Drone Pilot Arrested For Flying Over Wildfire In California

DrLobotomy said:

The prop wash off of a helicopter would toss that drone around like it was a piece of toilet paper.

Click to expand...

I got news for you...

virtualheretic said:

Why did the emergency services have to turn around and return?
I would think emergency operations like that take precedence over... well... everything!
Disregard the silly drone and go about your business.

Its like an ambulance having to turn around because an RC car is in the way on the road. Run that bish over!
Silly laws....

Click to expand...

The funny thing is, ground vehicles always have to comply with tire punctures, long periods of people neglecting them, and the ability to keep the occupants intact in crashes because of nice agencies like the DOT.

A plane is only designed to fly for long periods of time, doing it fast and efficiently (this is the light and fragile part) and to be stable in the air. Not so much to protect the meatbags inside from impacts, that's the pilot in command's job. The only thing going for safety in the damn things is seat belts, ejection seats for the .gov (not so much fire fighting and S&R) and redundancy, for smaller vehicles they can possibly luck out with a ballistic recovery chute, but even then the airframe gets scrapped. About the only thing done for safety's sake is making sure turbofan blades don't exit the engine cowling and enter the fuselage, wing flexing standards, and vertical shock absorbing on the part of the belly of the air craft to protect against stalls in landing and take off, landing gear up emergencies, and few other events specifically relating to helicopters. The other big safety factor is making sure the aircraft when fully loaded can have it's breaks not catch fire to the wheels and burn the people evacuating in aborted takeoffs. The whole horizontal and vertical combined trajectories part is just not doable. Ballistics are a bitch, and they are not your bitch.

They're aluminum cans, not 2 ton ground vehicles.

Ducman69 said:

I also question, how big was the drone? Most hobby drones are plastic and extremely light weight, and I have a hard time believing would cause a problem for say a giant water tanker flying by.

Even off the windshield, if it really was a tiny little hobby drone, it would just bounce off this beast.

A Phatom 3 weighs around the same as an owl.

So stupid and worth a fine for the RC pilot, but potentially an overreaction by the fire crew. Meanwhile, BLM protesters were blocking an active ambulance with lights on again, and no one is arrested.

Click to expand...

Let's see..
Avifauna: creatures with hollow bones for weight saving. Not much in the way of structural integrity, and can other wise be regarded as soft meatbags turned water balloons, etc.
UAVs: Has metal components in the motors, controllers, and sometimes even carbon fiber blades.

Tensile strength by far favors the drones.
Let's review birds.
You now that thing that generates lifts and stores fuel, and sometimes landing gear? Yeah:

Maybe canopies and windscreens do better...

Slow enough aircraft.
Lets do slower

Maybe tougher

^Note the color scheme?

^Definitely not in the fragile spectrum. Bonus points for a critical control surface.

^Who can forget?


Now for the fun facts:
60% of birdstrikes happen during landing (flaps down, gear down, slow as it can go without fireworks)
37% Occur during takeoff and climb.
The remaining percentage are during regular flight. Source provided.

So most of those pictures are from the aircraft going as slow as they can.

Why more during landings you ask? When a bird sees oncoming objects they spread their wings up vertically and keep them there so they bleed altitude. This gives the advantage to climbing maneuvers since it puts the plane's trajectory above their bird brained maneuver. Landing just keeps the flight paths aligned. The proper evasive maneuver for the pilot is to climb and if flight envelopes permit it, possibly bank or yaw too. Since humans are programed to turn to avoid obstacles, most pilots bank, or yaw by reflex.

Drone pilots with no proper training don't do shit to help avoid strikes on the other hand. Stay the fuck out of emergency areas. It is a big fucking deal. Leave the flying to people with logbooks for the ever fucking love of gawd!



so to tl'dr this entire thread:
FUCK BLM (both of them)
FUCK BIRDS
FUCK RETARDED DRONE PILOTS!~*mic drop


Also fuck game developers that allow helicopters to be used as smashing or slicing weapons in online modes. Especially fuck the tards that do it.

krotch said:

Yep. Like small bullets versus humans. The difference in scale is incredible. Shouldn't cause any damage.

Click to expand...

Well, everyone on the internet is luckily an expert, and we've seen one example in which a turbojet engine ingested an entire flock of birds, to various examples of planes likely traveling near their max velocity upon impact with a rather large bird, and equating size differences taking no account of energy in bullets.

So lets look at physics.

Grab a bullet, and now throw it at me as hard as you can. Unless you poke me in the eye, its just going to bounce off of me, right?

But.. but.. but how is this possible?

Am I a God?

Have I traveled across the universe and gain power from Earth's sun, with my only vulnerability being kryptonite?

Or do we have to look into ENERGY.

The drone is likely to be stationary, right?

How fast is a helicopter likely traveling when its carrying a heavy water load to drop on target? Most of its thrust is just going to be keeping it airborne, so its going to be traveling pretty slow, right?

How fast is the behemoth prop plane traveling with full flaps extended on a water drop on target? Not all that much higher than its stall speed, right?

So a lightweight stationary object being hit at low velocity is going to have relatively little ENERGY on impact if its small, right?

So continue to be amazed as you throw bullet after bullet at me, and they bounce off my chest, or realize that bullets do damage because they travel at 900 miles per hour.

So you can feel extra smart showing real world examples of catastrophic bird collisions, or you can look at the specific scenario we are talking about to calculate the risk. Bird strike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number of major accidents involving civil aircraft is quite low and it has been estimated that there is only about 1 accident resulting in human death in one billion (109) flying hours.[4] The majority of bird strikes (65%) cause little damage to the aircraft;[5] however the collision is usually fatal to the bird(s) involved.

Most accidents occur when there is a collision involving a bird (or birds) and the windscreen or a bird (or birds) is sucked into the engines of mechanical aircraft.

The force of the impact on an aircraft depends on the weight of the animal and the speed difference and direction at the impact. The energy of the impact increases with the square of the speed difference. Hence a low-speed impact of a small bird on a car windshield causes relatively little damage.

High speed impacts, as with jet aircraft, can cause considerable damage and even catastrophic failureto the vehicle. The energy of a 5 kg (11 lb) bird moving at a relative velocity of 275 km/h (171 mph) approximately equals the energy of a 100 kg (220 lb) weight dropped from a height of 15 metres (49 ft).[9] However, according to the FAA only 15% of strikes (ICAO 11%) actually result in damage to the aircraft.

Modern jet aircraft structures must be able to withstand one 1.8 kg (4 lb) collision; the empennage (tail) must withstand one 3.6 kg (8 lb) bird collision. Cockpit windows on jet aircraft must be able to withstand one 1.8 kg (4 lb) bird collision without yielding or spalling.

Click to expand...

Cliffs Notes:
1) Can relatively small birds or small hobby drones cause damage to an aircraft? Yes.
2) Does the total speed of impact between the above objects have to be very high to impart enough energy to cause severe damage? Yes.
3) Is a small lightweight stationary hobby drone coming into contact with a very slow flying firefighting prop plane or helicopter likely to do significant damage? No.

Physics matters.

Abby Normal said:

I got news for you...

The funny thing is, ground vehicles always have to comply with tire punctures, long periods of people neglecting them, and the ability to keep the occupants intact in crashes because of nice agencies like the DOT.

A plane is only designed to fly for long periods of time, doing it fast and efficiently (this is the light and fragile part) and to be stable in the air. Not so much to protect the meatbags inside from impacts, that's the pilot in command's job. The only thing going for safety in the damn things is seat belts, ejection seats for the .gov (not so much fire fighting and S&R) and redundancy, for smaller vehicles they can possibly luck out with a ballistic recovery chute, but even then the airframe gets scrapped. About the only thing done for safety's sake is making sure turbofan blades don't exit the engine cowling and enter the fuselage, wing flexing standards, and vertical shock absorbing on the part of the belly of the air craft to protect against stalls in landing and take off, landing gear up emergencies, and few other events specifically relating to helicopters. The other big safety factor is making sure the aircraft when fully loaded can have it's breaks not catch fire to the wheels and burn the people evacuating in aborted takeoffs. The whole horizontal and vertical combined trajectories part is just not doable. Ballistics are a bitch, and they are not your bitch.

They're aluminum cans, not 2 ton ground vehicles.

Let's see..
Avifauna: creatures with hollow bones for weight saving. Not much in the way of structural integrity, and can other wise be regarded as soft meatbags turned water balloons, etc.
UAVs: Has metal components in the motors, controllers, and sometimes even carbon fiber blades.

Tensile strength by far favors the drones.
Let's review birds.
You now that thing that generates lifts and stores fuel, and sometimes landing gear? Yeah:

Maybe canopies and windscreens do better...

Slow enough aircraft.
Lets do slower

Maybe tougher

^Note the color scheme?

^Definitely not in the fragile spectrum. Bonus points for a critical control surface.

^Who can forget?


Now for the fun facts:
60% of birdstrikes happen during landing (flaps down, gear down, slow as it can go without fireworks)
37% Occur during takeoff and climb.
The remaining percentage are during regular flight. Source provided.

So most of those pictures are from the aircraft going as slow as they can.

Why more during landings you ask? When a bird sees oncoming objects they spread their wings up vertically and keep them there so they bleed altitude. This gives the advantage to climbing maneuvers since it puts the plane's trajectory above their bird brained maneuver. Landing just keeps the flight paths aligned. The proper evasive maneuver for the pilot is to climb and if flight envelopes permit it, possibly bank or yaw too. Since humans are programed to turn to avoid obstacles, most pilots bank, or yaw by reflex.

Drone pilots with no proper training don't do shit to help avoid strikes on the other hand. Stay the fuck out of emergency areas. It is a big fucking deal. Leave the flying to people with logbooks for the ever fucking love of gawd!



so to tl'dr this entire thread:
FUCK BLM (both of them)
FUCK BIRDS
FUCK RETARDED DRONE PILOTS!~*mic drop


Also fuck game developers that allow helicopters to be used as smashing or slicing weapons in online modes. Especially fuck the tards that do it.

Click to expand...

All that and no drone pics?? I'm gonna go ahead and ship this back to the manufacturer and wait for the right part.

as I have a drone registered with the FAA, all UAS operators received an email last month specifically stating this:

KEEP YOUR DRONE AWAY FROM WILDFIRES

There are lots of great places to fly your drones, but over or near a wildfire isn’t one of them. In fact, drone operators who interfere with wildfire suppression efforts are subject to civil penalties of up to $27,500 and possible criminal prosecution.

Here’s why it’s important: Aerial firefighting aircraft, such as airtankers and helicopters, fly at very low altitudes, just a couple hundred feet above the ground and in the same airspace as hobby and recreational drones. This creates the potential for a mid-air collision that could seriously injure or kill wildland firefighters in the air or on the ground.

As a result of unlawful drone operations near fires this year, fire managers have temporarily grounded all aerial firefighting aircraft on several occasions for safety reasons. Shutting down firefighting operations could cause wildfires to become larger and can threaten lives, property, and valuable natural and cultural resources.

The bottom line is “If You Fly, We Can’t."

Please fly responsibly – keep your drone away from wildfires

Click to expand...

that was sent to every UAS pilot registered with the FAA (requirement for drones over 0.5lb) on June 29th. Guess we have this guy to thank.

krotch said:

I personally never understand these type of arguments. Not yours, but the "I do this, so I must be an expert in this." Like me saying, " I'm a race car driver, I know exactly how the F1 car is built." Ya, like any of those drivers have a clue how the thing was built. I'd like to see a pilot fix a plane. I bet it's an extremely low percentage of them can actually maintain a plane.

I agree with you though and am kind of wondering about this flight background.

Click to expand...

Do you really think that out of dozens of drivers non of them have ever learned how the cars that they drive are put together? I can't imagine. How is a driver going to communicate handling issues and such in an effective way, to work with the mechanics getting the cars set up for the tracks without understanding the underpinning mechanics involved? I think you picked the wrong example and although in some cases your statement may apply, I don't think it measures up at all as a broad concept. There are just too many people that really do involve themselves in the mechanics of things. Like there are no pilots who work on their own personal aircraft.

Olle P said:

Is it only me that react on the man's name? Mr Water (in German)
He should be able to help controlling the fire rather than documenting it...

That's something rarely seen in Russia.

Problem: Debris on the runway can damage the motor(s) if sucked in.
NATO solution: Make sure the runway is free from debris. Takes a lot of manual labour!
Russian solution: Design the (military) planes so that they don't suck air from the ground. (Air intakes on top of the aircraft for use during take off and landing.)

Click to expand...

I'm not the engineer. I am sure there are plus and minuses for both cases. For instance there may be much higher air pressure underneath the aircraft during flight which could make it worthwhile to place the intakes there. But I really can't go far along this line of reasoning as I said, I am not an aircraft engineer. But I don't need to be an engineer to understand that FOD is an issue, even if it's only in the US, and that when we are talking about both fixed wing and rotary aircraft in flight, an object like a drone could cause a problem..

That_Sound_Guy said:

One side of me says - Overreaction on government behalf to try and trigger public support for drone/copter/uav registration and monitoring. You know they want this to happen.

The other side, any possible impact to a plane or helo needs to be taken seriously. Yes drones are tiny in relation to those huge vehicles but they require very little damage in specific places to have severe impact. Any drone pilot should know that in a fire area with planes dive bombing with water should not be there.

Click to expand...

Both of these.

nysmo said:

pretty sure the industry knows something you dont

Click to expand...

Laws in this context (emergency situation) should be common sense and not force pilots to be ground if there's reasonable and confident assurances the drone is far enough way and not causing clear and present danger.
Aircraft should be allowed to run jammers, to avoid the problem entirely.

I'm not advocating for the drone pilot, but what if he were looking for anyone trapped in the area just trying to help? Drones could be a great tool to do that, but should obviously only be operated by on-site crews or a co-pilot, who can guarantee it's not a danger to them.

Olle P said:

NATO solution: Make sure the runway is free from debris. Takes a lot of manual labour!
Russian solution: Design the (military) planes so that they don't suck air from the ground. (Air intakes on top of the aircraft for use during take off and landing.)

Click to expand...

Also this.
If objects are that much of a concern to aircraft, then the aircraft should be engineered in such a way that said objects pose minimal, if absolutely zero danger to aircraft.
Our military for example likes to over-engineering everything, do they do that with aircraft? Nope. They should.

I don't care about the costs, when you're up in the air and the only way is down, every single pre-caution should be taken to ensure safe flying.
Or make sure every single soul on board has a parachute!

Inacurate said:

Both of these.



Laws in this context (emergency situation) should be common sense and not force pilots to be ground if there's reasonable and confident assurances the drone is far enough way and not causing clear and present danger.
Aircraft should be allowed to run jammers, to avoid the problem entirely.

I'm not advocating for the drone pilot, but what if he were looking for anyone trapped in the area just trying to help? Drones could be a great tool to do that, but should obviously only be operated by on-site crews or a co-pilot, who can guarantee it's not a danger to them.



Also this.
If objects are that much of a concern to aircraft, then the aircraft should be engineered in such a way that said objects pose minimal, if absolutely zero danger to aircraft.
Our military for example likes to over-engineering everything, do they do that with aircraft? Nope. They should.

I don't care about the costs, when you're up in the air and the only way is down, every single pre-caution should be taken to ensure safe flying.
Or make sure every single soul on board has a parachute!

Click to expand...

You can't have aircraft flying around jamming things. Hell the Military can't operate their jammers live in training even at low power, FAA law applies to them as well.

And I sure wouldn't want to be the guy making the call that so and so drone isn't close enough to be a threat cause that drone can cover some distance and get in the way and those firefighters are too busy doing their jobs to play air-watch or devote manpower to watching the drone to make sure it doesn't get any closer.

And although the drones could be a great tool for looking for trapped people, the faster the firefighters get control of the fire the less likely the fire will trap more people. It is unwise to increase risks on a maybe, or differ a certainty for a maybe. It really is a cut and dry issue. The drones are an added risk that their emergency aircraft just do not need so they need to stay clear of fires. Operators need to know and respect that, and those that don't need to learn it or be taught if that's what it takes.

Ducman69 said:

Physics matters.

Click to expand...

I look forward to your acceptance speech when you win the nobel prize.

Physics matters.

Click to expand...

Yes they do. When they are not pulled from your ass.

Ducman69 said:

Well, everyone on the internet is luckily an expert, and we've seen one example in which a turbojet engine ingested an entire flock of birds, to various examples of planes likely traveling near their max velocity upon impact with a rather large bird, and equating size differences taking no account of energy in bullets.

So lets look at physics.

Grab a bullet, and now throw it at me as hard as you can. Unless you poke me in the eye, its just going to bounce off of me, right?

But.. but.. but how is this possible?

Am I a God?

Have I traveled across the universe and gain power from Earth's sun, with my only vulnerability being kryptonite?

Or do we have to look into ENERGY.

The drone is likely to be stationary, right?

How fast is a helicopter likely traveling when its carrying a heavy water load to drop on target? Most of its thrust is just going to be keeping it airborne, so its going to be traveling pretty slow, right?

How fast is the behemoth prop plane traveling with full flaps extended on a water drop on target? Not all that much higher than its stall speed, right?

So a lightweight stationary object being hit at low velocity is going to have relatively little ENERGY on impact if its small, right?

So continue to be amazed as you throw bullet after bullet at me, and they bounce off my chest, or realize that bullets do damage because they travel at 900 miles per hour.

Click to expand...

Ignoring the FAA's facts that bird strikes going near max velocities only happens in 3% of all bird strikes. Sure let us look at energy.
@ what velocity is your Bombardier 415 traveling when dumping water? Typically 110Knots (185.659Ft/s, 126.586MPH) Average major league pitcher? 91MPH (133.467F/ps)

Now back to your owl figure you loved to toss out. Your typical barn owl has a wing span of 44.3. Wing span of the Bombardier 415: 93 ft 11 in.
Why does this matter? A little thing in fucking physics called cross sectional density. First the projectile would have to be scaled to the target to make a matching scenario. Damn that physics. Stacking the barn owl side to side, you'd end up with 25 to come close to stretching them from wing tip to wingtip.

Needless to say that would be one huge fucking projectile to stack 25 of them across your torso.

But I'll play ball for now with a very small projectile to throw at you. Lets say a 750gr. A-max 50BMG (If 25 of those stretch across your torso, see a doctor now.)

Now back to playing ball. If one pissed off MLB hombre beans you in the head with one of them, you are looking at 57Ft.lbs. of energy. What else can have that energy? Subsonic 22.LR which has managed to kill about everything it "shouldn't have".
Needless to say that can be in concussion territory. Stupid hurts don't it?

But needless to say, even if that is on the week side in the grand scheme of things, what about what is really likely to be thrown at you. Let's say the Palestinians' favorite pastime of throwing rocks. Needless to say there are plenty in size that will stack 25 across a torso.

Are there any real world fatalities caused by that? You bet your ass. 113 injuries in 2013 in that particular hotzone alone alone, and too many injuries to count. Well injuries don't matter right, no piercing right? That phrase stoned to death means nothing right?

21 officers, 6 Troopers, and one spinal case in the realm of injuries in St Paul remember?

Back to the subject of foreign bodies colliding with planes. The damn things don't have to total the airframe. They only need to incapacitate the pilot to a great enough degree.

And again, this all from one owl remember? There are bigger birds in that area right? I mean the California Condor alone makes this get to be a messier argument in no time.

And going from your Wikipedia source~*snickers* we have these lovely numbers for energy "The energy of a 5 kg (11 lb) bird moving at a relative velocity of 275 km/h (171 mph) approximately equals the energy of a 100 kg (220 lb) weight dropped from a height of 15 metres (49 ft)." If you think that is anywhere near a small amount of energy, please do stand under a falling 220lb weight suspended from 49ft with your choice of standard available aircraft canopy between you and it.Upload it to youtube so we can watch your Darwin Award Nobel Prize winning effort.

"Well those were a bunch of numbers and won't pierce the mighty 415!" That isn't the point of bird strikes. Blunt impact is. Every single image is from crushing damage.


But guess what? The concern wasn't exclusive to any potential 415s in the area. What was a huge concern you may ask? Wait for it....




It was the big ass DC-10s dropping water that day.

^Always save the trump card for after the derp

Are we going to be retarded about the damage a drone in any 3 of those engines is going to do? Surely that thing was doing no more than highway speeds right?

How about keeping everyone from having to watch out for treetops + flocks of birds + retards with drones, to just watching birds and trees on fire? Does this really seem to difficult of a thing when people's livelihoods are burning? If you want fucking pictures or video, there is no shortage from helicopters with a known location at all times on the news networks and even youtube. Is this really to fucking hard to grasp?

No let's let people run wild with drones in emergency areas.

DrLobotomy said:

All that and no drone pics?? I'm gonna go ahead and ship this back to the manufacturer and wait for the right part.

Click to expand...

It couldn't be because due diligence of the spotting crew have prevented this from happening yet? NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW, that's just retarded. You win.

nysmo said:

I look forward to your acceptance speech when you win the nobel prize.

Click to expand...

BWAHAHA!

lcpiper said:

Do you really think that out of dozens of drivers non of them have ever learned how the cars that they drive are put together? I can't imagine. How is a driver going to communicate handling issues and such in an effective way, to work with the mechanics getting the cars set up for the tracks without understanding the underpinning mechanics involved? I think you picked the wrong example and although in some cases your statement may apply, I don't think it measures up at all as a broad concept. There are just too many people that really do involve themselves in the mechanics of things. Like there are no pilots who work on their own personal aircraft.

Click to expand...

Learning the concepts of how portions of the car functions, like suspension and stuff. Sure. Actually knowing the whole car. No. Hell, there's a reason a race car has a team of mechanics and engineers working on them and not just...a guy. You really expect any of the drivers to know the whole car? I didn't say anything about a portion of the car, I said car. As in...the whole thing.

Olle P said:

That's something rarely seen in Russia.

Problem: Debris on the runway can damage the motor(s) if sucked in.
NATO solution: Make sure the runway is free from debris. Takes a lot of manual labour!
Russian solution: Design the (military) planes so that they don't suck air from the ground. (Air intakes on top of the aircraft for use during take off and landing.)

Click to expand...

The air intakes for the older Mig-29 and the new Sukhoi PAK FA (video which shows air intakes) have their air intakes under the wing. Early rumors that the PAK FA would have intakes on top turned out to be false. There are reasons the air intakes get put on the bottom of combat aircraft. I don't know whether or not FOD walks are rare in Russia, but could they be rare because they have only one aircraft carrier?

Inacurate said:

If objects are that much of a concern to aircraft, then the aircraft should be engineered in such a way that said objects pose minimal, if absolutely zero danger to aircraft.
Our military for example likes to over-engineering everything, do they do that with aircraft? Nope. They should.

Click to expand...

If you have a proposal for a method of keeping objects from entering a jet engine that sucks 1.2 tons of air per second, the aircraft industry would be extremely interested. Good luck with that, and don't embarrass yourself by suggesting that a screen be placed over the air intake.

The armor that you imply aircraft should have is too heavy. You fail to understand how much armor would be required. Battleships do not fly.

Abby Normal said:

Yes they do. When they are not pulled from your ass.

Click to expand...

Its pulled from my ass because someone had a hissy fit over a hypothetical scenario I presented, in which a small drone impacting the example aircraft would not have caused damage, which is backed up and supported.

Abby Normal said:

Ignoring the FAA's facts that bird strikes going near max velocities only happens in 3% of all bird strikes.

Click to expand...

Yes, we should ignore that, because the overwhelming majority of bird strikes cause no damage to the aircraft, and only a handful of incidents were shown in the false claim that any bird strike is one that can take a plane down, which is a blatant lie.

Abby Normal said:

Sure let us look at energy. @ what velocity is your Bombardier 415 traveling when dumping water? Typically 110Knots (185.659Ft/s, 126.586MPH)

Click to expand...

Thank you, that was my point all along that energy matters, and 110 knots is quite slow.

Abby Normal said:

Your typical barn owl has a wing span of 44.3. Wing span of the Bombardier 415: 93 ft 11 in. Why does this matter? A little thing in fucking physics called cross sectional density. First the projectile would have to be scaled to the target to make a matching scenario. Damn that physics.

Click to expand...

You're embarrassing yourself. The relative sizes are completely irrelevant. If you don't understand why, this is going to be a very long conversation. The only relevance is how many pounds per square inch the bird would apply to the windscreen of the aircraft, and what the windscreen was designed to be able to absorb without damage. You also further make the mistake of confusing the fact that the bigger the object is, the less the impact will be, since it is dispersed over a wide area, so you're fighting your own argument with your ignorance. Luckily for you, the wingspan is also irrelevant since the wings carry virtually no mass, otherwise the bird wouldn't be able to flap them easily, so that goes in your favor if you weren't arguing against the most basic principles in physics. You are right though, stupid does hurt.

Abby Normal said:

And going from your Wikipedia source~*snickers* we have these lovely numbers for energy "The energy of a 5 kg (11 lb) bird moving at a relative velocity of 275 km/h (171 mph) approximately equals the energy of a 100 kg (220 lb) weight dropped from a height of 15 metres (49 ft)."

Click to expand...

I'm glad you can read. Did you also read the part that indicates that aircraft are designed to shrug off small bird strikes, especially at very lowly 110 knots, and that the majority of bird strikes do not cause damage to the aircraft? Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you just hoping you'll win some internet pissing match?

Abby Normal said:

It was the big ass DC-10s dropping water that day.

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the hissy fit over my original hypothetical comment, which again is factually supported?

Abby Normal said:

How about keeping everyone from having to watch out for treetops + flocks of birds + retards with drones, to just watching birds and trees on fire? Does this really seem to difficult of a thing when people's livelihoods are burning?

Click to expand...

If you can calm your tits for a moment, can you explain to the rest of us who you are arguing with? Which poster specifically argued that the drone pilot did nothing wrong, and that drones should be permitted around emergency response crews?

Abby Normal said:

It couldn't be because due diligence of the spotting crew have prevented this from happening yet? NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW, that's just retarded. You win. BWAHAHA!

Click to expand...

Not to spoil your fun, but you're having a childish dueling match with a straw man. The original statement is that in the hypothetical situation, the drone of unknown size at the low speeds the example craft would be traveling would be unlikely to damage the aircraft, even with an unlikely windscreen impact, since the energy involved would be small. Like the majority of bird strikes, it is unlikely that it would damage the aircraft, thus it would have been a potential overreaction to the level of danger presented.

Yay excessive multiqouting to try to pick apart selected sentences to build authority!

Ducman69 said:

Its pulled from my ass because someone had a hissy fit over a hypothetical scenario I presented, in which a small drone impacting the example aircraft would not have caused damage, which is backed up and supported.

Click to expand...

not it isn't Your only supporting citation specifically states "Modern jet aircraft structures must be able to withstand one 1.8 kg (4 lb) collision; the empennage (tail) must withstand one 3.6 kg (8 lb) bird collision. Cockpit windows on jet aircraft must be able to withstand one 1.8 kg (4 lb) bird collision without yielding or spalling."

Yes, we should ignore that, because the overwhelming majority of bird strikes cause no damage to the aircraft, and only a handful of incidents were shown in the false claim that any bird strike is one that can take a plane down, which is a blatant lie.

Click to expand...

Really? Sounds like pretty small damage, lost time, etc. right? Damage isn't just the physical damage on the plane, in this case it was more burned houses.

Where did anyone say that any bird strike can take down a plane? I'm not about to suggest a finch hit is worse than some insects.

Thank you, that was my point all along that energy matters, and 110 knots is quite slow.

Click to expand...

Be sure to tell that to the pilot in the youtube video. Obviously he was an overreacting drama queen in that slow ass PA-28 of his. Whose cruise speed is 108KTs by the way. And that piper cub in the black and white photo I posted, lets just say Texas has speed limits in the same ballpark as its cruise speed.

You also further make the mistake of confusing the fact that the bigger the object is, the less the impact will be, since it is dispersed over a wide area, so you're fighting your own argument with your ignorance.

Click to expand...

Uh, square cube law anybody? (a wikipedia article is fine for this since it is pretty hard to fuck up writing out the equation) Damn I guess they developed the GAU-8 for nothing. They could have just stuck with 50BMG since it would have done a better job. Did you completely miss me talk about about cross sectional density ballistics? My ignorance? Apparently so.

Which one of us made a big deal about energy in the first place?
Which one of us is having reading comprehension problems again?

What does that have to do with the hissy fit over my original hypothetical comment, which again is factually supported?

Click to expand...

So you are saying his drone getting sucked into those engines would not result in that aircraft returning to base? Did I not comment about those 3 engines it has, and the foreign object risk right below the damn image? That it was active in the area at the same time according to the linked article?
Maybe I've been put on the wrong drugs for all the wrong symptoms in life, but which one of us was having reading comprehension problems again. I've lost track by now.

As to infallible Wikipedia article you keep touting like the gospel, which amusingly enough has citation needed markers on the parts you keep preaching, did it ever mention the time those measure were implemented? Want me to help you out?

Remember that orange paint scheme picture I pointed out? Looky! it was a T-44 which was based on the King Air 90! How the hell is this important? Because the article commented specifically on the lack of bird strike standards at the time. So? That aircraft was made in the mid 19060s. Doubly SO? Guess what else was made at the same damn time? SO WHAT ALREADY? The damn DC-10 that was active in the area at the time of the drone retards triumphant flight, was also designed in the mid 1960s. Oh. Oh indeed. Back in the day they were more concerned with why cargo doors kept falling off the damn airliners causing rapid decompression.

If you can calm your tits for a moment, can you explain to the rest of us who you are arguing with? Which poster specifically argued that the drone pilot did nothing wrong, and that drones should be permitted around emergency response crews?

Click to expand...

Damn near the entire thread. Did you also fucking miss in my original post which had this post quoted? The post which is pretty much a "who cares" statement? It had 8 god damn likes. Then somebody went on to quote it and say "exactly" and get 3 more likes. How can I not launch into hyperbole at the derpfest taking place in this thread?

If you are not defending that then fine, it doesn't apply to you. If you want to that is a whole different subject.

Abby Normal said:

It couldn't be because due diligence of the spotting crew have prevented this from happening yet? NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW, that's just retarded. You win. BWAHAHA!

Click to expand...

Not to spoil your fun, but you're having a childish dueling match with a straw man. The original statement is that in the hypothetical situation, the drone of unknown size at the low speeds the example craft would be traveling would be unlikely to damage the aircraft, even with an unlikely windscreen impact, since the energy involved would be small. Like the majority of bird strikes, it is unlikely that it would damage the aircraft, thus it would have been a potential overreaction to the level of danger presented.

Click to expand...

Wow, you had to go out of your way to alter 2 different quotes from me into one, one of which was of another poster basically calling you an idiot. He was being far too gentle I fear.

I see how you didn't like that and had to erase it from your memory that 2 people disagree with you.

Your original example included the Predator 3. I gave a similar weight owl, since you specifically mentioned it weighs as much as an owl. Are we still following, because your hypothetical had both the damn owl and the magical 415 not taking any damage? Those are both rather fucking specific variables when you name one and post a picture of the other. Not as vague as you pretend it to be.

As to being an overreaction on part of the emergency services. We all know that with any mid air strike they just go on with their business, and don't bother to land the aircraft and do a serious mechanical inspection wasting the time of everyone. You know, like more time than waiting for the damn drone to leave then resuming the firefighting efforts. There was sarcasm in ther I figured I'd help you out with your reading comprehension.

Nobody cares about striking 8lb+ objects in the fucking air right? Unless it was a one gallon water balloon which is the same god damn weight. Remember in my first post how I talked about higher weight, higher tensile strength than hollow bones metals in the damn drone's engines and gimbal mount? Hell, even the damn plastic shell is harder than hollow bird bones. Fucking one gallon water balloon<fucking bird<fucking drones<fucking Gau-8.

For the past 3 decades we have been focusing on birds vs. planes in design practices, not bird vs. drone. Guess what? Aviation experts are scarred shitless about the prospect. Given the whole situation that started this thread. It's not amateur hour out there, they have experience from flying low over wooded forests, they know how costly it is for them with bird strikes, in both time and money, because they have smacked plenty I assure you.

Nobody is going to read all of that at this point, so if you want to win some anonymous internet argument via keyboard diarrhea, congrats. I concede.

Makaveli@BETA said:

LMAO social media letting people post to the world how stupid they are its great.

Click to expand...

Yea. We had a guy get busted for poaching because he posted pictures of him with his kills on facebook. Now he's facing 10 years.

Spidey329 said:

I'm surprised the FAA hasn't made a requirement for civilian drones to have a broadcast channel they have to listen for a special emergency signal on. Signal detected, drone auto RTB's and won't take-off again until it's no longer there.

They already have no-flyzone maps built in. Why not go the extra mile.

Click to expand...

Because you'd get assholes like me who would just find a way to broadcast the signal and troll the shit out of everyone...

evilsofa said:

I don't know whether or not FOD walks are rare in Russia, but could they be rare because they have only one aircraft carrier?

Click to expand...

It's got nothing to do with aircraft carriers.
Typically FOD walks must be done on every single runway in use for jet aircraft, including civilian airports all over the world. The frequency of the walks vary.
The only exception I got to know about (from a documentary on TV) is the Russian military. They don't want to have a runway shut down just because there's some debris. (Spreading a load of gravel onto a NATO runway will make it inoperable for several hours.)

Olle P said:

It's got nothing to do with aircraft carriers.
Typically FOD walks must be done on every single runway in use for jet aircraft, including civilian airports all over the world. The frequency of the walks vary.
The only exception I got to know about (from a documentary on TV) is the Russian military. They don't want to have a runway shut down just because there's some debris. (Spreading a load of gravel onto a NATO runway will make it inoperable for several hours.)

Click to expand...

Does the Russian military not use the MIg-29 on their runways?

Makaveli@BETA said:

This why didn't they just blast the drone out of the sky with water. Then leave him a note saying your need to takes pictures doesn't supersede us doing our job.

Signed the local fire department.

Click to expand...

I like this idea. Until it hits somebody in the head on the ground and the city gets sued.

rive22 said:

I like this idea. Until it hits somebody in the head on the ground and the city gets sued.

Click to expand...

that's fine they can sue the owner of the drone