaign associated with drones, not a ban.

Line-of-sight should be required in the vast majority of cases. Tree-top or building height limit - whichever is higher within your line of sight. Stay away from airports and B, C and D airspace and E airspace above 400 AGL. Something like that.

But ask most people where the nearest airport is and they will point you to the nearest one that they've used for scheduled airline flights. They typically forget or don't know about smaller airports.

So yes. It is a risk. It doesn't need to be banned, it just needs to be done sensibly (tall order for the FAA, granted). And I agree with the OP that it will take deaths or damage and near-deaths (with video!) to get action. Sadly, that is how most FARs happen.
 
Last edited:
great thread guys, I'm a realtor and I see a lot of people buying phantom copters right now. I have a much lower budget one we fly for fun with a go pro, Most people I know fly these at very low altitude but there are some more commercial pilots flying them pretty high. Most aerial photography companies around here are using commercial pilots to fly them, due to liability concerns.
They are illegal to fly within a certain distance of an airport in my area as well. I personally have never seen one flying while Im up in traditional aircraft but they are getting so sophisticated with GPS flying them back if they go out of the line of sight Im sure its only a matter of time.
 
I would like to see some kind process set up for the operators of personal drones to be systematically educated about the risks to others and how to avoid or minimize them. What the best way is to bring that about, I'm not sure.
 
By the way, does anyone know what the service ceiling is for a typical personal drone? If you took one to Leadville, Colorado, would it even get off the ground?
 
yhuubert said:
Airware drone platform CEO (also a commercial pilot) has a good blog post after testifying at the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation:
http://blog.airware.com/post/104855154005/u-s-needs-risk-based-regulations-to-keep
Click to expand...

It was a well done blog, but his type of drone usage will almost never be the problem. Comm drones inspecting crops, or cell towers, or taking aerial video of houses from 100-250' is not going to bother most manned aircraft. Not sure how a 'first responder' would use a drone, but if it's under 400' I don't see an issue for the vast majority of locations outside approach areas. Sadly, a lot of low level approach areas are where first responders might want to use a drone. In the DFW metro I can count about 40 GA airports which are in a location that would be affected by drones up to 400'.

The problem is the 14YO kid, in xmax 2020 with a new 15Lb drone with extended battery that thinks it's cool to video an Airbus on appr to KDAL, or what I'm expecting will happen eventually, they will 'play real airplane' and start flying them in the pattern, including a base, and final to a GA airport. This is what needs attention, not the comm guys making a living off the feed from the ground proximity access that a drone provides.

I freely admit I don't have the answers. The NAS is there for the people to use. Freeways are there for us to use too, but you don't just turn a kid loose with a remote control RC car and let them drive up and down the road either. Unlike impact with an RC car vs real car, the manned plane vs drone can be much more serious.
 
docmirror said:
It was a well done blog, but his type of drone usage will almost never be the problem. Comm drones inspecting crops, or cell towers, or taking aerial video of houses from 100-250' is not going to bother most manned aircraft. Not sure how a 'first responder' would use a drone, but if it's under 400' I don't see an issue for the vast majority of locations outside approach areas. Sadly, a lot of low level approach areas are where first responders might want to use a drone. In the DFW metro I can count about 40 GA airports which are in a location that would be affected by drones up to 400'.

The problem is the 14YO kid, in xmax 2020 with a new 15Lb drone with extended battery that thinks it's cool to video an Airbus on appr to KDAL, or what I'm expecting will happen eventually, they will 'play real airplane' and start flying them in the pattern, including a base, and final to a GA airport. This is what needs attention, not the comm guys making a living off the feed from the ground proximity access that a drone provides.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. My huge gripe is over-regulating things that don't need it and violation of damn common sense.
 
I have heard people (not many here, thankfully) poopoo drones as a threat based on their low weight. "It weights less than three pounds" I've heard them say.

They have obviously never seen what a 2-lb hawk can do to an aircraft. I have. In the case I'm thinking of a CAP C182 had a large hole punched in the wing leading edge by a hawk strike. Luckily it only hit the wing.

As pilots, we understand this and have seen the bird strike vids on youtube.

But many people think drones pose no risk because they are light. I say "Oh really..." and I offer to throw one at their face as hard as I can (at best 60 mph or <1/3 of my cruise speed) but they always seem to refuse. :dunno:
 
Yes, but the objection several of us have is that these things are supposedly deadly.

That 2 lb hawk may have damaged a 182, but it did not cause it to crash, right? Most airplanes can fly just fine with a modest hole in one wing. And if it was 10 lb, it still went through the wing, so no additional damage.

Bird strikes very rarely cause fatalities. Do not overstate the risk, or you will do FAR more damage than good.
 
MAKG1 said:
Yes, but the objection several of us have is that these things are supposedly deadly.

That 2 lb hawk may have damaged a 182, but it did not cause it to crash, right? Most airplanes can fly just fine with a modest hole in one wing. And if it was 10 lb, it still went through the wing, so no additional damage.

Bird strikes very rarely cause fatalities. Do not overstate the risk, or you will do FAR more damage than good.
Click to expand...

So everything short of death is hunky dory, eh? Not to me.

So are you going to let me hum a drone at your face then? Because that is what happens when it hits front and center. It comes through and damages aircraft and hurts or incapacitates people. Bird or drone it matters not.

Unlike birds, drones are controlled by humans. My point is that there are dumb f***s out there flying them around where manned aircraft are. There's a video a week and drones are selling by the truckload. It isn't going become less frequent as things stand now.

But like I said at length above, they don't need to be banned if people can use them with common sense. Unfortunately, there are lots of people who aren't doing that. So yes, the concern -- and much more -- is warranted.

I don't like regs any more than anyone else. I also don't like the idea of drones in the traffic pattern.
 
petrolero said:
So everything short of death is hunky dory, eh? Not to me.
Click to expand...

Geez, dude. There are things that are neither black nor white in this world.

Do not overstate the risk, or you will help prevent any meaningful mitigation.

I don't like having toenails ripped off either, but it won't kill me.
 
MAKG1 said:
Geez, dude. There are things that are neither black nor white in this world.

Do not overstate the risk, or you will help prevent any meaningful mitigation.

I don't like having toenails ripped off either, but it won't kill me.
Click to expand...

Where, exactly, did I overstate the risk? Do you want me to lie to make you feel better? A drone crash would hurt. That is quite apart from what you seem to want to discuss, which is the likelihood of a fatal encounter. Different topic.

And by the same token, don't understate it either. :dunno:

Think about this scenario:

Kid on Christmas flies his drone and an aircraft collides with it. No one is killed but there are 30 pax on board and it puts a hole in the wing.

What happens then? How are you going to mitigate that? There are no rules, no guidelines, no education, no training, no nothing right now. After that there might just be the ban that you fear.

What I'm suggesting is that we need some guidelines around these things. Some education.
 
Last edited:
What you fail to understand is if drones go against GA airplanes in a political fight GA airplanes will lose. Do you think Hollyhousewife is more afraid of her brats drone or a random Phenom jet coming through the living room? The argument that a drone can bring down a plane doesn't help, people will just think damn I don't want a plane falling on me let's ban planes. Share the sky(with everyone, dumbass drone drivers and hobby jet pilots included) or lose the sky. GA is weak, droneism is strong, pick a fight and you lose.
 
petrolero said:
Where, exactly, did I overstate the risk?
Click to expand...

petrolero said:
Well no one is advocating not sharing the skies. We just recognize that two vehicles sharing the same piece of sky at the same time = death only for the manned aircraft.
Click to expand...

No, colliding with a widely available drone like a quadcopter does not equal death. Death is a remote possibility.
 
ClimbnSink said:
What you fail to understand is if drones go against GA airplanes in a political fight GA airplanes will lose. Do you think Hollyhousewife is more afraid of her brats drone or a random Phenom jet coming through the living room? The argument that a drone can bring down a plane doesn't help, people will just think damn I don't want a plane falling on me let's ban planes. Share the sky(with everyone, dumbass drone drivers and hobby jet pilots included) or lose the sky. GA is weak, droneism is strong, pick a fight and you lose.
Click to expand...

What you fail to understand is that I didn't advocate for a ban. I don't know how many ways I need to write it. So I'll just say scroll up.

Anyway, if Hollyhousewife is on board the plane in my example she will absolutely want to ban or severely regulate drones.

You fail to realize that the ban effort won't come from GA. It will come from said housewife.
 
MAKG1 said:
No, colliding with a widely available drone like a quadcopter does not equal death. Death is a remote possibility.
Click to expand...

Death is a very real possibility but not a certainty. Damage, however, is a certainty.

But that, apparently, is not anything to worry about. Nothing to see here.

That attitude is what will get drones severely regulated or banned. Just let that scenario happen to a non-GA aircraft.
 
MAKG1 said:
No, colliding with a widely available drone like a quadcopter does not equal death. Death is a remote possibility.
Click to expand...

Death is NOT a possibility for the drone driver. And that was my point. His butt is never at risk. Ours are.

So the chances may be small, but the cost is vastly higher for the one who's piloting the airplane. Multiply that small but rapidly growing chance by the huge cost and the result is not trivial.
 
MAKG1 said:
Yes, but the objection several of us have is that these things are supposedly deadly.

That 2 lb hawk may have damaged a 182, but it did not cause it to crash, right? Most airplanes can fly just fine with a modest hole in one wing. And if it was 10 lb, it still went through the wing, so no additional damage.

Bird strikes very rarely cause fatalities. Do not overstate the risk, or you will do FAR more damage than good.
Click to expand...

My concern isn't so much about risk of death, although there is that, but if I hit a large drone even in the wing and punch a hole in it, I'm going to have to pay to have it repaired, or my plane will be totaled by insurance. Then, my premiums go up, and the guy with the $400 drone is out - $400. Already mentioned in other threads, asymmetrical risk just in this case financial. If I plow into a row of planes, my insurance gets to make them whole. The drone guy? no one will even know who it was to sue.
 
Every house with a kid and a median income >50K will have a drone, how many have a GA airplane? How is that laser pointer regulation going? License ubiquitous consumer toys, good luck with that. It isn't about absolute safety or who was in the sky first it is about money and numbers of people. Dammit they want action to make the skies safe for drones, ban noisy polluting little airplanes.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Every house with a kid and a median income >50K will have a drone, how many have a GA airplane? How is that laser pointer regulation going? License ubiquitous consumer toys, good luck with that. It isn't about absolute safety or who was in the sky first it is about money and numbers of people. Dammit they want action to make the skies safe for drones, ban noisy polluting little airplanes.
Click to expand...

You already made that point above and I don't disagree in principle. You seem to imagine this supposed effort to ban drones will come from GA.

But you haven't responded to the point I made about your hollyhousewife. She is the one who will seek to ban your drones. GA will have next to nothing to do with it.

OK so what can you do to prevent a collision or near-collision that actually gets caught on video and scares ol' Holly and her girlfriends?

That's where we need to be focusing efforts. Before there is a ban it would be nice if we could set some guidelines and educate people. Industry can do this far faster than the FAA. But I see a lot of drones selling and virtually no effort to educate users about airspace.
 
Last edited:
petrolero said:
You already made that point above and I don't disagree in principle. You seem to imagine this supposed effort to ban drones will come from GA.

But you haven't responded to the point I made about your hollyhousewife. She is the one who will seek to ban your drones. GA will have next to nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
I doubt it, her kids will have drones. And they got them by asking for a drone or a BB gun her choice is clear. The thin blue line is probably the biggest political opposition, they can't have a video unless it is their video. Maybe housewives can be convinced they are bad but I doubt it.
 
docmirror said:
My concern isn't so much about risk of death, although there is that, but if I hit a large drone even in the wing and punch a hole in it, I'm going to have to pay to have it repaired, or my plane will be totaled by insurance. Then, my premiums go up, and the guy with the $400 drone is out - $400. Already mentioned in other threads, asymmetrical risk just in this case financial. If I plow into a row of planes, my insurance gets to make them whole. The drone guy? no one will even know who it was to sue.
Click to expand...
This is different from whacking your parked car and driving away how? Dirtbags are free to have less morals then you, nothing will ever change that.
 
petrolero said:
Death is a very real possibility but not a certainty. Damage, however, is a certainty.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

Death is a remote possibility. Damage is a more likely possibility. It is NOT a certainty. Just like there are no-damage and minimal-damage bird strikes (not that cleaning bird guts off an airplane is much fun). Not all of them leave bits of bleeding Canada goose in your lap.

Exaggerating weakens your claims. Drones should be restricted from certain airspace because of a risk of asymmetrical damage, or perhaps because of asymmetrical risk. Not because of a certainty.
 
Last edited:
ClimbnSink said:
This is different from whacking your parked car and driving away how? Dirtbags are free to have less morals then you, nothing will ever change that.
Click to expand...

It isn't much different. If you're trying to convince me that letting drones fly free in the same airspace by comparison to a hit and run - maybe that's not the best simile you could try on for size.

Unless you are actually advocating some form of anarchy. If that's the case, I can forget about renewing my license, drop my insurance, and refuse to pay a judgement if I damage someone else. Is this an anarchy position? I could maybe get behind that, cause I pay a heck of a lot of money to comply with civil responsibility now.
 
When a drone takes down a GA airplane nobody will care unless the wreckage falls on a third party.

When the drone takes down an airliner people will care.
 
MAKG1 said:
No, it isn't.

Death is a remote possibility. Damage is a more likely possibility. It is NOT a certainty. Just like there are no-damage and minimal-damage bird strikes (not that cleaning bird guts off an airplane is much fun). Not all of them leave bits of bleeding Canada goose in your lap.

Exaggerating weakens your claims. Drones should be restricted from certain airspace because of a risk of asymmetrical damage, or perhaps because of asymmetrical risk. Not because of a certainty.
Click to expand...


I disagree. Damage in a drone-aircraft collision is highly likely to the point of certainty and death is a possibility - but only for the manned aircraft. That is what I have been saying all along. Your arguing over semantics and minutia gets us nowhere.

Your minimizing the chances and scoffing at the worst outcomes weakens your argument. A small but growing chance of death is not trivial. A small but larger chance of life-threatening damage is also not trivial.

Drones are selling by the truck load and when the dumbest operator out there gets someone hurt or scared there will be a backlash. The one that gets your toys banned won't come from GA it will come from the general flying public.

But you would do what... nothing? ...to prevent that? Rules will eventually be passed and they could be harsh. What do you think should be done now? By whom?
 
Last edited:
You don't need permission to fly without a license. You can do that now, only fear keeps you hoop jumping. Rules are for rule followers and the more rules we get the more they get applied to the straight and narrow people. You can choose anarchy anytime you want, they will of course shun you and threaten your pot of gold.
 
petrolero said:
But you would do what... nothing? ...to prevent that? Rules will eventually be passed and they could be harsh. What do you think should be done now? By whom?
Click to expand...

Are we trying to solve an actual problem or the fear of a problem?

Drones are not rare, now.

Take a few steps back, and evaluate where we really are.

(1) How many people have been killed by drones?

(2) How many aircraft have been damaged by drones?

(3) Extrapolate the last two 5 years in the future.

Then, you make rules to mitigate that.

That would be an informed reaction. Otherwise, you fix things that aren't problems and may never become problems. And you make new problems, which undermines the legitimacy of the rules you made earlier.

Fear may be a powerful motivator, but it is also powerfully stupid. It is to be specifically excluded from serious discussions of risk analysis. That it is not excluded here means this discussion is not serious.
 
petrolero said:
Before there is a ban it would be nice if we could set some guidelines and educate people. Industry can do this far faster than the FAA. But I see a lot of drones selling and virtually no effort to educate users about airspace.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Educating buyers would cut into sales. It's not the function of a corp to advise customers on safe use, that is until the large company gets sued for bringing down an airliner. All the companies are in China, so no worries there. Amazon may be the distributor, but I doubt they see any serious liability, they sell ladders and stuff and I doubt they've ever been successfully sued.

No down side to keeping kids in the dark for them, and a huge downside if they do make an effort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top