Interesting article about the threat drones really pose to aircraft.
http://www.popsci.com.au/robots/drones/could-drones-pose-a-threat-to-aeroplanes,401661
http://www.popsci.com.au/robots/drones/could-drones-pose-a-threat-to-aeroplanes,401661
Assuming they can even fly high enough, small drones barely pose a risk to a jet turbine.
It would be nice if there were some actual data on what happens when you shoot something like a Phantom into a turbine engine. Until then I think the statement above is only pure speculation, and it is certainly not something the FAA agrees with.
From an operator perspective though, data or not, one should simply assume that if their drone should ever suffer a "loss of separation" with a piloted aircraft, human lives will be at risk and it will be your fault regardless of actual circumstances.
Even several miles from an airport a jetliner could still be a lot lower than 3000 feet. I have seen the same threads about cloud flying. I personally have no need to go over 400 but even at that height I have been in the general vicinity of smaller planes. I had a VERY close call with a helicopter once. He was probably flying lower than he should have been.I loved this part:
I suppose it is safe to say that a commercial jet in Class A airspace has little to worry about since few of the smaller UAS can reach the Flight Levels. However, abundant evidence is available right here on this forum of people who like to fly at altitudes as high as 3,000 feet and who think flying through clouds is great fun.
It would be nice if there were some actual data on what happens when you shoot something like a Phantom into a turbine engine. Until then I think the statement above is only pure speculation, and it is certainly not something the FAA agrees with.
Rolls Royce (the jet engine not the car) test jet engines by firing frozen chickens into the engine at 500mph. (if you are Australian chicken is what you call a chuck)
A frozen chicken is a lot harder than a phantom.
Rolls Royce (the jet engine not the car) test jet engines by firing frozen chickens into the engine at 500mph. (if you are Australian chicken is what you call a chuck)
A frozen chicken is a lot harder than a phantom.
FWIW, the chickens are not frozen. That is an urban myth
It's so easy to verify such claims before making them.
Besides if the idea is to test a bird strike why would they use a frozen test subject?
There are numerous stories regarding how this came to be believed. One included the Brits borrowing the test device (cannon, etc.) from the FAA to test railway locomotive windscreens. THEY used frozen birds and when asking the FAA why their tests were so different than expected the FAA said after review something like "you may wish to thaw the chickens first".
True???, Don't know but freezing is a good way to store dead chickens.
Interesting article about the threat drones really pose to aircraft.
http://www.popsci.com.au/robots/drones/could-drones-pose-a-threat-to-aeroplanes,401661
If one is required to not operate an R/C quad (drone) within 5 NM of an airport and only ascend to 400ft, what is the problem? Wouldn't the real question be why in the world would a commercial or any aircraft be allowed to fly around below 400 ft that far from an airport? Why are R/C aircraft having special rules while someone with an Ultra Lite can zoom around unbothered?
If all aircraft were fixed wing, then yes. But rotor wing aircraft can and do fly quite legally at low altitudes regularly.Wouldn't the real question be why in the world would a commercial or any aircraft be allowed to fly around below 400 ft that far from an airport?
Because a R/C aircraft can be 12" across and 8" tall while an ultra lite has to be large enough to carry a human being which makes it much easier to spot by other air traffic. Also the pilot of an R/C aircraft risks losing that aircraft by flying it at altitudes where it might collide with air traffic, the pilot of an ultra lite risks losing his or her life by doing the same thing. And far too many cases, that makes a real difference in the choices the pilot of each type is likely to makeWhy are R/C aircraft having special rules while someone with an Ultra Lite can zoom around unbothered?
If all aircraft were fixed wing, then yes. But rotor wing aircraft can and do fly quite legally at low altitudes regularly.
Because a R/C aircraft can be 12" across and 8" tall while an ultra lite has to be large enough to carry a human being which makes it much easier to spot by other air traffic. Also the pilot of an R/C aircraft risks losing that aircraft by flying it at altitudes where it might collide with air traffic, the pilot of an ultra lite risks losing his or her life by doing the same thing. And far too many cases, that makes a real difference in the choices the pilot of each type is likely to make
I don't know where you are but I've lived in serveral places where I was way more than 15nm from a major airport and I had lots of helicopters in the vicinity at low altitude daily. Just because you don't have them where you are doesn't mean they don't exist.The only helicopters I have seen around here in the past 10 years are my R/C heli's. We are about 15 NM from a major airport and the only other things I have seen flying below 3000 feet around here are a bunch of birdies.
You asked a question and I answered it in a truthful and valid way. Nothing in what I wrote suggests I think your intelligence is in question of that I think you should feel guilty about anything. If you choose to take it that way, it says far more about you than it does about me IMO.I really don't care much for those who continually want to insult our intelligence and lay some kind of guilt complex on those of us who just want to enjoy our hobby.