1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Drones – an 'accident waiting to happen'

Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by CSBC, Sep 9, 2014.

  1. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Nick,

    As he is determined not even to consider anything else but his own viewpoint, it is no surprise that he can't understand what he won't consider.


  2. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Last time I looked a commercial airliner is capable of flying well below the ceiling of the machine in your image, they have to to take-off and land. "Take out" was probably not the best term to use, but ingesting a toy would cause an engine shut down which is what I meant.

    I think you might like to read the guidance material for FAR 33-76 http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli....cfm/go/document.information/documentID/99690
    There is a significant difference between an 8lb bird and a toy plane, the plane will have metal parts, batteries, electronics etc which, unlike the bird, will not be readily and rapidly degraded in the combustion chambers of a jet engine. Metallic or electronic debris could block the dilution air holes and result in damage to the combustion liner and possibly the burners, need I go on?

    For what it is worth a couple of pounds weigh of bar code scanner does considerable damage to a jet engine!
  3. mark_jacobs

    mark_jacobs Retired

  4. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

  5. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Probably not the right place to ask but if we are licenced to hold a shotgun licence that allows us to shoot flying saucers and tame pheasants then are we allowed to shoot down an idiot flown drone.
    Also if the shot down drone causes injury, then who is liable for damages, the idiot pilot or idiot shooter.
  6. neilt3

    neilt3 Well-Known Member

    As long as you can convince the Judge you thought it was a pheasant , you should be O.K .
  7. mark_jacobs

    mark_jacobs Retired

  8. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

  9. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    that was precisely Mark's point!
  10. Seahorse

    Seahorse Well-Known Member

  11. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Since Wikipedia is so often consulted and can be edited by its users it might be a good idea for a member of the AP staff to keep the AP entry up to date.
  12. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    On the ingestion of foreign bodies by aircraft engines I seem to remember that on a visit to a Rolls test facility near Nottingham we were told about how real dead chickens were used in some tests. The blades were less damaged by thawed chickens than frozen chickens. I suspect that the story goes back many years and testing will be a bit more scientific now. Never the less I suspect that a Go Pro camera and drone will do rather more damage than an Iceland Frozen Chicken.
  13. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    I understated. Apparently Coptograph exhibited a drone carrying a D750 at Photokina. Now that would do some damage.
  14. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    I believe it still happens. Before she changed career and became a teacher my eldest daughter had a job that included firing (thawed) chickens at aircraft engines to confirm they could stand the strain, if anybody thinks it necessary I will ask her for her opinion of the amount of damage a even a small camera could do.
  15. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

  16. mikeh201355

    mikeh201355 Well-Known Member

    A few years ago my mate worked testing airframes in the same way. But one time they left the bird in the air canon to finish defrosting while they went for lunch. On returning the fired the canon and found 2 lost of damage in the aircraft - it appeared that while they were at lunch the local cat fancied the smell of the chicken....

Share This Page