Over-regulation proven? (15 Jun, 2018)

Have your say on today's Aardvark Daily column

Over-regulation proven? (15 Jun, 2018)

Postby aardvark_admin » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:28 am

This column is archived at: https://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2018/0615.shtml

Sorry to drone on again (groan) but you know that when a report commissioned by the US Congress backs up my claims in respect to overly-restrictive drone regulation -- then something is badly wrong?

Why is CAA (and Airways and NZALPA) ignoring the far more embracing survey that was conducted last year -- in favour of another report which engaged a much smaller (and less representative) group of drone users?

Why have CAA failed to act on the many issues raised in these surveys with respect to the deficiencies of the regulations, education and enforcement?

Are CAA seriously expecting us to swallow the assertion that a 25g child's toy constitutes the exact same risk as a 14Kg commercial octocopter -- because that's what their "risk based regulations" would suggest.

Is the first step in gaining the compliance of a group of people that of gaining their respect?

Have CAA stumbled at the first hurdle in this regard?

There endeth another drone sermon for a while ;-)
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Over-regulation proven? (15 Jun, 2018)

Postby latewings » Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:11 am

I worked this out a while ago on the back of a napkin.

The Trent 1000 engine has a diameter of 2.85m: a forward area of 6.38m. On approach at 170kt into a runway the aircraft would be travelling around 88 meters per second. So each engine has a cylinder of 558m of air it consumes at a 5 degree glide slope to the threshold in front of it.

An Airbus A380 has four of these beasts providing the forward movement, so each aircraft has around 2200 meters of air it consumes going forward into a nacelle of 2.85m. So in reality a drone would need to be in the 11.4m of potential space at a 5 degree slope to be of threat to any of the four engines. This does not take into account any wind speed or air displacement as the aircraft approaches touchdown.

While technically a threat if the numbers are crunched, it does appear there would need to be a fair degree of skill and/or luck for an engine to ingest and flame out from a drone loitering around the final approach.

I'd venture the Intermediate compressor blade issue has a higher degree of risk than a drone for those engines.
latewings
 
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 10:18 am

Re: Over-regulation proven? (15 Jun, 2018)

Postby Perry » Fri Jun 15, 2018 12:31 pm

Bruce wrote:Let's just ignore the stuff that doesn't suit our agenda -- perhaps?

Yes. It's called the confirmation bias logical fallacy.
Perry
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Over-regulation proven? (15 Jun, 2018)

Postby GSVNoFixedAbode » Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:09 pm

"It's too hard to create logical tiers of types of drones so let's just use the one blanket rule for everything. At least it'll be safe."
Not so much lies as laziness or under-resourced to do a proper job. Result: overly-restrictive rules that get ignored by all.
GSVNoFixedAbode
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 8:53 am


Return to Today's column

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron