Collision Risk - VT Study Latest News
10-23-2016, 11:11 AM
#26
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
The concern has always been there. There is a strong desire by some to look at each event in isolation rather than look at the big picture within the context of the hobby as a whole. As you point out, we have two FW vs. full scale midairs. We also have a 100lb plan narrowly missing a crowd (luck), a heavy and high speed jet plowing into the pits causing injury, and most recently another out of control aircraft careening into people in the pits at Buttonwillow. This within the context of bigger planes, and more of them.
Additionally, as I've shown here, it's trivially easy to find examples of AMA members openly flaunting the AMA's own rules, for example maximum speed, not overflying non-participating people, not overflying roads with vehicles, etc. Furthermore, the AMA's own EC is taking a particular group to task for ... drum rolll ... compliance and accountability. In that case, a member of the CD nobility not enforcing AMA rules with respect to waivers.
The reason some want to look at these in isolation is that allows that same group to ignore the dangerous trend that could be developing. These are all what I've repeatedly called "weak signals." Genuine safety management programs pay attention to these. AMA and some leaders within the AMA appear content to ignore them. That only proves my point that that AMA's "safety management system" exists in name only.
So, just keep whistling past the graveyard on the multiple troubling leading indicators. But what do I know about aviation safety? I'm just a dumb fighter pilot with actual education, training, and experience running safety management systems.
Additionally, as I've shown here, it's trivially easy to find examples of AMA members openly flaunting the AMA's own rules, for example maximum speed, not overflying non-participating people, not overflying roads with vehicles, etc. Furthermore, the AMA's own EC is taking a particular group to task for ... drum rolll ... compliance and accountability. In that case, a member of the CD nobility not enforcing AMA rules with respect to waivers.
The reason some want to look at these in isolation is that allows that same group to ignore the dangerous trend that could be developing. These are all what I've repeatedly called "weak signals." Genuine safety management programs pay attention to these. AMA and some leaders within the AMA appear content to ignore them. That only proves my point that that AMA's "safety management system" exists in name only.
So, just keep whistling past the graveyard on the multiple troubling leading indicators. But what do I know about aviation safety? I'm just a dumb fighter pilot with actual education, training, and experience running safety management systems.
Again, this study seems to be a colossal waste of time, and the outcome is sort of predetermined no? If a small bolt on the flight line can cause catastrophic damage to an engine, do we really need a study to tell us that a 10 pound MR with a huge lipo won't? C'mon. Kudo's to the grant writers at VT if they managed to get funding for this study. Next up they will answer the hard question of what happens when water is heated, will it boil? Taking it a step further, when happens when water is placed in a freezer?
You can call accepting the obvious as whistling by the graveyard (what a bizarre ghoulish phrase to use) to know and understand what would probably happen in the above noted scenario, but you seem to go to extreme lengths once again to try to pin some sort of shortcoming on the AMA, yet again. This will be the new ballot issue, or tax issue, or Muncie field money issue etc. As if they AMA needs to either be involved in this, or somehow acknowledge this and what, incorporate the data in some new safety protocol for flying our foamiest? No doubt you realize they probably won't, and that will again give way to complaints. I doubt the AMA is going to be involved in EVERY civilian aircraft and FAA review, report, investigation, study etc etc. Probably because the vast majority of them have nothing to do with this. You just seem to be almost universally focused on every "what if" and other safety issues and can't accept that the AMA isn't in tune with you on that. It's doubtful they ever will be. And it's not like they don't already have a boatload of safety rules and regs, and don't update them from time to time either. They do of course, and again, 80 plus years is evidence of the overall effectiveness of these programs. Sure, you'll pull out the usual one off, heck even from the past two years. But make sure to do a more thorough analysis with spreadsheets etc etc and account for all the events too so we get a better picture of the incident rate. Not hypothetical either....actual numbers and events.
And again, how many drone/jet mishaps have happened yet? What are the probability of incident numbers again?
10-23-2016, 11:59 AM
#27
[QUOTE=porcia83;12270141]Yes yes, lets trot out your prior experience again, always a pleasure to read the resume.
Ah the AMA forum , the only place on earth where real life experience looses out to bluster .......
Smells like Victory !
Ah the AMA forum , the only place on earth where real life experience looses out to bluster .......
Smells like Victory !
10-23-2016, 12:03 PM
#28
Thread Starter
We could do an analysis on mishap data. Oh wait, AMA doesn't keep data on anything unless it results in a claim. They track lagging indicators only. Another indicator of a woefully behind the times safety management system.
10-23-2016, 12:59 PM
#29
oh there were other times too, and other names. Par for the course. It's as amusing to watch that as it is to see you admit you're only here to respond to my posts. That's not edited either, lol. If reasonable discussion fails, the go to approach is name calling. Funny thing is as much as Franklin and I disagree on issues, I don't believe either of us has sunk to that level. Wonder why that is?
Astro
10-23-2016, 05:06 PM
#30
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
[QUOTE=init4fun;12270148]
Perhaps that's the problem Init, you look at is as if it's a win loss thing, I don't. Every discussion/comment isn't the battle royale you or Astro seems to think it needs to be. Trotting out his pilot and safety experience, once again, appears like a desperate ploy to try to get people to listen and acknowledge how important what he has posted is. As if that brings more context or texture to the article or issue. What do I know he says, I'm just a pilot and safety guy. Oh please. The article is what it is. Does anyone really think there wouldn't be damage to an aircraft? If it was just a thread in any other forum just talking about the issue in the article...it would be glossed over and missed like every other article of it's kind. But there has to be a tie in and attempt to link in the AMA and what it might do, or should do, or probably won't do....which of course will circle back with the eventual "see, they just don't care, and I keep pointing these issues out but I'm not heard by the AMA, which of course continues the narrative of, AMA=Bad.
An article documenting the statistical risk/probability of mid air impacts would seem to be a more apt discussion, but since the chances of that are so infinitesimally small, it doesn't have the sizzle that this issue does. Not a bad article overall, just nothing earth-shattering is there?
An article documenting the statistical risk/probability of mid air impacts would seem to be a more apt discussion, but since the chances of that are so infinitesimally small, it doesn't have the sizzle that this issue does. Not a bad article overall, just nothing earth-shattering is there?
10-23-2016, 05:21 PM
#32
[QUOTE=porcia83;12270236]
Well , no . Not exactly . Consider my post to be more like a mirror , and what your seeing is a actually a reflection of what your putting out , shining back at ya .
Nice try though
Nice try though
10-24-2016, 04:46 AM
#33
There's a risk with any activity, I may get CTS by typing this message.
There's someone getting killed on a motor cycle every 3rd day here in the news and that doesn't count the "hold my beer and watch this" moments on ATV's, boats, and Jet Skis.
I think our safety record, in relation to the hundreds of thousands of rc flights flown each year, is pretty darn good.
On the subject at hand, I wouldn't want to be in a small plane or medivac helicopter and take one of these things in the windshield, but I wouldn't want to take a big bird either and frankly (no pun) statistically that would be a much higher likelihood.
I'm not dismissive of the subject either, it would horrify me to find out something like this happened and as someone that spends a fair amount of time in the air I wouldn't want to be on either end of an accident like that.
One last thing, the plane vs full scale in CO, no matter what the NTSB concluded was just as much the fault of the full scale guy who was, lets face it, showing off making an "arrival" with his smoke on and full power. He put smoke on to enhance visibility....lol yea right, I put the top down on my Jeep because I like the wind through my hair (a joke you'd understand if you saw me w/o a hat on )
Just my random thoughts on the subject.
There's someone getting killed on a motor cycle every 3rd day here in the news and that doesn't count the "hold my beer and watch this" moments on ATV's, boats, and Jet Skis.
I think our safety record, in relation to the hundreds of thousands of rc flights flown each year, is pretty darn good.
On the subject at hand, I wouldn't want to be in a small plane or medivac helicopter and take one of these things in the windshield, but I wouldn't want to take a big bird either and frankly (no pun) statistically that would be a much higher likelihood.
I'm not dismissive of the subject either, it would horrify me to find out something like this happened and as someone that spends a fair amount of time in the air I wouldn't want to be on either end of an accident like that.
One last thing, the plane vs full scale in CO, no matter what the NTSB concluded was just as much the fault of the full scale guy who was, lets face it, showing off making an "arrival" with his smoke on and full power. He put smoke on to enhance visibility....lol yea right, I put the top down on my Jeep because I like the wind through my hair (a joke you'd understand if you saw me w/o a hat on
)Just my random thoughts on the subject.
10-24-2016, 05:18 AM
#34
There's a risk with any activity, I may get CTS by typing this message.
There's someone getting killed on a motor cycle every 3rd day here in the news and that doesn't count the "hold my beer and watch this" moments on ATV's, boats, and Jet Skis.
I think our safety record, in relation to the hundreds of thousands of rc flights flown each year, is pretty darn good.
On the subject at hand, I wouldn't want to be in a small plane or medivac helicopter and take one of these things in the windshield, but I wouldn't want to take a big bird either and frankly (no pun) statistically that would be a much higher likelihood.
I'm not dismissive of the subject either, it would horrify me to find out something like this happened and as someone that spends a fair amount of time in the air I wouldn't want to be on either end of an accident like that.
One last thing, the plane vs full scale in CO, no matter what the NTSB concluded was just as much the fault of the full scale guy who was, lets face it, showing off making an "arrival" with his smoke on and full power. He put smoke on to enhance visibility....lol yea right, I put the top down on my Jeep because I like the wind through my hair (a joke you'd understand if you saw me w/o a hat on )
Just my random thoughts on the subject.
There's someone getting killed on a motor cycle every 3rd day here in the news and that doesn't count the "hold my beer and watch this" moments on ATV's, boats, and Jet Skis.
I think our safety record, in relation to the hundreds of thousands of rc flights flown each year, is pretty darn good.
On the subject at hand, I wouldn't want to be in a small plane or medivac helicopter and take one of these things in the windshield, but I wouldn't want to take a big bird either and frankly (no pun) statistically that would be a much higher likelihood.
I'm not dismissive of the subject either, it would horrify me to find out something like this happened and as someone that spends a fair amount of time in the air I wouldn't want to be on either end of an accident like that.
One last thing, the plane vs full scale in CO, no matter what the NTSB concluded was just as much the fault of the full scale guy who was, lets face it, showing off making an "arrival" with his smoke on and full power. He put smoke on to enhance visibility....lol yea right, I put the top down on my Jeep because I like the wind through my hair (a joke you'd understand if you saw me w/o a hat on
)Just my random thoughts on the subject.
Andy , I will agree with every one of the random thoughts you've just posted . Especially the "hold my Beer and watch this" statement !
10-24-2016, 05:51 AM
#35
I think the liklihood of a collision between a MR flown autonomously and BLOS and over 500' and a full-scale aircraft is much greater than a "big bird"
I appreciate your comments and acknowledgement regarding the biplane/model incident. There is one here who is so hell-bent on demonizing fixed-wing craft, he uses that incident as a poster child, without regard for the facts.
Regards,
Astro
10-24-2016, 06:21 AM
#36
I don't have any statistics other than a few thousand flight hours and if i were to be in a plane or heli today I'd be more worried about birds than drones considering the amount of mid-airs that occur with birds versus sUAS.
@ Franklin, you're talking paper clips on the ramp, I meant FOD in the greater sense of ANY foreign object damage.
@ Franklin, you're talking paper clips on the ramp, I meant FOD in the greater sense of ANY foreign object damage.
Last edited by BarracudaHockey; 10-24-2016 at 08:36 AM.
10-24-2016, 08:28 AM
#37
Don't you mean to say you'd be more worried about Birds than Drones ? I do agree it far far likelier to hit a bird , statistics wise , but I also know the more BLOS flights there are also increases the odds of one of those strikes being a BLOS UAS instead . My sincere hope is that if God forbid such a collision happens that gets widespread attention that it results in no injuries and a loud "wake up call" to curtail the hobby based BLOS flights that aren't supposed to be happening .
10-24-2016, 10:40 AM
#39
I've been crazy lucky in that other than one incident of an engine failure as a passenger in a British Airways jet I've never experienced such as you have with the two engines out . All the thrust coming from one wing only must make for some dicey handling I'll guess ?
Anyway , British Airways , ever the good sports , put my family and I in first class for our replacement flight
10-24-2016, 12:11 PM
#41
I was thankfully spared being in the air minus an engine , we were taking off and had not quite reached the speed where your taking off no matter what when the right engine under the wing let out a huge boom accompanied by an orange fireball that really got folk's attention , and then the instant slamming of the brakes and coming to a stop with maybe 1/4 of the runway left . Since the fire in the engine was the fireball it spit out only and wasn't still burning by the time we came to a stop we didn't use the chutes and they drove a ladder and some buses over to pick us all up in .
10-24-2016, 05:31 PM
#42
Thread Starter
I firmly believe they need to be doing more than they are now. They're looking at lagging indicators only, and even then a very narrow subset of them. That may have been fashionable in safety programs of thirty or more years ago, but it's not a best practice these days. Everything today is about looking at trends in leading indicators ... near misses, non-injury incidents, etc.
10-24-2016, 05:49 PM
#43
Thread Starter
I've taken a sparrow in the windscreen on a MTR near Fallon, and it was a major emergency. I can't imagine hitting a DJI on an MTR. As for small aircraft, I concur that small planes and medivacs are not built to take a multi-pound non-frangible object with lots of metal in it. While your observation about birds is valid, there's also been a lot of work done to understand migration patterns, time of year, and actual bird behavior. For example, at high speed, you want to pull up on the jet, for the behavior of the bird tends to be they tuck their wings and drop. Contrast that with the BLOS sUAS which can be virtually anywhere. They're also far less predictable. But most importantly, birds are naturally occurring. BLOS sUAS are a man-made risk imposed on the public.
11-01-2016, 04:59 AM
#44
Yes yes, lets trot out your prior experience again, always a pleasure to read the resume. Boy if others did that they might get hit with the ol' "oh we're just unwashed masses and to stupid to keep up with you" routine that seems to be popular here eh?
Again, this study seems to be a colossal waste of time, and the outcome is sort of predetermined no? If a small bolt on the flight line can cause catastrophic damage to an engine, do we really need a study to tell us that a 10 pound MR with a huge lipo won't? C'mon. Kudo's to the grant writers at VT if they managed to get funding for this study. Next up they will answer the hard question of what happens when water is heated, will it boil? Taking it a step further, when happens when water is placed in a freezer?
You can call accepting the obvious as whistling by the graveyard (what a bizarre ghoulish phrase to use) to know and understand what would probably happen in the above noted scenario, but you seem to go to extreme lengths once again to try to pin some sort of shortcoming on the AMA, yet again. This will be the new ballot issue, or tax issue, or Muncie field money issue etc. As if they AMA needs to either be involved in this, or somehow acknowledge this and what, incorporate the data in some new safety protocol for flying our foamiest? No doubt you realize they probably won't, and that will again give way to complaints. I doubt the AMA is going to be involved in EVERY civilian aircraft and FAA review, report, investigation, study etc etc. Probably because the vast majority of them have nothing to do with this. You just seem to be almost universally focused on every "what if" and other safety issues and can't accept that the AMA isn't in tune with you on that. It's doubtful they ever will be. And it's not like they don't already have a boatload of safety rules and regs, and don't update them from time to time either. They do of course, and again, 80 plus years is evidence of the overall effectiveness of these programs. Sure, you'll pull out the usual one off, heck even from the past two years. But make sure to do a more thorough analysis with spreadsheets etc etc and account for all the events too so we get a better picture of the incident rate. Not hypothetical either....actual numbers and events.
And again, how many drone/jet mishaps have happened yet? What are the probability of incident numbers again?
Again, this study seems to be a colossal waste of time, and the outcome is sort of predetermined no? If a small bolt on the flight line can cause catastrophic damage to an engine, do we really need a study to tell us that a 10 pound MR with a huge lipo won't? C'mon. Kudo's to the grant writers at VT if they managed to get funding for this study. Next up they will answer the hard question of what happens when water is heated, will it boil? Taking it a step further, when happens when water is placed in a freezer?
You can call accepting the obvious as whistling by the graveyard (what a bizarre ghoulish phrase to use) to know and understand what would probably happen in the above noted scenario, but you seem to go to extreme lengths once again to try to pin some sort of shortcoming on the AMA, yet again. This will be the new ballot issue, or tax issue, or Muncie field money issue etc. As if they AMA needs to either be involved in this, or somehow acknowledge this and what, incorporate the data in some new safety protocol for flying our foamiest? No doubt you realize they probably won't, and that will again give way to complaints. I doubt the AMA is going to be involved in EVERY civilian aircraft and FAA review, report, investigation, study etc etc. Probably because the vast majority of them have nothing to do with this. You just seem to be almost universally focused on every "what if" and other safety issues and can't accept that the AMA isn't in tune with you on that. It's doubtful they ever will be. And it's not like they don't already have a boatload of safety rules and regs, and don't update them from time to time either. They do of course, and again, 80 plus years is evidence of the overall effectiveness of these programs. Sure, you'll pull out the usual one off, heck even from the past two years. But make sure to do a more thorough analysis with spreadsheets etc etc and account for all the events too so we get a better picture of the incident rate. Not hypothetical either....actual numbers and events.
And again, how many drone/jet mishaps have happened yet? What are the probability of incident numbers again?
11-01-2016, 05:03 AM
#45
I think the liklihood of a collision between a MR flown autonomously and BLOS and over 500' and a full-scale aircraft is much greater than a "big bird"
11-01-2016, 05:10 AM
#46
Modern jet engines are designed and tested to take an 8 pound bird strike. Yes there is damage but they are able to retain a certain amount of thrust and make it back to the airport. But a bird has soft flesh and some believe the hard objects in a drone make a huge difference. Theory and calculations showed that a frozen chicken can do more damage to and engine or windshield than a thawed chicken, but tests showed little difference. But of course the hardness difference may be less than the smaller but harder objects in a drone, so really no way of knowing for sure without testing.
11-01-2016, 09:25 AM
#47
Modern jet engines are designed and tested to take an 8 pound bird strike. Yes there is damage but they are able to retain a certain amount of thrust and make it back to the airport. But a bird has soft flesh and some believe the hard objects in a drone make a huge difference. Theory and calculations showed that a frozen chicken can do more damage to and engine or windshield than a thawed chicken, but tests showed little difference. But of course the hardness difference may be less than the smaller but harder objects in a drone, so really no way of knowing for sure without testing.
11-01-2016, 10:25 AM
#48
So they are, but explain to me how a standard Bic pen took out an idling engine on an F-14A. A Bic pen has almost no mass or structural strength so how did it take out a multi-million dollar turbine engine? At the same time, why does the military spend so many man hours looking for small screws or wire that would seem to be nothing to worry about in your home shop or garage? Why would the military also have rules against carrying things in your pockets around aircraft with no exceptions? They must know something that those who make unsubstantiated claims and statements don't.
Hi Hydro , What they are failing to take into account is that at any kind of appreciable RPM if one blade fractures it usually takes out other blades and in a cascade type of failure the more that break are doing all the more damage as they and all kinds of other now broken free engine bits are whirling around in there . Thing is , the breaking of the first blades that set this off can indeed come from everything to a bird , a drone , or yes sir as in your example a ball point pen .
