Interesting to read some proper research finally carried out on the damage that drones can cause to commercial aircraft.
Small drones may damage helicopters but won't damage planes during take off or landing speeds. Jet engines are already designed to cope with large bird strikes, and it seems the windscreens can cope too.

Might finally start being used as a counter-reference to the press' endless scaremongering.

>>
Findings by the Department for Transport (DfT), British Airline Pilots’ Association (BALPA) and the Military Aviation Authority (MAA) published today in a summary report, reveal drones weighing 400 grams could damage the windscreens of helicopters in particular. However, airliner windscreens were found to be much more resistant. It would take a heavier drone of around 2 kilograms to critically damage an airliner windscreen, and only if the airliner is flying at a high speed; not during take-off and landing.
>>
Drones to be registered and users to sit safety tests under new government rules - GOV.UK

Drones and manned aircraft collisions: test results - GOV.UK

(Windscreen = windshield)

Ian

https://www.youtube.com/IaninLondon

Thanks for that valuable piece of information. In times of emotional hijacking by populist politics it is important to share such scientific findings - at the end of the day, only the truth will prevail.

what about the battery any issue on that ?

Nikon 1 Posted at 2017-7-22 12:06
When do silly things like facts and truth matter when "FearMongering?"

Witness the US President and his god given talent to see Fake News where others far more knowledgeable don't!

That's fair enough.... but this is the first proper research I can quote to refute groundless arguments....  I think it's good to have it in black and white that drones under 2 Kg or 5 lbs can't harm planes....

Ian




https://www.youtube.com/IaninLondon

"With regard to the comparison with the severity of a birdstrike, it was realised that drones can cause significantly more damage than a bird of equivalent mass at the same speed. This seems to be due to the hard metallic components present in drones and means that birdstrike certification cannot necessarily be used as a prediction of complete protection from drones."

saying that a mavic can't harm an airliner would be wrong in my opinion. the report is only about the windshield.

As a private pilot you maybe right. Some of the commercial aircraft are designed to take bird strikes. Most can fly down an engine. However how about Cessnas, Piper's and other small aircraft. They have the right of way not us with our toys. The airport is no place for a drone.

I saw a story yesterday where the spokesman from BALPA said more testing was going to be done on the fuselage and engines. It's not over yet. Another concern I have is that the geo fencing areas will be greatly increased, reducing our freedom to fly in a lot of places.

FlyingLocksmith Posted at 2017-7-22 23:16
I saw a story yesterday where the spokesman from BALPA said more testing was going to be done on the fuselage and engines. It's not over yet. Another concern I have is that the geo fencing areas will be greatly increased, reducing our freedom to fly in a lot of places.

It would be good to have proper, definitive research on engines too.  No one is doubting that airports are no place for drones and that a strike wouldn't cause significant damage.  The DJI go app already has UK geofencing in place and the excellent drone-assist app by air-traffic control already helps show where you can and can't fly.... Use of this should be the mandatory element IMHO....
http://dronesafe.uk/drone-assist/

Ian

https://www.youtube.com/IaninLondon

I suppose testing whether small drones can do some serious damage to commercial aircraft is a good thing.
But aviation has an exceptional record of safety, I don't see them putting this at risk . Yes from the test they may see that small drones won't have an adverse effect on commercial engines or windshields. But all aircraft will always have to do everything in there power to avoid collisions, thus a commercial aircraft would have to re route its flight path , causing unnecessary problems for crew and passengers which can always pose a risk.

I'm almost certain pilots will not be told , no need to avoid small unmanned aircraft because they don't pose a risk.

I hope they continue to test for all types of events of collision to manned aircraft. But I think Aviation will be concentrated on trying to get complete separation between manned and unmanned aircraft.

I think there is plenty of room in the sky for both, manned AC is heavily regulated where unmanned is only beginning on the road to regulations, I don't see this as necessarily as a bad thing, but the growth of unmanned AC is going to continue. As long as unmanned RC pilots are given a fair hearing in all of new regulations, then I think we will be the better for it.

To say that bird strikes will not take down aircraft is not true! There has been many instances where birds have taken out aircraft including large passenger airliners! I would say if you were to put a Mavic or a Phantom into a jet engine it will not do it a lot of good and yes they can land on just one engine but I for one would not want to be on any aircraft if it ever happens as chances are if this did happen on take off or landing it could cause a crash as the pilot will not have much time to respond, Anyone caught flying drones near airports should be punished severely and given prison sentences   

As an object, like a bolt, travels through a jet engine it starts hitting row after row of blades.  Having watched an F-4 get a bird down the intake and they had to pull the engine  -- first row small damage, but that caused broken blade parts to hit the next row cascading  through the engine causing engine failure in most cases.  The Mavic is 734 Grams and contains some high density parts.
Yes, we have two engines.  Another incident, takeing off at Patrick AFB we went right through a flock (couldn't avoid them), #2 ingested a bird - giant fireball out the back; shut down engine, dumped fuel and landed.  Engine trasked, could have caught fire.  So if that doesn't count as unsafe - I guess I should consider Russian Roulette a fun game.

Nikon 1 Posted at 2017-7-22 12:06
When do silly things like facts and truth matter when "FearMongering?"

Witness the US President and his god given talent to see Fake News where others far more knowledgeable don't!

So I guess CNN  talking heads, caught by undercover video, saying they know the Russia stuff is BS, but they have to do it for ratings, isn't proof of fake news.  I personally witnessed an event that was totally fake news in what was reported about it.  The latest is the second "secret" meeting with Putin - at a German State dinner of 20 leaders and spouses all in plain view.  So please stay on topic, this is a DRONE blog not your politics  blog.

Wellsi Posted at 2017-7-22 23:53
It would be good to have proper, definitive research on engines too.  No one is doubting that airports are no place for drones and that a strike wouldn't cause significant damage.  The DJI go app already has UK geofencing in place and the excellent drone-assist app by air-traffic control already helps show where you can and can't fly.... Use of this should be the mandatory element IMHO....
http://dronesafe.uk/drone-assist/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike  That should give you a pretty good idea.  By the way an F-4 at 100 feet,540 Knots hit a Turkey Vulture (about 5 lbs) , it penetrated the cockpit decapitated him and body parts went into the back seat cockpit injuring the WSO.   As to engines, you will see there are lots of engine failures due to that, as well as some fatal crashes.  

Well, a few problems,

1.) The battery might explode upon impact causing a fire
2.) The engines are made to handle flesh and bone, not metal and plastic, going along with the battery thing
3.) At the speeds the airliners go at, there would be a force of 2000+ lbs, and combining that with the battery explosion, well, yeah...

Rafe Hracek Posted at 2017-7-23 07:36
Well, a few problems,

1.) The battery might explode upon impact causing a fire

For great commentary and digestion of what is fake news and what might not be (not drone related but in general)

Listen to NoAgenda podcast with John C. Dvorak and Adam Curry - takes the punch out of most news on today....  They do have both US, Eu and world stuff - but 80% is probably US related.

I wish (as a former journalist) that the world would go back and get the journalistic integrity back. That lacks 100% even from the largest organisations like CNN (Clinton News Network)  - seen a tweet that Trump ate a baby for supper ? Uhh then it must be true and we will publish it straight away!

In the old days you needed 2 or 3 independent confirmations before you brought a power story. Now just a single tweet is enough to "inspire and confirm" the story.  

And in the old days you did not give a C**P about advertisers vs editorial. If an advertiser got smacked - the advertiser knew it was time to UP the marketing spending and market their way out the smack. Now the Advertisers rule - and the population suffers.

Ohh well - interesting times..

Woodwanger Posted at 2017-7-23 03:59
To say that bird strikes will not take down aircraft is not true! There has been many instances where birds have taken out aircraft including large passenger airliners! I would say if you were to put a Mavic or a Phantom into a jet engine it will not do it a lot of good and yes they can land on just one engine but I for one would not want to be on any aircraft if it ever happens as chances are if this did happen on take off or landing it could cause a crash as the pilot will not have much time to respond, Anyone caught flying drones near airports should be punished severely and given prison sentences

Actually wasn't the "Miracle on the Hudson" flight downed by birds (Sea Gulls)?

Tviscomi Posted at 2017-7-23 15:00
Actually wasn't the "Miracle on the Hudson" flight downed by birds (Sea Gulls)?

Canadian Geese, weren't carrying any lipo's though..

Wellsi Posted at 2017-7-22 13:58
That's fair enough.... but this is the first proper research I can quote to refute groundless arguments....  I think it's good to have it in black and white that drones under 2 Kg or 5 lbs can't harm planes....

Ian

Can you provide a link to what you're reading?

I'm reading the paper linked in the original post, and it absolutely does not say that. It suggests that smaller drones likely don't pose a risk of "major structural damage of the aircraft component or penetration of drone through the windscreen into the cockpit" in collisions with airliner windscreens under test conditions and that small drones can harm helicopters and probably general aviation aircraft.

It says:

• "Non-birdstrike certified helicopter windscreens have very limited resilience to the impact of a drone, well below normal cruise speeds.
• The non-birdstrike certified helicopter windscreen results can also be applied to general aviation aeroplanes which also do not have a birdstrike certification requirement.
• Although the birdstrike certified windscreens tested had greater resistance than non-birdstrike certified, they could still be critically damaged at normal cruise speeds.
• Helicopter tail rotors are also very vulnerable to the impact of a drone, with modelling showing blade failures from impacts with the smaller drone components tested."
  

which means that this paper concluded the opposite of "drones under 2 Kg or 5 lbs can't harm planes". They concluded that 400 g class drones could cause critical damage to non-birdstrike certified helicopter (and probably general aviation) windscreens at low speeds and to birdstrike-certified helicopter windscreens at normal speeds, and that they could destroy tail rotors.

It also said this:

• "The construction of the drone plays a significant role in the impact of a collision. Notably, the 400 g class drone components, which included exposed metal motors, caused critical failure of the helicopter windscreens at lower speeds than the 1.2 kg class drone components, which had plastic covering over their motors."
  

which means that drones built like Mavics could pose more danger than some other construction types for the same weight.

And this:

• "The testing and modelling showed that the drone components used can cause significantly more damage than birds of equivalent masses at speeds lower than required to meet birdstrike certification standards."
  

which means that we can't assume that designing passenger jet components to withstand birdstrike does not mean those parts can withstand drone strikes by drones of equivalent mass.

The actual conclusions published in the actual paper linked in the original post include:

• "It is clear from the results that helicopter windscreens could be critically damaged by collisions with a drone in several realistic scenarios. It has also been shown that helicopter tail rotors can also be severely damaged."
  

(keep in mind that they are specifically including drones in the 400 g class)

and

• "With regard to the comparison with the severity of a birdstrike, it was realised that drones can cause significantly more damage than a bird of equivalent mass at the same speed."
  

A central point of science is that we go by what the data actually shows, not what we wish it showed. The same is true of papers - they say what they say, not what we wish they would say, and you have to read the entire paper.

For this paper, they threw standardized drone-like objects at helicopter and airliner windscreens, and did computer modeling of what might have happened if they had thrown them at rotating helicopter tail rotors (which they didn't actually do). They didn't throw anything at engines nor did they throw anything at general aviation windscreens. They did, however, presume that general aviation windscreens were unlikely to perform any differently from non-birdstrike certified helicopter windscreens.

So, what usually happens when people who have been crowing that a study proved some point in which they already believe realize it did not actually say that, those people typically start saying that the wonderful study they'd been quoting to people was actually crap and can't be relied upon. Let's see if people are able to resist the urge to do that here or if they'll be able to read the same study with objectivity.

I didn't read all of the replies before me ...short on time. Just here to add my two cents...

I'm a private pilot and I, like you all, enjoy my DJI Mavic. The wind screen (windshield) on smaller general aviation aircraft (Cessna 172, Piper Arrow, Bonanza, Cirrus SR22, Baron, etc., etc) are not built the same way your car windshield is. It's just plastic (to save weight). If I'm flying around and a drone impacts my windshield there is a very good chance it'll shatter that plastic and enter the cockpit area hitting me or a passenger. Depending on the specific circumstance that could bring down my plane if I was knocked unconscious or hurt badly enough.  Now of course I have a spinning prop up front that would shred the drone before impact and I'd probably be ok. A twin engined GA aircraft, like the Baron, not so much. There are videos on YouTube with birds entering the cockpit right through that plastic and hitting the pilots. The larger GA aircraft like the TBM-850 or Cessna Citation, etc. have a tougher/thicker windscreens. An impact on them probably would not enter the cockpit but would sure as heck shatter the outer pane glass and make it super had to see out front. If I'm single pilot and all of a sudden the glass upfront is shattered (like it would in a car windshield) that's a serious situation.

A drone, like the mavic, being sucked into the intake of a turbofan could very well damage it enough that it would need to be shut down. For a single engine turboprop it would be the same thing.

A drone bringing down an aircraft, while unlikely, isn't exactly beyond possibility. We have these silly registration laws now because of morons flying their drone where they shouldn't have. All it takes are a few idiots to ruin it for everyone.