Drones or Model Aircraft Do Not Pose Major Risk to NAS
 

http://mercatus.org/publication/do-c...fe-strike-data

Take a look at some of this data on bird stricks. This will open your eyes, if they are not already, about how little risk our models are to the NAS.

Our models/drones have never been the risk just some of the idiots flying them !!!!!!!!!!

Dennis

People on this forum think otherwise.

The data supports the micro UAS rule that is now part of the AIRR Act Bill. This is something that has been promoted by leaders among some drone (not model aircraft) interests that keep drones under 2 Kg out of most regulation. Not sure it is AMA business though; AFAIK AMA has not publicly commented on it, nor is it apparent if it would apply to traditional model aircraft.

Their data is missing at least 26 fatalities:

24 killed - http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-...41_1_air-force
2 killed - http://nypost.com/2012/05/18/bird-st...investigators/
There was an additional USAF helo lost in England, but I didn't list that because the "study" quoted only looked at US data, and even then not all of it

This National Geographic article indicates at least one aircraft a day lands prematurely due to bird strikes. It also costs airlines $700M a year. Hardly inconsequential.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...radar-science/

Lastly, I've seen the damage done to engine turbine blades by very small metal parts - pieces of safety wire, a ball bearing, coin, etc. I can only imagine how much damage would be caused by ingestion of a DJI phantom's four brushless motors, the boards, and that nice big LiPo.
Also not counted are any number of military bird strikes that put plane and pilot at grave risk, but because there is no fatality, they don't make the press.

To take Franklin's post even further, something else not mentioned is the amount of man-hours some facilities spent on FOD damage prevention. I know the military takes it to the extreme by having FOD walkdowns before flight operations start every day, the Navy sometimes between them on the same day as well. I've seen your standard Bic pen destroy one of the engines on an F-14 Tomcat that was pulled out of a maintenance person's shirt pocket during a test run by the suction caused by said engine. Even some 737s flying in Alaska have vortex prevention assemblies on the front of the engines to prevent debris from being sucked into them when flying into smaller airfields. Small pebbles have downed planes in less than a second just from idling on the ground. Those who think a quad being flown by someone that doesn't understand the rules isn't a risk are the ones that need to open their eyes.

You are pointing out the little things that don't matter, Including non-civil aircraft. The fear merchants are concerned about civilian aircraft with hundreds of passengers. Your argument is invalid.

Going by the data of the article, we should be more concerned about birds than sUAS. The likelihood of an aircraft colliding with our radio controlled toys is very low when compared to the multi-millions of large birds flying in our airspace unchecked and unregulated.

Really?

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...318-story.html

So,when does it start to matter? When a plane crashes because of a drone, it's too late. Franklin and I have told you how fragile turbine engines are based on first hand experience. I worked on the flight deck of the USS Kitty Hawk, saw planes lose engines due to sucking things through them a lot smaller than a drone. I've also seen planes with bird strike damage. Nose radomes smashed in, windshields smashed and cockpits covered with blood, some of it being from the flight crew in one case.
Birds are something we can't control as they fly as nature programmed them to. On the other hand, quads are flown by humans with the ability to reason, use common sense and really think for themselves. By someone taking a quad up into the landing pattern of an airport, it shows that they don't care about who they may hurt or, worse yet, kill as they get their jollies taking their videos of a plane loaded with people as it tries to land while also trying to avoid the quad that's up where it shouldn't be. Then again, I'm betting you don't work in aviation or know how a jetliner is set up. To suck a quad through an engine on one of the modern twinjets would cost that aircraft 50% of its electrical power and half of the hydraulic systems that control it. That means that the flight crew would now have to land that plane with only partially functional flight controls, no thrust reversers and only marginal brakes to stop it IF it it gets down in one piece. You want to try to land one under those conditions?

Facts and stats and you still fail to grasp the fact that our toys don't pose nearly as large of a risk as birds.

The argument isn't about how an aircraft will fair a collision, rather the odds of such an incident actually happening.

You may want to take a moment and actually read the article.

And what some fail to grasp is that risk of a natural event and risk of an event due to controllable human behavior are perceived differently by legislators, regulators, and the traveling public. They know and accept you can't drive the risk of bird strikes to zero, because birds are natural. But, it is possible to drive the risk of drone strikes to zero - and without a lot of difficulty.

While I don't think they'll ban them outright, I think the traveling public, regulators, and lawmakers are quite happy to limit them to 400 feet or below as a reasonable (in their minds) mitigation of risk.

The difference is, as I see it, that the birds don't know any better. The people taking the quads up into the airport patterns not only know better, they don't care. You can quote facts and stats all day, it still won't change the fact that both facts and stats can be manipulated to say whatever you want them to. Airports have procedures to chase the birds away, that is common knowledge. These procedures work and work well since not one engine has been been reported to be FODDED OUT by a bird in well over a decade at either of Seattle's two international airports. Too bad those same procedures don't work on quads being flown by idiots.

Good post.

Mike

Threads such as this is a perfect example of why our hobby will cease to exist. People want to defend themselves and their ideas beyond reasonable limits even in the face of overwhelming contradiction. All our toys pose a risk if used irresponsibly that is a fact. All our toys take a back seat to the safety of people in full scale aircraft, without question.
The real issue has evolved from the technology to allow people to fly outside of line of sight. If it were not for the ability to fly via a camera from a position unknown to others this would not be an issue. Everyone can argue why, who, and how come to death but the reality is this new bill will kill r/c modelling. It is not the 400' but rather the requirement of the mfg's to produce the safety data in and of their designed product.
This bill will effectively shut us down, but just like gun control, those that don't abide by the law will continue to break the law. In the meantime us law abiding citizens will be admiring our aircraft sitting in storage until they are no more.

Robert, between us, with our last two posts I think we just defined the problem we, Congress and the FAA have to deal with. It's too bad that so many people have decided that the rules don't apply to them and that they can do what they want or don't even check to see if there are rules to begin with. It's very similar to people on the high performance motorcycles. They think the traffic laws only apply to those that drive cars and trucks and, therefore, they can weave through traffic at high speeds until the law catches them or they get crippled/killed when their luck runs out

It's also too bad that the AMA cannot effectively portray the differences of "traditional model aviation" and "drones" (autonomous, BLOS, FPV, etc) to the legislators.

It is pretty simple to see the differences and to look at the historical data that traditional modeling activities pose little to no risk to those that fly full-scale in the NAS.

Regards,

Astro

Astro, it is my belief that the AMA does not wish to separate traditional modeling (of which I believe is line of sight) from any other type. The AMA has grown in to a self absorbed, self interest is best, political type of entity. I believe they feel that for them to stay a viable entity they must grab hold of the new even if at the cost of the old. I am quite sure they are aware 99% of anyone outside of LOS is not an AMA member and for them to maintain any power or authority they must embrace the new.
What blows my mind is it would be very easy to separate traditional modeling by mandating membership in a CBO, and flying (only) by LOS. But unfortunately the powers, or voices, that be need our space to operate their drones in a timely manner. Companies such as Amazon, UPS, FedEx, and many others could viably save a small fortune on vehicle and manpower cost with the use of autonomous delivery. But I also believe with designated LOS flying sites their drones could avoid our areas very easily. But why bother with us few mere citizens when some smart lobbying can eliminate us easily.

Yes, really.

Yeah, really!! ZERO evidence of the supposed fly-over, other than the pilot's claim. How did he even see a "drone" over his head when he should be looking for the ground to land?

I want to see, just ONE TIME, photo evidence of such a claim.

JUST ONCE!

(1) Pilots of commercial airliners are generally deemed as credible by public, regulators, legislators, and the media. We may not like that, and there are exceptions, but we need to accept that if they report - it's going to be believed.

(2) In every two-pilot airplane I flew, the pilot NOT at the controls was looking outside monitoring for traffic....like a drone!

We don't have to accept it all, one is way too many.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...f-drunk-pilots

And your point being what exactly?

The fact that the "airline employees detected booze on him" and reported him? Or that others were seen and "reported to the authorities by security workers?" Or perhaps the three that served jail sentences after being reported?

The culture of professional aviation is to do the right thing and report such instances. Contrast that with one community asking its members not to post videos of crashes.

So you're saying that every pilot that reports seeing a "drone" needs to be given a breathalyzer test before they can be believed? I'm sorry but I can't agree with that. The fact that a couple of recreational pilots crashed due to being intoxicated and stupid or flight crewman being removed/arrested from an aircraft due to the "smell of alcohol" doesn't mean all aircrews can't be trusted. It means that the aircrewmen talked about in the article you posted the link to showed a lapse in judgement. I'm sure you haven't gone out and had a drink or two with a meal and driven afterwards in your life or done something else you were ashamed of later to be able to say you're without sin in this regard

And for those that think we need to have evidence that someone was being stupid here's two links from another thread and one I found:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/alar...-high-29768087
http://abc30.com/news/fresno-county-...drone/1186050/
http://komonews.com/archive/drone-cr...eel-11-16-2015

..