franklin_m

Wonder how FAA & AMA will respond to this?

Latest from the Virginia Tech study on drones and crashworthiness of commercial jets when they ingest a drone.


"Computer-simulated tests completed by researchers at Virginia Tech's College of Engineering are eye-raising: An 8-pound quadcopter drone can rip apart the fan blades of a 9-foot diameter turbofan engine during take-off in less than 1/200th of a second. The speed of drone debris thrashing about inside the engine could reach speeds 715 miles per hour. Broken blades also would create more fragments as the fan crumbles and warps the engine block housing, contributing to catastrophic engine failure [emphasis added]."

“Because of the unprecedented damage a small or even micro unmanned aircraft systems can inflict on a passenger aircraft, pilots cannot risk flying in the same airspace where there are drones...”


https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2015/...onestrike.html

rcmiket

One of these days we'll actually see what happens when a drone meets jet engine. It's just a matter of when and it won't be pretty.

Mike

init4fun

I've likely Bored you with this already but I'll repeat it one more time ;

In my A&P training we were shown films of what happens when foreign objects enter a running turbine engine and since that time I have believed that pretty much anything made of metal could likely cause catastrophic failure . I saw things as small as a simple box wrench cause an engine to "grenade" in those films and that was plenty enough to reinforce the relative fragility of anything turning many thousands of RPMs to me . Now when we get to 8 pounds worth of metal I'd have to figure it's just about 100% certain that engine ain't producing any thrust afterward !

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Hmmm..ama related or club house material? Seems more like an FAA issue, don't think the ama deals with this stuff. Guess since it deals with drones it can stay in the AMA threads.

The Brits are also doing studies on this I believe.

But ya, it's good to get back to the whole fear mongering topic of what if, and what might happen in the future. This along with the whole "near miss" hysteria seems to have died down. The tax thing too.

Next up VT will be doing a study to see what happens when a brick is introduced to a glass window at high speeds.

franklin_m

So the AMA does not "deal with this stuff?" Seems they would have great interest in the risk their operations pose to the traveling public. But then gain, perhaps they're unconcerned.

init4fun

Taking the high road so as to stay on the right side of the rules

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

The more I see comments like these, the more I believe folks want this to happen. Are hoping it will happen. Can't wait for it to happen so they can finally finally say, see...I told you so, I knew it would happen. Sort of ghoulish if you think about it. Ironic too, since some of the same people saying this are actively involved in selling them as part of their job. Say, here's an interesting thought. Wonder if hobby shops and salespeople and even the manufacturers will be accused of being partially responsible for providing these aircraft for this type of use. Don't say it can't happen, one of these days we'll actually see that, it's just a matter of time, and it won't be pretty.

init4fun

Yea , it'll happen right after Gun & Knife manufacturers are held liable for crimes committed with their products and car companies are held liable for drunk driving deaths . I hope no one is actually holding their breath waiting for any of those things to happen . Nice try , but it's lookin like a fail here to me .......

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

A tizzy....that's a good one. Oh the outrage...if nothing it provides and interesting glimpse into the rationale of what goes on here. Hey, the Club House needs to some traffic too, I get it. I'm happy to help out there as well.

Anyhooo....again I think this kind of "wondering" about accidents to be on the ghoulish, if not outright "concern trolling" side There isn't a doubt in my mind that two or three people would be all over these threads almost rejoicing if/when something like this happens. That's how much fear, loathing, hatred, and resentment people have for drones right not. Bizarre really. Here's what I know so far in this regard. It hasn't happened. What has happened so far...two very well known and documented instances of collisions involving....you guessed it, "traditional" fixed wing aircraft... with scale aircraft. One that went into a blimp, and one that went into a full bi-plane at an airshow. Where was your concern then? After the collision at the airshow were you asking about what the AMA was going to do?

That you would hold the AMA to some FAA or NTSB level of responsibility for research is laughable.

Fixed wing RC aircraft collisions: 2
MR/QUAD collisions: 0.0
Drone near misses: countless unsubstantiated reports, the last one resulting in blame being placed on a plastic trash bag. Close, but no match!

Again, do we really need research to show a MR will cause damage to a jet engine? This is high in the "duh" factor. Very few people (reasonable) would disagree damage would be caused. If a soft tissue bird can wreak havoc, so can a MR with an 8 cell battery. Seriously, what's point?

More interesting or relevant studies would calculate the actual risk...or possibility of this happening. Curious why we don't see that sort of analysis or calculation. Then put those numbers up against other similar risk. Bird strikes, mechanical failure, pilot errors.

Now, lets take those risk/stats, and tell me that the AMA should be concerned about that as well?

init4fun

Not throwing fuel on the fire so as to stay on the right side of the rules

init4fun

Oh , and , before you go accusing me of being some kind of "drone racist" I'll come right out and say that yes indeed I do believe an 8 pound fixed wing would do pretty much the same damage an 8 pound drone would .

rcmiket

A 8 pound anything being ingested by a fan would be a issue. This study just happens to be about drones being ingested and a very real possibility. It upsets what's his name because this thread does not sing the praises of them.

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Guess the joke went over your head...there's no outrage, just humor. ..outrage was what happened a couple of months ago with rants and raves and then days spent editing comments. That was outrage. I merely pointed out all the other non "ama" related threads that haven't been moved, some for years, and they won't be, if for no other reason than the obvious. Location is really irrelevant, conversation still goes on right?

I don't think I've ever accused you of anything or called you a name, not my style, that's someone else's choice of discussion and debate (idiot, hyporcrite, etc etc). Always resorts to name-calling when the fact checking and anti-spin stuff fails.

We are in agreement that damage would be caused by drone,MR,fixed wing and for that matter pretty much anything that would be injested into an engine, or probably even just hitting the nosecone or windshield of a plane. To say otherwise would appear to defy logic.

My issue again, what is the probability of this? I'd have to guess that the result of any type of this testing would result in the same findings right? Damage would happen. With all of the current known and previously recognized risks, how many impacts occurred over the past 50 years? Now lets factor in RC aircraft of all types. 80 years of RC aircraft flying and the only two instances I can think of are the ones I noted. A blimp, and fixed wing crash. 80 years, two instances. There are more RC aircraft now and I suspect will continue to grow, although I can't say with certainty it will all be MR/Drones. Perhaps the potential for impacts will grow, but I still hold that it's no different than any other risk. And to bring it back to the OP, is this something that we expect the AMA to really get involved with? Are they staffed and capable for this? I They represent hobbyists, they aren't the NTSB.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Absolutely agree.

init4fun

Yep , and God forbid if it ever does happen what do you want to bet that it'll be a hobby flight being flown BLOS , and that the act of being BLOS will be the defining criteria for the incident rather than if it was a fixed wing BLOS or a multicopter BLOS ? One thing is for sure , I'll bet it wont be someone whose properly flying AMA #550 FPV , be that fixed wing or multicopter either . That's the part that at least one guy out here seems to be missing when he tries to lump me in with those he terms "anti drone" , I have nothing against LOS hobby flying and if the AMA #550 FPV rules ARE being properly followed then the spotter always does have LOS contact with the aircraft , this form of "safe FPV" being effective for both fixed and rotor wing RC aircraft . At the club I belong to there are a few guys who do the FPV thing and they do it right , with each having their own dedicated spotter and if it's a multi they tend to hover and fly around in the heli area and if it's fixed wing FPV they fly around with all the rest of the fixed wing . What they don't do is fly beyond their spotter's sight and just by the simple act of someone always having actual eyes on the prize not one problem has happened despite the variety of different RC craft in the mix at any given time .

It's not what's carrying the camera that will make the difference , it's the fact of the camera being out of it's operator's sight that's gonna cause the problem .

init4fun

My post above answers all but the probability question .

I do believe as the incidence of hobby BLOS rises so too does the risk of a collision with an approaching aircraft that the BLOS RC pilot can't see coming . Sure for the past 80 years only twice have incidents happened , but in the past ten years where the incidence of hobby BLOS has risen to the degree you now see it displayed on U tube and such , can you honestly deny that the risk is rising equally to the rising numbers of these BLOS flights ? For all those 70 years there were actual human eyes on the RC aircraft and still two collisions happened , how many collisions do you think would happen if it was 70 years of unrestricted BLOS being flown ? My guess might be more than two , maybe less than 10 ?

Oh , and , when have I called you anything like idiot as you posted ? I don't believe I've personally attacked you like that in any of these recent exchanges and if you show me a post where I have called you an idiot I'll be happy to edit it . Like I said earlier , none of this is exactly Nobel Prize winning stuff and it don't bother me to delete anything that don't look right like I deleted the above post that you quoted anyway . After I post something , if I don't think it looks in print how I wanted it to sound if I was saying it in person , I delete it . I'm not so high on my own words that each message has to live on forever , so for real , you show me where I called you an idiot and I'll get rid of it , but I don't think your gonna find me having used that word in reference to you ....

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I see what you did there!

It's NOT OK for someone to say that it is inevitable that a drone and a full-scale plane will collide (you call it ghoulish, doom and gloom, and say that you believe there are people here that actually WANT it to happen)

But it IS OK for you to say that when it DOES happen, someone will try to litigate against the hobby shop and salespeople and it won't be pretty? LOL

Astro

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

He's talking about me. I think I have called him an idiot....once (I won't edit that post, it was many moons ago).

I called him a hypocrite yesterday when I pointed out yet another of his hypocrisies. He is quite sensitive for one who throws more jabs than anyone else on these boards.

Question: if one commits murder, is it appropriate to call him a murderer?

hyp·o·crite
ˈhipəˌkrit/
noun
noun: hypocrite; plural noun: hypocrites

• a person who indulges in hypocrisy.
  
  
  
  

Has the PC movement come so far that we cannot call someone a hypocrite if they are one, just because it is a negative term?

Astro

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

It wouldn't take much to convince me that a "drone" or whatever ingested into an engine could cause a failure.

It would take a lot to convince me that such a remote possibility poses any more of a hazard than any other form of FOD and that even if that were to happen it would bring down a plane

My personal 2 cents based on a lot of flight time/aircraft maintenance.

franklin_m

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.

franklin_m

Yeah, I forgot all those FOD walkdowns where we found loose 8lb+ objects on the flight line, runway, or flight deck.

You're right. A large MR / model aircraft, weighing tens of pounds and full of brushless motors, LiPo batteries, digital servos, and similar large solid items "pose any more of a hazard" than does a screw, coin, or small piece of safety wire that are often found on FOD walkdowns.

init4fun

Andy I will give your point this , In the very hopefully unlikely event of a drone going into an engine the highest probability would be of that engine being destroyed but the rest of the plane would hopefully be able to maneuver and land with it's remaining engine(s) (presuming we are talking jetliner here) . It's not like a jetliner is likely to encounter a flock of drones the way sully did geese so engine wise sure , I do believe large aircraft would be pretty immune to that situation .

But now that leaves one to wonder , 8 pounds is a lot to be hitting a windshield with when it's 8 pounds of dense metal/plastic rather than an 8 pound goose , that's much squishier and more likely to have it's mass instantly dispersed on impact rather than the denser metal/plastic object that wouldn't "splat" like the goose would .

I think it's best that all UAS stay the Heck outta the way and we never have to go beyond talking about it in the abstract here !

rgburrill

Won't be too long if I recall correctly. I believe I read that the FAA was planning on testing this issue.

franklin_m

I think the VT work mentioned in the article is part of that FAA work on it. I think FAA threw some grant money out there for engineering programs to study various aspects of the sUAS problem.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

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?