Breaking News: DJI Demands Withdrawal of Drone Crash Video,,,,I know this story was shown early but breaking news Alert just came in saying they want this withdrawn
Ummmmmmm wonder what goes on
Ummmmmmm wonder what goes on
Seems simple enough... by depicting what is clearly a DJI product, DJI is seeing it as damaging their brand. I've mentioned in the thread about this test, it is questionable as to the real issue with a Phantom hitting a plane wing. DJI would argue stated and implied issues that are not supported by the "research".
Regardless, DJI has simply sent a letter. A request does not need to be correct or supported.
Regardless, DJI has simply sent a letter. A request does not need to be correct or supported.
Well that’s just dandy, how likely is it that CNN, who carried the story, will retract the story?
A little more then a depiction.... Do you doubt it is a DJI drone? Or that the video might not be the product of an actual controlled test with a real aircraft wing? There can’t be much to argue I wouldn’t think.
Lots of legal intangibles in this one. Hypothetical, simulation, industry leader, logo display, editorial, research, non-commercial …..
DJI's original original letter and defense was full of gaping holes. Funny how the statement from yesterday begins to change and adapt the narrative.
Meanwhile, UDRI never specified which model of M20 that wing came from, but DJI has apparenty chosen to speak of one of the slower, older ones while current Mooney M20s are plenty capable of those speeds and more, not at all counting the speed of a drone.
And the FAA testing guidelines they speak of were for bird strikes. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but last I checked, the FAA had no official guidelines for testing sUAS strikes.
As for what is supposedly inconceivable in real life or worse yet "impossible", nobody should care what risks are "commonplace" when those risks can very conceivably kill people. With props (no pun intended) to my HS electronics teacher: "nothing is impossible". DJI should have left it alone at "improbable".
Meanwhile, UDRI never specified which model of M20 that wing came from, but DJI has apparenty chosen to speak of one of the slower, older ones while current Mooney M20s are plenty capable of those speeds and more, not at all counting the speed of a drone.
And the FAA testing guidelines they speak of were for bird strikes. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but last I checked, the FAA had no official guidelines for testing sUAS strikes.
As for what is supposedly inconceivable in real life or worse yet "impossible", nobody should care what risks are "commonplace" when those risks can very conceivably kill people. With props (no pun intended) to my HS electronics teacher: "nothing is impossible". DJI should have left it alone at "improbable".
Last edited:
I don't doubt the drone. The test was in no means complete or scientific. But that is besides the point. DJI is free to make the complaint about the defamation the article causes. That is all that they are doing at this time.
All DJI did with this request was spread the story even further. This breathes new life into it and allows it to be debated.
The story would have likely faded away quickly.
Last edited:
Why would or should they retract the story? They simply reported on UDRI's simulation.
If you read the details you'll see that the same lab also fired a bird into the wing and caused even greater damage, but they didn't promote that video. Let's be clear, this test was done to intentionally make a point, not to discover truth. This was not a scientifically conducted experiment, where all the details, conditions and data were set out and the report peer reviewed before release to the media and public. No, it was a publicity stunt calculated for maximum shock value and then hyped to the media.
The probability of a drone hitting a small aircraft in exactly the right spot on the wing and at a higher speed than realistically would happen in real life is vanishingly small. That's why with millions of consumer drones being flown over the past few years there has only been one and only one FAA confirmed case of a strike between a drone and a manned aircraft, and the Apache helicopter involved suffered only minor damage to the leading edge of the main rotor while the P4 drone was demolished. The drone was flying straight and level over open water and the helicopter was maneuvering and ran into it.
The probability of a drone hitting a small aircraft in exactly the right spot on the wing and at a higher speed than realistically would happen in real life is vanishingly small. That's why with millions of consumer drones being flown over the past few years there has only been one and only one FAA confirmed case of a strike between a drone and a manned aircraft, and the Apache helicopter involved suffered only minor damage to the leading edge of the main rotor while the P4 drone was demolished. The drone was flying straight and level over open water and the helicopter was maneuvering and ran into it.
Or- as has been suggested elsewhere- it was a demo reel style experiment intended to generate interest and perhaps lead to an external agency supplying funding for further testing to be conducted.
I would guess that is exactly why they did that test - they, together with Sinclair College, figured that there was going to be a need for this kind of testing and collaborated to demonstrate the capability. The test itself was fine, if limited in scope.
If you actually watched the full video then you would have seen that test result presented too, together with an accurate description of the damage comparison. It was not a bird - it was a gel bird surrogate - and while it caused a slightly larger damage area, it caused less structural damage.
Do you doubt that the sUAS did considerable damage to the leading edge of the wing and "potential" damage inside the wing? I believe they proved pretty much exactly what they intended to. It proves that even a small Phantom sized sUAS can do damage to a General Aviation aircraft.
Here let's "again" question the "rebuttal" that DJI's attorney tried to push out to the people looking for a reason to NOT believe that this is a very real possibility:
An Aeronautical Lesson for DJI’s lawyer, Brendan Schulman
Oh come on... it did roughly $250,000 damage (both rotor blades had to be replaced) and keep in mind that is a COMBAT aircraft... they happen to be a little more "Robust" than General Aviation aircraft.
Also the sUAS was operating in a RESTRICTED airspace, well beyond VLOS, and the operator had lost contact and the aircraft was in a RTH mode. Which part of this, in any way, makes the sUAS operator not TOTALLY at fault on many levels? Keep in mind that it is our ultimate responsibility to See & Avoid any and ALL manned aircraft.
Last edited:
Completely agree. Despite many hours reading abject nonsense on these forums about piloting and flight rules, it still never ceases to amaze me the absurd lengths that some people will go to in order to remain in denial.
Did they fly more than one drone into several different types of wings. Did they do this test once or several times? Was was the extent of the damage? Would the wing still have functioned correctly after the impact? The list goes on. We don't know. The "test" really only showed that a drone hitting a wing would cause damage.
Similar threads
