Does size matter?
It is a ‘nasty’ thing to have something collide with an aircraft when low and slow, particularly at night and I wouldn’t dream of discounting the potential for accident – well not too much. However, for the lighter aircraft, particularly from the ‘frontal area profile’ perspective the ‘risk’ factor is, mathematically at least, not that great. A drone through the windscreen is a possibility – and a potential killer, contact anywhere else, through distraction at a critical time, is an increase on the risk matrix. Conversely, the light aircraft are an easier target, due to the relatively low speed of the aircraft and the less monitored operational environment, an increase in the frequency of ‘attack’ would nullify the reduced percentage risk of a ‘bad’ strike.
The ‘size’ of the vulnerable area matters; the frontal area of a jet engine fitted to a passenger transport aircraft would easily match (give or take) the front profile of a ‘lighty’; two such engines (by-pass included) increase the percentage chance of a ‘bad strike’; then one must account for the area of ‘inlets’, exhausts and other items which, if damaged, have the potential to create ‘distraction’ during a critical phase of flight.
In short, almost anything airborne is presently at some increased degree of risk while ‘drones’ can be operated pretty much anywhere, anytime without control. It is of grave concern, however the risks to ‘aeroplanes’ is not the one that should be keeping the ‘powers that be’ awake at night.
Helicopters are the really vulnerable aircraft. Mostly those belonging to essential services, such as the police and ambulance services. They are a natural attraction – a crowd puller – the excitement and drama of it all. The work they do is, by definition, high risk; the services work hard, very hard, to mitigate unnecessary operational risk; they monitor it, they train for it, they test for it. Some of the operations conducted require the utmost concentration, care and skill levels. A stationary helicopter, at night, large profile from any angle; extremely vulnerable, essential moving parts, critically balanced rotor blades and tail rotor; close to building or a hospital; at exactly the time when great concentration is needed.. The potential for a catastrophic event and the percentage chance of that occurring due to drone strike, at that time are ‘scary’.
These risks exist – now – they are real. Yet the government minister and his agencies are operating at a snails pace; almost still in the denial phase. CASA places it’s faith in the ‘by-pass’ system of the modern jet aircraft; ATSB will eventually get around to reporting on the few incidents which they deign to acknowledge; the minister is doing an ostrich impersonation. The Senate committee is paying attention; trying to come to grips with the potential dangers, but then, we’ve all seen how their recommendations are treated and their comments disrespected by the ‘experts’.
We take extraordinary care of ‘safety’ in the aviation community, particularly in areas where it is our ‘responsibility’. Drones are not our responsibility; they are the governments. I say it’s time the government stopped playing at politics and get on top of the situation before there is an event which claims lives – unnecessarily – due to inaction.
Toot – tick tock – Toot.
It is a ‘nasty’ thing to have something collide with an aircraft when low and slow, particularly at night and I wouldn’t dream of discounting the potential for accident – well not too much. However, for the lighter aircraft, particularly from the ‘frontal area profile’ perspective the ‘risk’ factor is, mathematically at least, not that great. A drone through the windscreen is a possibility – and a potential killer, contact anywhere else, through distraction at a critical time, is an increase on the risk matrix. Conversely, the light aircraft are an easier target, due to the relatively low speed of the aircraft and the less monitored operational environment, an increase in the frequency of ‘attack’ would nullify the reduced percentage risk of a ‘bad’ strike.
The ‘size’ of the vulnerable area matters; the frontal area of a jet engine fitted to a passenger transport aircraft would easily match (give or take) the front profile of a ‘lighty’; two such engines (by-pass included) increase the percentage chance of a ‘bad strike’; then one must account for the area of ‘inlets’, exhausts and other items which, if damaged, have the potential to create ‘distraction’ during a critical phase of flight.
In short, almost anything airborne is presently at some increased degree of risk while ‘drones’ can be operated pretty much anywhere, anytime without control. It is of grave concern, however the risks to ‘aeroplanes’ is not the one that should be keeping the ‘powers that be’ awake at night.
Helicopters are the really vulnerable aircraft. Mostly those belonging to essential services, such as the police and ambulance services. They are a natural attraction – a crowd puller – the excitement and drama of it all. The work they do is, by definition, high risk; the services work hard, very hard, to mitigate unnecessary operational risk; they monitor it, they train for it, they test for it. Some of the operations conducted require the utmost concentration, care and skill levels. A stationary helicopter, at night, large profile from any angle; extremely vulnerable, essential moving parts, critically balanced rotor blades and tail rotor; close to building or a hospital; at exactly the time when great concentration is needed.. The potential for a catastrophic event and the percentage chance of that occurring due to drone strike, at that time are ‘scary’.
These risks exist – now – they are real. Yet the government minister and his agencies are operating at a snails pace; almost still in the denial phase. CASA places it’s faith in the ‘by-pass’ system of the modern jet aircraft; ATSB will eventually get around to reporting on the few incidents which they deign to acknowledge; the minister is doing an ostrich impersonation. The Senate committee is paying attention; trying to come to grips with the potential dangers, but then, we’ve all seen how their recommendations are treated and their comments disrespected by the ‘experts’.
We take extraordinary care of ‘safety’ in the aviation community, particularly in areas where it is our ‘responsibility’. Drones are not our responsibility; they are the governments. I say it’s time the government stopped playing at politics and get on top of the situation before there is an event which claims lives – unnecessarily – due to inaction.
Toot – tick tock – Toot.