Wouldn't it depend on the size and type of bird as to the damage? If you hit a sparrow, crow, or eagle, would not the amount of damage increase in intensity?

It makes a huge difference. Sparrows bounce off sometimes leaving blood and feathers and only occasionally leaving a dent but they don't weigh 2 oz. A duck, on the other hand can weigh as much as 3 pounds and not only put a nice hole in a leading edge but could damage the spar as well or pretty much remove a windshield. Something like a buzzard or goose is downright deadly at 5-6 pounds. The great thing about birds is they usually see you coming and try to evade. How many model aircraft, especially those with camera equipment, weight less than 3 pounds? I witnessed a model warbird hit an 8 inch irrigation pipe in Calusa, CA twenty years ago. I don't recall if it was a .40 or .60 sized craft but it put a heck of a hole in the pipe. That model would have been flying around 120 mph when it hit (we had a radar gun we sometimes played with). Fortunately, I think the quads aren't likely to act as much like a missile as an airplane but they still have mass with solid components and anything with mass will do damage at flying speeds. If model and aircraft are traveling in opposite directions it would be easy to have a collision speed of well over 200 miles an hour (300 feet per second). If one does penetrate an aircraft and stays, what are the odds the battery pack may have been damaged and become a fire hazard?

ADDED: I used to know a guy that had taken a duck through the windshield of a Cessna 172. The aircraft would not hold altitude at full power.

Just out of curiosity,,,What do you think would have happened if that drone would have hit the C-130 in the cockpit? You are aware there are more aircraft out there than just the heavies aren't you? What if a 5-6 pound model collided with something not built as sturdy, like an RV-4 cruising at 190 mph? Not all jets have multiple engines either. What if one of these little drones gets into the rotor of a helicopter? What about someone tooling around in an ultralight? People have been killed because a model flew into them. It not just about the hazard to life. There is property damage as well and aircraft are generally very expensive to fix.

I do see the cheaper multi-rotors weigh up to 4 pounds. Many weight less than 2 pounds. The nicer camera platforms from DJI up to 6.5. Most of you will have more knowledge on what get flown where than me so which ones are most likely to be flown where manned aircraft are: the cheap light weight aircraft or the pricier heavy aircraft?

I often wonder about other things that float off into the air, like balloons, and kites.
When a thousand balloons are released do they automatically pop at 400 feet? It may be a slim possibility, but couldn't a balloon do damage to a jet engine or helicopter? Especially a mylar balloon.
Surely a kite could do damage. When I was a teen we let out kites on1000 foot fishing line and I remember one floated off.

I wouldn't think a kite would go far. The couple that got away from me when I was a kid didn't make a quarter mile. If a regular balloon goes through a jet engine it may or may not leave some evidence. If it leaves evidence it could cost many tens of thousands of dollars to repair but it is not likely to bring an aircraft down and could go unnoticed until the next scheduled inspection. I don't know if a mylar balloon would be strong enough to hang on the blades or just pass through. If it hangs on the blades then it could conceivably restrict the airflow enough to cause a loss of power or throw the engine out of balance. Out of balance at 30,000 rpm is a bad thing. The nice thing about today's jets is they are mostly fans so it isn't very common stuff actually goes through the engine core.

All of these scenarios are theoretically possible, and they could indeed be fatal. That is why I said that a fatality from a UAC collision is unlikely.

I didn't say fatalities would be common but it is a real possibility. Since there has been extensive damage and a few deaths caused by soft tissue impacts I think you are ignoring the new threat that hard objects bring into the equation.

When things are still unconfirmed I like to try to keep an eye on the evolving story. In keeping with that I am posting a new link to a story that claims an unconfirmed birdstrike on the the twin due to remains found on the aircraft.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news...-224805-1.html

I don't know what they are calling a "small, non-predatory bird" but, in 30 years of aircraft maintenance experience and 22 years piloting experience the following pictures show what I expect to see from sparrows, starlings, and killdeer. The small dent where the blue paint still looks okay was one of a flock of birds I flew through. The aircraft had evidence of 12 hits (blood and feathers) but this was the only one that showed damage. I have had many more birdstrikes but seldom know about it until I do a walk around the aircraft or wash it. I only felt or heard about half of them...maybe not that many. The internet is full of birdstrike pictures where real damage was inflicted. The boot on the leading edge of the twin would act like the bed liner in a pick-up truck and would have helped protect the aircraft.

Justice was served.................................. http://kfor.com/2015/09/12/drone-sho...fe-fundraiser/

Were the PITA protesters more upset about the group shooting at pigeons or the drone?

Was he using goose or quail shot?

That is PETA not PITA, stands for:
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

Bradpaul is correct.
Pain
In
The
butt

Ha,,,they can be one in the same I guess. They already have video from prior fundraisers where they sent actual "donors" in to film it undercover, not sure why they needed to use a drone to get more footage. Can't believe they didn't expect it to get shot at, like...duh!

Oh okay, I didn't look at it that way!!! Hey that don't spell PITA or PETA, spells PITB, sound one makes when they spit!!!

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/imag...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by warningshot http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/imag...post-right.png
Bradpaul is correct.
Pain
In
The
butt

Duncman: I'm sure warningshot used PIT(B) in lieu of PIT(A) because if U say anything like "ASS" U are subject to a stern reprimand at best or expulsion from RCU or both.
Like always it's JMHO

Did not see anything about this on NEWSOK. Wish I had. There have been several articles on SHARK complaining about the pigeon shoot and ther complaints getting nowhere but I hadn't seen this one.

They were on private property. That drone was trespassing and videoing a private gathering. BOOM! And if those clowns came onto that private property to get their trespassing drone back arrest their adzes.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/gov/doc...09-11-2015.pdf

I just received the AMA email that contained this press release and I am glad to see the AMA being proactive and I think the press release has some factual and long overdue info.

Yea, I kind of figured, just gave me an opportunity to wise off, I always appreciate that.

Well, it's happened again, numerous times according to the article but now, there will be action.Interested on what the final decision will be???http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faa-prop...drone-flights/

Hope its a big fine. They were pretty bold about what they were doing. Will be interesting too see if other similar places modify their marketing strategies as well as their websites. I'm seeing more crop up advertising on Craigslist, probably don't think they will ever be in trouble.

Haha...ironically there is an ad for aerial drone photography in this thread via my phone wich doesn't have adblock

Last I heard the fine was 1.9 Million??? Not a very stiff penalty in my opinion, considering the aircraft and lives they put in danger.

That's very disturbing, especially the video.
The unfriendly skies.