http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-av ... -overrated
Very interesting take. With that said if im the one on the plane id rather you phantom pilots not fly so close to it.
Is The Small-UAV Threat To Airliners Overrated?
- Thread starter eckoner
- Start date
http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-av ... -overrated
Very interesting take. With that said if im the one on the plane id rather you phantom pilots not fly so close to it.
I have a higher level of expectation of a human vs gulls, but I've become aware that some humans are extremely narcissistic, and some don't have the brains that god gave a goose...err...gull.
Even still, the human can be held accountable.
Even still, the human can be held accountable.
Leaving the human element out of this it's definitely an interesting take, the economics of bird strikes. In the US alone there are 87,000 flights a day. Over 23 years that amounts to about a dime per flight in repairs for gull size birds. About a dollar for all bird strikes. I'm not ready to feel sorry for airliners yet.
Simple math puts things in perspective for me.
Simple math puts things in perspective for me.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
A thought I had was that if there were to be a strike, or worse an ingestion, somebody is likely going to be sought for compensation for inspections, repairs, etc.
Since the UAS is likely destroyed it would be difficult to determine the 'culprit'.
Will the forthcoming rules address this type of issue?
Since the UAS is likely destroyed it would be difficult to determine the 'culprit'.
Will the forthcoming rules address this type of issue?
Yes, very much so. The odds are, a paint smudge. If the Phantom were ingested, then the engine could be damaged and shut down costing the airline a few tens of thousands of dollars, but all the evidence would be destroyed. Odds for an actual midair crash of a Phantom and an airliner are exceedingly low, and the odds that an airliner could be brought down by a Phantom are even much, much lower.
You got that right. They nickle and dime you to death nowdays. Cram more seats in and charge for almost everything. Next I would not be surprised they start charging you for your shoes.derrickduff said:
For the moment, here in Australia, firefighting helicopters will be grounded if there are drones operating in the area.
Possibly a knee-jerk reaction, but all would take is one bad incident and they'll wish they restricted it sooner.
Possibly a knee-jerk reaction, but all would take is one bad incident and they'll wish they restricted it sooner.
Coming from the fire service I agree, they have no use on an active fire ground by the members of the public when bombers / helicopters are in operation. Fire Fighting Aircraft normally fly well below the 500ft so I can understand that option of grounding or circling until the RPA are grounded. If one of those single engine bomber aircraft were to hit a RPA there is little reaction time at that low ALT when they are already flying below a tree line. As Fire Fighting Aircraft are not normally in operation during the night I agree they could be used by the fire service for monitoring containment lines etc, but with approved operators that have communications with incident command. Basically as soon as fire operations start that area becomes a restricted fly zone.Narrator said:
Keep in mind if you do take up an RPA, expect a very heavy fine, not just from CASA but interfering with Fire Fighting operations, putting public safety at risk etc.
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?W ... =PC_101745
