We have a lot of evidence of sunken ships, but very little evidence of destroyed space elevators. From this, we can conclude ships sink constantly, and space elevators are completely and totally safe.
That logic doesn’t work out just because there are a hell of a lot more birds, and drones are both rare and new. But a drone put into a situation that’s likely to cause a crash still isn’t a safe thing. It’s like arguing that because your risk of death from cancer is so much higher than from being shot, it’s totally OK if I try to shoot you.
Exactly how did you determine this is likely? What metric or methodology supports your assertion?
Is it possible that you have made an assumption based on little more than unfounded fear, uncertainty and doubt? Is it possible that one who invests their hard earned cash in to a drone capable of following aircraft in flight is going to be quite careful with is as to not loose their investment? I think so. I have no evidence to prove my position other than my own personal understanding of human nature but I am willing to admit that it’s only a supposition.
These firefighters on the other hand feel it is a better option to stop fighting a fire that absolutely will cause damage rather than risk potential damage from devices not known to damage aircraft.
Actually it would be like saying that my risk of death from cancer is so much higher than from being shot, so it’s totally OK if you have a gun near me. See the difference?
As no space elevators exist, your argument is completely fanciful. However, I suspect that the first space elevator will be greatly safer than the first ship.
Is It possible that the pilots who are risking their lives and are well trained in this matter know more about how safe something is, and if they feel something is unsafe we should trust them instead of worrying about the feelings of some rich overly entitled hobbyists who can’t be bothered to think about the well being of others? I think so.
Your attempt to attack the character of the firefighters basically show you’re not in it for the honest debate, you’re in it to defend people who want to whine and wank over their right to irresponsibly use their expensive toys, other people be damned.
There’s been plenty of evidence in this thread about how drones can be a risk to planes. That you choose to ignore it does not mean it doesn’t exist.
It’s possible that some have done extensive studies on the effect of low speed drone impacts on low flying aircraft. Possible, but unlikely. Instead, I think they probably went to the same flight training as every other pilot and the same aircraft control and air safety training as well. They are making the same assumptions as you and others on this thread are making. But I think before we criminalize behavior, some sort of evidence supporting the supposed danger of that activity should be produced.
Is your problem with people who make more money than you or the flying of drones? Right now the hobby is mostly the well to do. That is correct. But what about 20 years from now? See, if we set this precedent, then we must be careful how it will effect us in the future.
Really, what attack is that? You mean where I factually stated the situation in a manner that you don’t like because it juxtaposes facts with the actions of the firefighters? No, I suspect you see the end game of this discussion and see no honest way out so you have now decided to escape the debate by claiming I’m not interested in honest debate. I’m not sure if that’s a no true scotsman argument (honest debate vs debate) or appeal to motive (you’re not in it for). It’s probably both.
I saw none yet I read everything posted. I saw supposition but nothing that could be considered evidence by an impartial reader.
In the end, that’s all refutation of your points and position. My original question was about if there is a procedure for grounding planes when birds are present. My position is that without some evidence of harm or the potential for harm (beyond pure speculation), criminalizing such behavior has no merit. If debate is to be had, honest or otherwise, I’d expect some refutation of that point.
[quote]Airports are responsible for bird control and should provide adequate wildlife control measures. If large birds or flocks of birds are reported or observed near the runway, the flight crew should consider:
Delaying the takeoff or landing when fuel permits. Advise the tower and wait for airport action before continuing.
Take off or land on another runway that is free of bird activity, if available.
To prevent or reduce the consequences of a bird strike, the flight crew should:
Discuss bird strikes during takeoff and approach briefings when operating at airports with known or suspected bird activity.
Be extremely vigilant if birds are reported on final approach. If birds are expected on final approach, plan additional landing distance to account for the possibility of no thrust reverser use if a bird strike occurs.
[/quote]
And these appear to be for big Boeing planes, which I imagine are quite a bit bigger.
So yes, they do ground aircraft over birds - which are a lot less likely to be following planes specifically, and I also imagine a lot less likely to be hanging around over a fucking wildfire for extended periods of time.
As no-one has ever detonated a dirty bomb inside of a city, your argument is complete fanciful. However, I suspect that the first dirty bomb detonation inside of a city will be greatly safer than the first ship.
You can not chase a large plane with a drone. First, drones are slower, much slower. Second, the wake/vortex behind the larger aircraft is powerful enough to screw up a Cessna, and the drones are much smaller; the wake turbulences are powerful enough to badly shake up a full-size Airbus, see the one that broke off its rudder and landed on New York. That one that won me a bet that it was not terrorism.
Good question.
Given the appalingly low lethality of a dirty bomb, it’s actually quite likely. It’s more an area denial device with expensive cleanup, a costly annoyance, but that’s about it.
Dirty bombs have been detonated to test their destructive power making them a known deadly device. There is no need to detonate one inside a populated area as the studies of those impacts have been done again and again. The death toll estimates are easily found online and are much larger than the total capacity of our earliest water craft. Still, no studies or evidence on the danger of drones on airplanes exist however. Nice try. Please play again.
while dirty-bombs have been detonated and they are known deadly devices, they have not been detonated within a city, and thus are not known city-deadly devices, in the same way that drones are deadly airborne objects that - as you have rightly pointed out - have not been impacted with an airplane, and thus remain complete, unextrapolateble unknown. As such, we should neither limit the flying of drones in airspace, nor the detonation of dirty bombs within cities. Yes, they explode. But can they explode in a city? Can they cause damage?
So, we have recorded deaths from radiological release and we have solid estimates for effects in a US city. Your argument is cute but fallacious. People have died from encountering radioactive material. No one has died from encountering a civilian drone. No plane has been crashed. You cannot accurately conflate the two but if you attempt to apply your argument to my position it falls short. My position is that there is no evidence that a small drone striking a plane is dangerous but there does exist evidence that the release of radioactive material is. My position is that we should not outlaw the use of drones in the viewing or coverage of fire fighting until and unless a factual danger exists beyond supposition but factual evidence of risk does exist for the use of radioactive materials making the laws that govern them valid.
What is the difference between a 20lb soft-bodied bird, and a 20lb hard-bodied drone?
Since the first is known to be deadly (we have recorded deaths from in-air collisions; planes have been crashed), are you still going to say that, regarding drones,“it’s a mystery! Can’t say! Have to try it, first!” ???
Go ahead, man, check it out. First-hand observations are the best.
An equivalent of a mid-size plane or boat accident. Many such ones happen every year. A drop of a bucket in comparison with some industrial accidents.
Rather annoying.
There are more such accidents. The fear-lethality ratio for radioactive materials is insanely overblown.
Plus, once you know something is wrong, a radiation detector costs couple dollars. In comparison with e.g. chemical contamination, the detection is about as easy as it can be.
The latter are a bit overblown. They are based on the assumption of linear non-threshold dose-response model, which at the low doses and low dose-rates is unproven and indices are it may be overly conservative.
At low differential speeds, none; both will be brushed away and maybe a bit damaged. At high differential speeds, none; both will behave as a rock. At mid-velocities there may be some minor difference.
The major difference is that a bird does not have an operator that keeps it out of harm’s way. Birds are dumb.
I am in favor of smart transponders. With the cost of GPS modules reaching $20 and less, and the negligible cost of other electronics, no reason to not project the aircraft’s safe envelope and its near-future estimation so the other, smaller, lower-priority aircraft can give way while still maintaining their mission capability.
The question I want answered is do the firefighters ground their planes if birds are flying in the area of the fire? If not, then I feel we have the definitive answer as to whether a real risk exists with drones viewing or reporting from the air during firefighting operations.
I’m going to say that drones may be a risk. So, before we put someone in jail or take their money, I’d like to see at least a simple study or one real world example that the danger is so great that we must allow fires to continue to burn if one is in the area and we must criminalize the operator.
some facts that make me think the problem is being overstated:
According to the Federal Aviation Administration, from 2000 to 2009 there were nearly 500 planes damaged by collisions with birds. 166 of those planes had to make emergency landings meaning only 33% of bird collisions cause enough of a problem to force a landing. The last severe one was the one Sully incident. The plane hit an entire flock of birds and no one was killed.
4 people died in Brazil. 2 only had minor exposure. I think the work of former chief scientist for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Peter Zimmerman who says the risk is underestimated is a better choice for my personal metric. After all, his position provides for more awareness rather than apathy due to confidence making it a better policy IMO.
Interesting. Are RC helicopters drones? Maybe they are. I’ve seen fixed wing craft called drones too…
I think @shaddack has a reasonable solution with his transponder idea. How about it? If there were transponders and safety systems would you be OK with the drones in firefighting areas?
Maybe it could be implemented already? Do the aircraft in question transmit ADSB data? These can be received in realtime with cheap equipment and the hardware needed is already FAA-certified. With a flight/maneuvering envelope for a generic heavy airplane, its ADSB data, and drone position telemetry, the collision warning could be implemented with existing technology on a laptop or even a smartphone.
Or use a spotter.
The terminology is imprecise enough to answer with a shrug and “perhaps”.
A particularly unpleasant thing is an iridium radiography source. These things claimed quite a number of lives over time.
Too much of awareness of everything will breed a blanket apathy. When everything is important, nothing is.
Of course you are correct but I think the fear of radiological materials is entirely warranted and such awareness does not equate to an over abundance of fear as it stand on its own merit. Rational fears do not lead to blanket apathy. I know this is a side subject to the primary topic but I do think we need to take the threat of dirty bombs more seriously. While some, like yourself, see it as mostly area denial, others like myself are concerned that we (the U.S.) does not have plans in place for the mitigation of the effects such device will have or any general techniques for the removal of the hazardous material. I’d feel much better if our Department of Homeland Defense had at least a basic methodology worked out which they could distribute to the emergency management agencies around the country.
