back to article UK drone collision study didn't show airliner window penetration

A British drone collision study used as evidence for the government’s flagship drone pilot registration law found UAVs pose less of a risk to airliners than government officials and trade unions have claimed. The study, which the government refused to reveal in full despite being asked by industry and news media alike, is the …

Page:

  1. DJO Silver badge

    Missing the point

    OK so a drone strike won't end in fiery death for everybody. But it will result in the airframe being taken out of service for a though check which will cost possibly millions of pound for the work and provision of a replacement aircraft.

    Somebody will have to pay for that and I doubt the airlines insurers will be overjoyed with the prospect.

    1. Dave 15

      Re: Missing the point

      Nah, its just an excuse to bad something else... our government loves banning things, soon it will ban burps

      1. John 110
        Mushroom

        Re: Missing the point

        "... soon it will ban burps..."

        And so they bloody should! Global warming!! Greenhouse gases!!!

        1. Jimbo in Thailand
          Joke

          Re: Missing the point

          LOL! Be careful what you ask for John 110. If that gas can't come out the front it's going to have to come out the caboose! Are you ready for that 'fragrant' alternative?!

      2. Les Matthew

        Re: Missing the point

        What exactly are they banning?

      3. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Missing the point

        "soon it will ban burps"

        The Governor of California signed a law to regulate cow burps. BTW, it's burps, not farts that are the biggest source of methane from animals.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Missing the point

      Agreed...Whilst its interesting results and the government and union have done themselves a disservice..

      This should not detract from the fact, that there are morons out there, who have flying these things in dangerous environments and not considering the consequence.

      I'm a drone owner and have been for quite some time, but I have 2 rules.. first, don't disturb people or animals, second, don't fly it anywhere that can cause a hazard or distraction.

      1. Muscleguy

        Re: Missing the point

        Just recently in New Zealand an idiot with a drone caused 5 helicopters fighting a scrub fire with monsoon buckets to be grounded while its flier was found and scragged and the drone grounded. Meanwhile the fire was burning merrily.

        Fortunately no built property was endangered or destroyed though a road was closed. The fire was successfully reduced to monitored smouldering once the choppers were able to fly again.

        However if people continue to try and get footage of such incidents they will continue to cause problems.

        It is the summer hols in NZ so lots of people out and about in the sunny outdoors on holiday with their Xmas pressies.

      2. JT163

        Re: Missing the point

        The real point is that governments are now willing to fake information in support of a special interest groups.

        Maybe the health department should re-assess the health effects of smoking using studies with similar rigour?

    3. veti Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: Missing the point

      Governments, in general, love "doing things". They think it looks better on their CV than "not doing things". "Not doing things" leaves them open to attack from the Wail and the Depress about how they're leaving us all in danger. Doing "something", no matter how dumb, means that the tabloids have to abandon baseless fearmongering, they have a choice between "seriously thinking about the changes" and "moving on to the next thing", and that's always an easy choice for them.

      So governments are always strongly prejudiced in favour of action over inaction, even when inaction is the wiser as well as the cheaper course.

      1. sandman

        Re: Missing the point

        I'd love to see a new government taking a look around and saying. "Well, everything seems to be more or less OK, let's just kick back and relax unless something unpredictable happens".

      2. K
        Devil

        Re: Missing the point

        @Veti - "They think it looks better on their CV than "not doing things""

        Without government, we would be ruled by morons... ohhhh!! I withdraw my comment..

      3. jmch Silver badge

        Re: Missing the point

        "So governments are always strongly prejudiced in favour of action over inaction, even when inaction is the wiser as well as the cheaper course"

        It's instructive to note that when Belgium had a hung parliament and went without a government for over a year, nothing bad happened and the country continued to run smoothly. Germany had their elections in September and are still without a government, and they're doing rather well.

      4. strum

        Re: Missing the point

        >Governments, in general, love "doing things".

        And corporations love deregulation. Neither are to be trusted unconditionally. Neither should be dismissed out of hand.

    4. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      They sound like the sort of tests you do to ensure your drone does *not* do damage

      IE before you commit to a design.

      BTW 650 is 0.5 Mach, which is pretty damm fast near the ground.

      AFAIK the only aircraft with that sort of takeoff speed is the Skylon spaceplane. *

      *Which it won't do if if it's "self ferrying" to an equitorial spaceport and only be carrying LH2 for air breathing, hence about 160tonnes lighter than normal. 1

    5. Gordon 10
      Childcatcher

      Re: Missing the point

      @DJO

      With the greatest of respect you are using hyperbole to grossly inflate the perceived risk. This study suggests at best drone strike damage belongs in a similar category of risk to Bird and Lightning strikes, and in terms of likely frequency is a damn sight lower due to numbers if nothing else. Neither of the latter cost anything like millions to either the airline or the wider economy so there is no reason to suppose that a drone strike will.

      If you succumb to the temptation to use hyperbole you are really being no better than the twonks at the DfT. Don’t be fooled into a “won’t somebody think of the children” mode just because this is drone not paedo’s. Homo Sapiens are absolutely terrible at judging relative levels of risk so generally default to an “everything new is going to kill us” mode that was a survival trait on the African Plains but is a near liability now. Worry about the food you eat and the roads you use and a dozen other things before drone strikes.

      (source - 8 years working in the Airline business including Engineering and Maintenance - I’ve seen the results of strikes up close and personal and what happens when an aircraft is down checked.

  2. JimmyPage Silver badge
    FAIL

    Let's just accept that the UK

    doesn't do evidence based policy.

    Has everyone got that ?

    Great. Now we can stop wasting our time trying to influence policy with evidence.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Let's just accept that the UK

      No different to drugs policy in that respect. Or environment policy. Or energy policy. Or technology policy. Or paedoterrorist policy. Or privacy policy.

      Many Reg readers will be familiar with the scientific method. Unfortunately government follow the PPE three step method, which is (a) decide conclusion, (b) selectively backfit or invent evidence to support the conclusion, (c) obfuscate, deny and ignore proper factual or scientific evidence that shows the conclusion is bollocks.

    2. zapgadget

      Re: Let's just accept that the UK

      The clues in the name "conservatives". They don't like new things.

    3. tony72

      Re: Let's just accept that the UK

      Yeah, there's nothing like a dodgy dossier or two to ensure that the right policy decisions are made, eh? When will we learn?

    4. a_yank_lurker

      Re: Let's just accept that the UK

      Same over here.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Let's just accept that the UK

        frankly, same over everywhere :/

    5. JLV

      Re: Let's just accept that the UK

      Sadly, not just the UK is fond of morphing facts:

      http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/fight-over-seven-health-related-words-president-s-next-budget

    6. Phil W

      Re: Let's just accept that the UK

      "Let's just accept that the UK

      doesn't do evidence based policy."

      Honestly in some cases I'm happy to accept that, sometimes you have to legislate against things before they happen not after so there won't be evidence. You also have to consider legislating to protect the rest of us from the complete idiots out there. As long as it doesn't go too far and impinge on freedoms too much.

      Using the argument that the window won't break so you shouldn't legislate against drones is as daft as saying you could stop idiots with laser pointers blinding pilots by putting filters on the window so therefore you don't need to ban laser pointers or prosecute the people misusing them.

      Not to mention that just because your average drone won't smash through a cockpit window doesn't mean it won't do any kind of damage, or cause distraction that may result in an accident.

    7. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Let's just accept that the UK

      "doesn't do evidence based policy."

      Of course we do! We just always make sure to choose the "right" evidence. If the facts don't fit, find some more that do fit and adjust context as required.

    8. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Re: Let's just accept that the UK

      Nonsense.

      All the evidence required is clearly described and explained in the documentation, and by documentation I mean the cheque stapled to the covering letter.

  3. Queeg

    Have to say

    Myth Busters have better testing regimes.

    The Government seem only to had gotten the Myth bit right.

    1. SkippyBing

      Re: Have to say

      Strictly speaking the testing regime was fine it's the write up that is a bit dubious.

      Having seen a presentation by the lead engineer on the study and read the un-redacted report I'm a bit confused by the governments approach on this. There's plenty in there to indicate there is some danger to aircraft and that some sensible mitigation measures could be applied. But they've decided to go all secret squirrel and use it to justify measures that, in my opinion, aren't going to do anything constructive and I don't see it being obviously vote winning or in anyone's vested interest.

      1. Eddy Ito

        Re: Have to say

        But they've decided to go all secret squirrel and use it to justify measures that, in my opinion, aren't going to do anything constructive

        So legislative business as usual then.

        Presumably these registrations and safety testing will be accompanied by some nominal fee and the fines for non-compliance will be rather substantial. I won't be surprised when they roll out graduated registration fees based on drone weight, number of motors, rotors, or blades, power source (lithium! OMG!), etc. Let's be honest, we'll all be much safer and able to sleep soundly at night knowing the government coffers are as heavily padded as possible.

        1. Anonymous Blowhard

          Re: Have to say

          "Presumably these registrations and safety testing will be accompanied by some nominal fee and the fines for non-compliance will be rather substantial"

          But most of the "offenders" won't have the money to pay the fines and so there won't be any money in this for government, as usual it will cost more tax-payers money to enforce than it will make in revenue, especially if they end up damaging the market and losing VAT on the lost sales.

          The motivations seem a bit unclear, maybe they just want to have a monopoly on peering over garden fences...

      2. goldcd

        Hmm

        Approach of firing the drone out of a canon, at a static windshield is not great - mainly as to make it fireable you need to change it significantly to the point it's no longer representative.

        Screen on a rocket sled/steam catapult/something that makes it move - and then just fly the drone of choice into it.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hmm

          "Screen on a rocket sled/steam catapult/something that makes it move - and then just fly the drone of choice into it."

          Er, no.

          All you have to achieve in this type of test is the correct *relative* velocity. It does *not* matter which part is moving. Or are you seriously suggesting that decades of bird impact testing for planes and trains is *all* invalid?

        2. Aitor 1

          Re: Hmm

          Even your approach, being better, is not as good as what is needed: the full front of an airliner on a sled as aerodynamics are important.

          Then you could properly test it.. but it would be expensive.

          The testing, while bad, seems better than we thought last time, good job reg for obtaining something.

          I guess we all knowthat going for the windshield is not the true target, so my educated guess is that this is FUD and they are actually worried about the other critical part. And testing that would be many millions.. and they dont want to do it.

          The UK government SHOULD make an agreement with other governments a do a joint study with other governments.. but somehow I feel that they dont believe that much in international cooperation. The components of airliners are basically the same all over the world, and the savings would be huge.

          I will keep with the spirit of the article and not say the part of the plane that is most vulnerable... but yes, we all know.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Hmm

            Agreed. The front of an airliner on a sled, and the drone 'flying'; like this: https://dronedj.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/12/chinese-test-shows-result-of-actual-drone-airplane-collision.gif

            https://dronedj.com/2017/12/29/chinese-test-drone-airplane-collision/

      3. Cuddles

        Re: Have to say

        "I'm a bit confused by the governments approach on this. There's plenty in there to indicate there is some danger to aircraft and that some sensible mitigation measures could be applied."

        Yeah, this is the part that really confuses me about the whole thing. You don't need to cause an airliner to instantly explode in a massive Hollywood fireball for there to be a problem worth taking note of. There's plenty of evidence that drones can cause costly damage to large aircraft, and potentially fatal damage to lighter aircraft and helicopters. So why not just say that and be done with it? There's absolutely no need to scribble over everything with a black felt-tip while telling blatant lies about it all, when the truth gives all the motivation you need to propose whatever rules you want. Whether those rules would actually do anything to help with either the real or imaginary problems is a different matter, of course.

        As a side note, this has been pointed out pretty much every time El Reg has commented on the matter, but there absolutely are drones designed to carry full-size DSLR cameras. There are plenty of issues with the tests, and especially the reporting afterwards, so perhaps it would be a good idea to focus on the real problems and not keep banging on about one of the perfectly valid parts.

  4. JonHendry

    Shouldn't the engines be more of a concern than the windows?

    "The 4kg “projectile” (the term is the one used by the study’s authors) was made up of a number of loosely drone-related components, including arms from quadcopters – and, strangely, a full-sized SLR camera, something not found on commercially available camera drones"

    Oh? Not found?

    https://www.dji.com/spreading-wings-s1000-plus

    "DJI Spreading Wings S1000+

    Your DSLR in Flight"

    Just because they don't bundle the DSLR doesn't mean there aren't drones on the market that are made to carry a DSLR.

    I'm not sure what your issue is with this test. It's a perfectly reasonable approximation of a high-speed collision with a large drone. If a large DSLR-carrying drone enters a jet engine it is rapidly going to become a loose assortment of parts, each of which may have the potential to cause damage.

    An airliner was taken out of service for 5 hours for inspection when an old lady threw *coins* into the engine. I'm pretty sure coins weigh less than 250g.

    1. SkippyBing

      Re: Shouldn't the engines be more of a concern than the windows?

      'Shouldn't the engines be more of a concern than the windows?'

      Airliners are designed to fly* with one engine inoperative, so although a drone strike could** take one out of action there's no real risk to life. The 5 hour inspection would be because you need a borescope or similar to check the latter stages in the compressor/turbine for damage and then there's paperwork...

      *From a certain point in the take-off run through all stages of flight back to a successful landing.

      **Depending on what happens it's not inconceivable that the engine could operate in a reduced thrust capacity.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Shouldn't the engines be more of a concern than the windows?

      Replace the DSLR with 750gr of C4 or Semtex and you have a whole new attack vector for terrorists.

      Drones are one heck of a lot cheaper than RPG's or shoulder launched missiles and far easier to transport around the place. I would not wanted to fly a chopper in Northern Ireland if the IRA had access to drones.

      Yes, I'm looking on the doom and gloom side but... would you want to find out that your loved one(s) was/were on a plane that was taken down by a drone? You would rightly want heads of the people who allowed the flying of drones delivered to you on a plate.

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: Shouldn't the engines be more of a concern than the windows?

        I don't believe that a drone is a practical weapon against a flying airliner, even one armed with explosive, just too difficult and risky to get it on target.

        It would be so much easier to use a drone with a dangerous payload against a large public gathering, crowd such as a sports event. Two or three drones attacking in quick sequence could do some serious primary damage and as much trouble in the ensuing panic.

        The risk to airliners from drones is mostly the possibility of accident.

      2. Brangdon

        Re: Semtex

        This isn't about banning drones entirely, it is about requiring owners to register them and have training. So the proposed legislation will not stop a terrorist from acquiring a drone and weaponising it. They could steal it, register under a false name, remove identifying marks or just not care what happens after their atrocity has succeeded.

        1. Eddy Ito

          Re: Semtex

          No legislation will stop a terrorist or any other criminal for that matter. Consider how easy it is to build a drone from parts and ingredients for improvised explosives aren't that difficult to come across. Legislation making it difficult to buy cold medicine in the US didn't win the drug war it just shifted the problem of meth overdoses to fentanyl laced heroine.

          Most legislation typically has one of two functions but may contain both as bills hang around and get amended. Fundamentally laws largely either punish people after the fact because they didn't conform or it punishes law abiding taxpayers before the fact so somebody can profit with a wink and a nod.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    But does it need to break to create a risk?

    "the risk posed was far less alarming than both the union and the Department for Transport had claimed. Instead of penetrating cockpit windows, rigorous tests of drones launched against"

    I'm not so sure I'd support that theory. Because even if the windows only get cracked instead of broken there's still plenty of damage being done. Not necessarily physical damage (as demonstrated in the study) but the pilot(s) are still at risk for getting exposed to some severe distraction.

    Sure, that doesn't have to immediately result in a major crash, but it's still a risk factor which I think should not be taken too casually, as seems to be done here.

    Of course I still think a general drone registration seems a bit off and only diverts the attention away from the real problem. I mean... Do you really think that a regular drone used somewhere in-land (say 100km away from the nearest airfield) could pose a risk for any airplanes? I somewhat doubt that.

    Instead of requiring people to register, why don't they uphold better security measures around airfields and actually enforce those? So: if you spot someone operating a drone near an airfield then you fine him for endangering air safety. Surely it should be doable with todays technical standards to pick up any signals which are used to operate a drone and then take according action?

    1. DavCrav

      Re: But does it need to break to create a risk?

      "(say 100km away from the nearest airfield)"

      I doubt that there's much of the country that's more than 100km from an airfield.

      1. veti Silver badge

        Re: But does it need to break to create a risk?

        I doubt that there's much of the country that's more than 100km from an airfield.

        If we interpret "airfield" as "commercial airport", then you could get away with it in most of the Scottish Highlands, the far west (Devon/Cornwall), and possibly some small area of the Cotswolds.

        If we're going to include private and military airfields, though - well, I can't even find a map of those. (And I suspect looking too hard would probably get me added to a watchlist.)

        I think a no-fly zone within about 10 km of an airport would be something like reasonable. 100 km seems overly conservative.

        1. tiggity Silver badge

          Re: But does it need to break to create a risk?

          Its not just teh airports, its the fligt paths.

          Planes can be surprisingly low on a flight path even if not very close to the airport.

          I'm a lot more than 10 km from nearest airports, but a "****, that's low" comment is not exactly unusual

        2. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: But does it need to break to create a risk?

          "If we're going to include private and military airfields, though - well, I can't even find a map of those. (And I suspect looking too hard would probably get me added to a watchlist.)"

          It's not a problem getting sectional maps for aircraft. They always list MOA's (Military Operating Areas), FBO's (Fixed Base Operators) and all manner of airports and helipads. Every pilot needs to know where they can and cannot fly and where they need permission to use the airspace. Airspace is also three dimensional so you have to know what restrictions there are for flying at a given altitude.

          The drone license for commercial operation in the US requires passing a test on interpreting the maps. The requirement of putting an identifying number on the drone has one back and forth but I think it's back on again and might be required for both commercial and hobby operation. There is a whole lot of stupid in the US when it comes to drones. Just search "drone fail" on YouTube and be amazed at the people that shouldn't be allow outside of an institution. The best/worst videos usually have the line, "Here, hold my beer". somewhere in them.

        3. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: But does it need to break to create a risk?

          "I think a no-fly zone within about 10 km of an airport would be something like reasonable. 100 km seems overly conservative."

          In the US, it's 5nm or just under 10km. A problem is that when you look at a pilot's map, you quickly see that in many cities, there are only a few city blocks that aren't within 10km of an "airport" since "airport" includes helipads at hospitals, the roofs of large office buildings, fire service facilities, police heliports, etc. A real estate photographer showed a map of his service area in Florida with circles around each "airport" and it left very little legal space to fly without having to file a special notice in advance (NOTAM or NOtice To AirMen).

    2. Hollerithevo

      Re: But does it need to break to create a risk?

      The windows 'only' get cracked -- and you might have a pilot or co-pilot totally freaked out by a major BANG and window suddenly a mass of cracks. We know that pilot error causes accidents, so why allow something that only Nigel the Nerveless will be able to shrug off as he takes off or lands?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: But does it need to break to create a risk?

        A goose hitting the windscreen at 200mph will equally make a loud bang, if not louder.

        1. Evil_Goblin
          Joke

          Re: But does it need to break to create a risk?

          Quite right, ban all geese farming within 100km of an airport :D

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like