Researchers say FAA is overblowing risk posed by small drones

Re:Researchers say FAA is overblowing risk posed by small dr... by cmurf on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @05:41PM (#11293231)

Why is foreign object mass alone more relevant than its mass and density when it comes to ensuring turbine engine containment in an ingestion event?

Bird have a known density. Drones have variable density. And since the tests thus far are done with birds I think it's unknown what happens when drone X is ingested into a turbine engine.

The other fallacy is comparing birds were have minimal control over, vs man made aircraft that should be as capable of avoidance as the current regime.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Researchers say FAA is overblowing risk posed by small dr... by danielvf on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @05:56PM (#11293327)

Turbine engine containment isn't about containing the foreign object - it's about containing the ludicrously energized turbine blades. What breaks the blades is almost irrelevant.

I'm more concerned about damage to the non engine areas of the aircraft, but they routinely survive 18 lb bird impacts in the wild. Even with lithium batteries being about four times denser than a bird, the weight being so much less means that the penetrating power should be less than a half that of a goose.

[ Parent | on HN ]