DJI Demands Withdrawal Of Misleading Drone Collision Video

Jagerbomb52 · Oct 19, 2018

HiloHawaiian · Oct 19, 2018

I love this. I applaud DJI fighting back, and doing so taking no prisoners. They started with an analysis of the known facts (ripping them to shreds one by one), then demanding UDRI reveal all testing parameters and data, unafraid of what that will reveal... Then, they went for the jugular. Lawyers wrote this, and did a great job...

rkyleh · Oct 19, 2018

Good for them I hate crap like this where anybody can say anything and or twist the facts and get away with it.

Dino54 · Oct 19, 2018

rkyleh said:
Good for them I hate crap like this where anybody can say anything and or twist the facts and get away with it.

Like our POTUS?

Leon N Gauthier · Oct 19, 2018

Agustine said:
DJI Demands Withdrawal Of Misleading Drone Collision Video

I saw this on CNBC and took it for government sponsored propaganda designed to legitimatize a forthcoming crack down on small drones by the FAA. From the article:

"We wanted to help the aviation community and the drone industry understand the dangers that even recreational drones can pose to manned aircraft before a significant event occurs," said Kevin Poormon, group leader for impact physics at UDRI in a blogpost.

"The FAA says it receives more than 100 reports a month of unmanned aircraft sightings."

A crack down on hobby drones by the FAA will alleviate any fears ginned up by the government. See for yourself here:

Watch what happens when a small drone hits a plane at 238 miles per hour

HiloHawaiian · Oct 19, 2018

Dino54 said:
Like our POTUS?

You mean Obama right?

JohnL · Oct 20, 2018

I work in the aviation field as an inspector. One place I worked was a part 145 repair station. We received all sorts of assemblies that were subjected to real in flight bird strikes. The parts would come in with the bird(s) still embedded in the assembly. Yes, it was a mess. They do a significant amount of damage.

Let me tell you from first hand experience that a radome (nose cone) is NO match for a bird, usually it caved in at least 2-3 feet, rendering the radar useless. This is for both commercial and military aircraft, 737, 747, 757, MD 11, C-5, F-18, all were damaged. The usual disposition was BER, beyond economical repair, so the carrier was shipped a new radome.

Google radome bird strike, you’ll see how much damage they do. Seeing it first hand as I have is sobering.

Leading edges on wings (fixed and movable), horizontal and vertical stabs, not as bad as radomes, but still damaged as to ground the aircraft.

I can’t imagine the damage from a drone strike on a commercial aircraft, plus the possibility of fire from the embedded lipo. Granted, worse case scenario, but who wants to take that chance?

I think DJI is shouting into the wind, they can’t demand the video be taken down. That’s like GM demanding all videos be taken down that show them in a bad light.
DJI may be the leading drone mfg, but that also means they have more drones in the air with stupid behind the sticks. Unfortunately, it’s just a matter of time before a plane goes down.

HiloHawaiian · Oct 20, 2018

Leon N Gauthier said:
I saw this on CNBC and took it for government sponsored propaganda designed to legitimatize a forthcoming crack down on small drones by the FAA. From the article:

"We wanted to help the aviation community and the drone industry understand the dangers that even recreational drones can pose to manned aircraft before a significant event occurs," said Kevin Poormon, group leader for impact physics at UDRI in a blogpost.

"The FAA says it receives more than 100 reports a month of unmanned aircraft sightings."

A crack down on hobby drones by the FAA will alleviate any fears ginned up by the government. See for yourself here:

Watch what happens when a small drone hits a plane at 238 miles per hour

I’d love to know who paid for the test. UDRI gets grants to perform studies, almost exclusively from various Gov’t entities....

HiloHawaiian · Oct 20, 2018

JohnL said:
I work in the aviation field as an inspector. One place I worked was a part 145 repair station. We received all sorts of assemblies that were subjected to real in flight bird strikes. The parts would come in with the bird(s) still embedded in the assembly. Yes, it was a mess. They do a significant amount of damage.

Let me tell you from first hand experience that a radome (nose cone) is NO match for a bird, usually it caved in at least 2-3 feet, rendering the radar useless. This is for both commercial and military aircraft, 737, 747, 757, MD 11, C-5, F-18, all were damaged. The usual disposition was BER, beyond economical repair, so the carrier was shipped a new radome.

Google radome bird strike, you’ll see how much damage they do. Seeing it first hand as I have is sobering.

Leading edges on wings (fixed and movable), horizontal and vertical stabs, not as bad as radomes, but still damaged as to ground the aircraft.

I can’t imagine the damage from a drone strike on a commercial aircraft, plus the possibility of fire from the embedded lipo. Granted, worse case scenario, but who wants to take that chance?

I think DJI is shouting into the wind, they can’t demand the video be taken down. That’s like GM demanding all videos be taken down that show them in a bad light.
DJI may be the leading drone mfg, but that also means they have more drones in the air with stupid behind the sticks. Unfortunately, it’s just a matter of time before a plane goes down.

I agree, DJI can’t make the video go away. What they can do is shine a light on sloppy/rigged testing.... A transparent, more realistic test might not have given as dramatic a result, but would have been free of criticism.

I agree with you the leading edge of airplane wings, tails, and radomes are very vulnerable, as well as turbine blades from any object being sucked-in. Birds can do incredible damage (watch the great movie “Sulley”). Could a drone or drones bring down a plane? Sure, under rare, exact circumstances. Worst-case scenarios happen. The threat is real, but it needs to be presented realistically. It would seem UDRI shot themselves, and the effort, in the foot on this one...

Jagerbomb52 · Oct 25, 2018

And another twist on the DJI seen. LOL Almost as good as CNN and .........well you know what

An Aeronautical Lesson for DJI’s lawyer, Brendan Schulman

JohnL · Oct 26, 2018

Agustine said:
And another twist on the DJI seen. LOL Almost as good as CNN and .........well you know what
An Aeronautical Lesson for DJI’s lawyer, Brendan Schulman

I totally agree with his assessment. Dji is out to make a profit, period. They’re just trying to protect their bottom line, and don’t seem to want to see actual safety issues.

HiloHawaiian · Oct 26, 2018

JohnL said:
I totally agree with his assessment. Dji is out to make a profit, period. They’re just trying to protect their bottom line, and don’t seem to want to see actual safety issues.

Sure, agreed, but, ALL commercial companies are out the make a profit. It’s also a given drones are a threat to all aircraft b/c idiots fly them like idiots. DJI could take a far stronger stand in that regard, and they’d be praised for it.

DJI does make some points in their response though. The exact methodology isn’t clear in their report. They reference a comparable bird strike w/o much detail which is odd, leaving UDRI open for criticism. If the original report was more detailed (because they are making a pretty damning claim), DJI wouldn’t have had much wiggle room to push back so hard — even if it’s partially self-serving...

Leon N Gauthier · Oct 27, 2018

My fear is that in justifying draconian rules and regulations, the FAA gets the public so frightened by the prospect of a drone bringing down an airliner that they will demand a complete ban on small hobby drones. Just as with gun control, for some the ONLY regulation which will allay their fears is a complete and total ban.

HiloHawaiian · Oct 27, 2018

Leon N Gauthier said:
My fear is that in justifying draconian rules and regulations, the FAA gets the public so frightened by the prospect of a drone bringing down an airliner that they will demand a complete ban on small hobby drones. Just as with gun control, for some the ONLY regulation which will allay their fears is a complete and total ban.

Absolutely true...

Fly-a-holic · Nov 17, 2018

I can relate from both directions. I'm a sport aviation enthusiast. I do not own an airplane but I pilot my friend's airplane with him often. I also love my Autel Evo as well as my model airplanes. I totally agree that something needs to be done to protect the pilots and passengers in the sky. Right now, there is little to no control with the drones or model aircraft for that matter. "The Sky is the Limit" is what we like to say but I'm afraid that's only true to a certain extent as far as drones go. There could be certifications or training required to pilot a drone in the future but as we know it, the bad guys (IDIOTS) will violate the law as they do already and fly their drones in an unsafe matter and in unsafe places.

Idiots got the three-wheelers banned in 1987. Never underestimate the power of an idiot. Especially in large numbers.

Hysteresis · Dec 4, 2018

Fly-a-holic said:
Right now, there is little to no control with the drones or model aircraft for that matter.
...
Idiots got the three-wheelers banned in 1987. Never underestimate the power of an idiot. Especially in large numbers.

No, idiots banned the three-wheelers.

The problem, to my eyes, is the expectation that government eliminate all risk and individual responsibility from our lives.

As far as I recall there used to be a height limit for RC pilots to not exceed, and an altitude floor for private aircraft to not fly under. The responsibility for respecting those limits was ours, as individuals, as was our liability for infractions.

What kind of people have we bred that demand their overlords eliminate every last iota of risk from their lives?