Little Drone, Big Damage

Photos of the internal damage caused by a drone strike on the wing of a CL-415 waterbomber in California 10 days ago and they show that even tiny drones pack a punch. The drone, pieces of which were recovered from inside the wing has been identified as weighing less than half a pound. The impact over Pacific Palisades bent the front of a rib and a horizontal leading edge member and the water scooping amphib required significant repairs.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/little-drone-big-damage

Canada stepped up by dispatching two additional CL-415 aircraft to replace and bolster firefighting efforts after Quebec 1 was grounded due to the drone collision. Their willingness to assist during such critical situations exemplifies the highest level of goodwill. O Canada!

1 Like

Is there no way to broadcast a “z=-100000” command on the common drone frequencies?

Wow… that is not a cheap fix.

The CL 415 was probably flying 90 - 100 kts at the time of impact and the aluminum skin on the leading edge of the wing isn’t very thick. At least it was the wing instead of the windshield. Even a small drone under 5 lbs can be a lethal missile at those speeds. The pilot of a manned aircraft usually can’t see a drone because of it’s small size but also because you are maneuvering the aircraft at low level just above the trees and looking for obstacles as well as your drop site. It would be helpful to have some sort of drone detection device on board a manned aircraft that receives the 2.4 GHz or 5.8 GHz band signals in close proximity. Even having a smartphone with an app like Drone Scanner would increase the safety of the manned aircraft.

Just for context, a hovering DJI mini weighing 249 grams impacting an airplane traveling at 100 knots would have about 3x the kinetic energy on impact as an MLB fastball. Depending on how thick the cockpit windscreen is, things could have ended very different if the plane had been about 25 feet to the left and about 3 feet higher.

Ban drone usage for the general public except in designated areas. Punish offenders with huge fines and imprisonment. Ok, Ok, I’m dreaming in print. However, this is a very real problem and someone(s) are going to get badly injured or killed by an idiot with a drone.

I have an FAA issued commercial drone certificate (which is lapsed at the moment) having NEVER flown a drone. What does that even mean?

Unfortunately, it seems that sUAS piece of plastic is mostly worthless. Joe Consumer certainly knows nothing about it or the rules that govern the airspace above their head, and I question how many commercial operators even know about the sUAS certificate. I’m almost certain nearly all amateur commercial operators don’t know about it.

As a former rc modeler flying methanol powered helicopters, model drones were starting to appear. At a local unauthorized park where park rangers and police looked the other way, allowing rc models and drones, I attempted to make friendly conversation, warning new drone fliers to keep them at rc heights below 400 feet, the dangers of interfering with KLGA traffic and collisions. The few I spoke to were adamant of drones causing damage to aircraft. Several years passed when the park banned all rc and drones. One of the first drone collisions occurred on the Hudson River in NYC; a group of army helicopters were flying south over the Hudson River near Manhattan when one collided with a drone and continued flight. The drone operator was not in visible range of his drone, arrested and charged with illegal drone flight in controlled airspace.

Maybe it’s time for manned aircraft to be equipped with drone jammers that broadcast into the forward direction of flight. The forward range of the jammer would be dependent on the aircraft’s max speed at low level (e.g. less the 5k’). The intended effect is to clear any drones from the aircraft’s path. For fixed wing aircraft a field of effect of +/-45 deg horizontal and +/5 deg vertical is probably sufficient. Helicopters could have a 360 degree field of effect when operating at low ground speeds.

Drones, because these kids don’t have the skills to fly real models, same with car guys.

Just kidding, relax.

Would not solve the problem. If the drone was 300ft above the aircraft, it would drop it into the flight path. So lets make it jam for 3000ft. Then an aircraft would knock down all good and bad drones along its path. I suppose a possible solution would be to include circuitry that jams any drone higher than 400ft from its takeoff point but many hobbyist make their own drones from scratch.

If we’re being serious about this, such a concept wouldn’t work as desired. Can you imagine the negative backlash this would cause aviation if now manned aircraft flying overhead could start disrupting people’s wifi connections on the ground?

I think the FAA has already addressed many of the issues here. BVLOS is only allowed by a Part 107 drone pilot certification. Part 107 certification requires detailed knowledge of FAA NAS, including TFRs and restricted airspace. Consumer drone operators are required to register their drones if they weigh over 250 grams. Part 107 drones are limited to 55 lbs. Drone operators operate under the same theory as pilots, it’s their responsibility to fly responsibly. These rules have been formulated over the last few years, so although they’re not new, they’re relatively new. What we’re dealing with is irresponsible people doing irresponsible things. Modern social media pressures (getting the unique video/pic) is outweighing common sense. I’ve been involved in the drone world since 2016 and intensively involved in what’s happening with drones in Ukraine. Unfortunately, drone detection and defense technology isn’t great right now, and believe me, the Ukraine and Israel are heavily focused on this and very good on the RF side. Unfortunately, I raise a lot of issues here, but don’t have great answers unless we want the FAA to increase preventative enforcement. Other than funding early drone companies, I’m also a type-rated pilot and see both worlds intersecting. Joby Aviation, and the entire autonomous transportation area, will cause more accommodation. (I’ve know the founders of Joby and ICON Aviation for 10+ years).

I think that’s exactly what is needed. What good are all of the requirements if, as I suspect, a lot of drone owners aren’t following them. Start fining a lot of drone operators for violating the rules and then maybe Joe and Jane Consumer will start to pay attention (and start with the owners who don’t already have a pilot certificate - give some leeway to those with pilot certificates).

The surprising thing is probably how little damage was done. A punctured skin and a couple of bent nose spars. The aircraft remained controllable and landed safely.

Not much more than a days work for a couple of good structures guys to put it all back together. Aluminium is a very damage-tolerant material and that’s one tough old bird they built from it.

I’m not belittling the risk. A prop or windscreen strike might have had a very different outcome.

P

Currently the fine is $75,000 for a violation but since this was restricted airspace (a TFR was in place) the fund could go up to $250,000 and 1 year in jail (a criminal charge). Of course, suspensions, loss of privileges, and confiscation are part of the punishments.

In not pleasing one side or another and I’m incredibly angry about this, but more enforcement ruins freedoms for everyone. I guess that’s the natural progression of things.

1 Like

As I told my father in law, who was aghast at the damage caused by running over a traffic cone on the freeway, “it’s not the size of what you hit but how fast you hit it!”

1 Like

“Nose spars?” No such thing. Anyone around airplanes know those are ribs.