[Peetwo]

6D & Comardy Capers living in ignorant bliss -  



Reference via Budget Estimates...

CHAIR: I tell you what, Mr Carmody, I hope the day never comes. But if it does—it will be the longest day out you and some others have had if we have a catastrophic accident with a drone. You know my history. I had 20 years investigating catastrophic accidents of international flights all over the world. I have seen accidents happen because an individual left a screwdriver in a turbine when they went in to do some repairs. You can do all the regulations you like, but it is not going to prevent an event if we get sufficient density up in the air. I asked one of the other witnesses this morning, one of the other officers, about the chicken and the egg. Don't you think it would be better if we stopped this proliferation until your organisation, and indeed our committee and industry, has a chance to collaborate and get a set of circumstances in place that we think can absolutely minimise the potential impact of this?

Mr Carmody : I think, through our regulatory framework that we have in place now, we are endeavouring to do just that. The industry wants the decisions of the regulator to be consistent. It wants them to be evidence based.

CHAIR: Sure.

Mr Carmody : It wants them to be predictable.

CHAIR: We want that too.

Mr Carmody : The evidence that I have over the last two years is, for example, 1,800 bird strikes in 2016, 1,700 bird strikes in 2015 and no reports of a drone striking an aircraft. But birds and other animals are striking aircraft. If I may, that is evidence. I have no evidence at the moment that the regulatory framework that we have in place—

CHAIR: Is that what you need, Mr Carmody? You need evidence? You want a drone to strike an aeroplane before you take some measures here?

Mr Carmody : You need to be able to make evidence based decision rather than hypothetical decisions. The evidence that I have from the United States is very clear. I have evidence from the United States about the effect of what is happening with drones in the United States.

CHAIR: No, you have evidence from the United States of a lack of events where there has been a catastrophic collision.

Mr Carmody : Where there has been a collision, if I may, and they have a much denser air environment than we have in Australia. I am looking at what other regulators are doing. I share your concern. I understand where you are coming from—I really do.

CHAIR: What harm is there in us going steady, with respect to the proliferation, before you finish your important work, Mr Carmody? No, look, that is a valid question. Do you take into account the retail sector as you make decisions about whether we should leave these things out of the air for the moment until your work is done?

Mr Carmody : No, I do not take into account the retail sector, but the statement of expectations from my minister is very clear:

… focus on aviation safety as the highest priority …
…   …   …
… consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community in the development and finalisation of new—
regulations and regulatory changes.

CHAIR: Yes.

Mr Carmody : And take 'a pragmatic, practical and proportionate approach to regulation as it applies' to different industry sectors. I am fulfilling that mandate.

CHAIR: All right.

Or at 05:10 here:

And today via ASN:

U.K. Government releases results of drone / aircraft mid air collision damage study
23 July 2017

The U.K. Government released the results of a drone / aircraft mid air collision study.

The study was commissioned by the U.K. Department for Transport, the Military Aviation Authority and British Airline Pilots’ Association (BALPA) to determine effects of a mid-air collision between small remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS, commonly known as a drones) and manned aircraft. The study was conducted by QinetiQ and Natural Impacts using laboratory collision testing and computer modelling.

The study aimed to find the lowest speed at collision where critical damage could occur to aircraft components. Critical damage was defined in this study to mean major structural damage of the aircraft component or penetration of drone through the windscreen into the cockpit.

The study has indicated that:

• Non-birdstrike certified helicopter windscreens have very limited resilience to the impact of a drone, well below normal cruise speeds.
  
• The non-birdstrike certified helicopter windscreen results can also be applied to general aviation aeroplanes which also do not have a birdstrike certification requirement.
  
• Although the birdstrike certified windscreens tested had greater resistance than non-birdstrike certified, they could still be critically damaged at normal cruise speeds.
  
• Helicopter tail rotors are also very vulnerable to the impact of a drone, with modelling showing blade failures from impacts with the smaller drone components tested.
  
• Airliner windscreens are much more resistant, however, the study showed that there is a risk of critical windscreen damage under certain impact conditions:
  * It was found that critical damage did not occur at high, but realistic impact speeds, with the 1.2 kg class drone components.
  * However, critical damage did occur to the airliner windscreens at high, but realistic, impact speeds, with the 4 kg class drone components used in this study.
  
• The construction of the drone plays a significant role in the impact of a collision. Notably, the 400 g class drone components, which included exposed metal motors, caused critical failure of the helicopter windscreens at lower speeds than the 1.2 kg class drone components, which had plastic covering over their motors. This is believed to have absorbed some of the shock of the collision, reducing the impact.
  
• The testing and modelling showed that the drone components used can cause significantly more damage than birds of equivalent masses at speeds lower than required to meet birdstrike certification standards.
  

More information:

Small Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (drones) Mid-Air Collision Study (PDF)
ASN Drone Near Miss database

---

& via PT:

UK test flies drones into damaging collisions with aircraft

[i]Given some of the apologist posturing about how drones are not a risk to airliner safety, this study provides factual insights into the damage they could do on the approaches to airports[/i]
Ben Sandilands


Oh wizard! … a small remotely piloted aircraft has strayed into our path

UK researchers have found that even a very small hobbyist drone could pose a serious risk to some helicopters and light aircraft, and that heavier but increasingly widely used drones could break an airliner’s windscreen in a collision at altitudes and speeds typical of a jet making an approach to a landing.

Although some of the findings aren’t surprising, this is the believed to be the first time speculation about the dangers to flight posed by drones flown into the path of aircraft has been provided with evidence based support.

Using a 10 metre long compressed air gun, and real drones and drone parts, and various recreations of helicopter components and airliner cockpits, the test were done in a laboratory at the aviation research and testing facility at Farnborough, England.

The results showed that even the smallest and cheapest drone, coming in at a mere 400 grams, could cause critical failure (which is stiff upper lip for ‘blow apart) a helicopter windscreen at low speed (such as hovering).  This was because that type of drone, with exposed metal micro motors, was considerably more potentially damaging to some choppers than a 1.2 kilogram quadrocopter with its engine components covered by thick, strong plastic.

Critical damage could be done to an airliner windscreen at the speeds and heights that would be realistic for a collision near an airport between a jet airliner and a comparatively heavy 4 kg drone, with typical mass and characteristics for a commercial or serious hobbyist drone.

[b]The study[/b] was commissioned by BALPA, the British commercial pilot’s association, the Military Aviation Authority and the UK Department for Transport.

Unsurprisingly, the study found that in helicopter and airliner collisions drones can cause significantly more damage than a bird strike of equivalent mass at the same impact speed. This was because of the unyielding nature of the metallic and hard plastic or composite materials in drones compared to flesh and feathers.

The study was unable to replicate some key factors in a drone collision with an airliner such as the effects of cabin pressurisation.
One of its recommendations is the drone makers be required to make their devices fall apart more readily in a collision, and use soft plastic coatings to minimise the damage done by solid metal components.

Hmm...wonder if that is 'evidence based' enough for Mr CC...



MTF...P2