Exclusive A British drone collision study used as evidence for the government’s flagship drone pilot registration law found UAVs pose less of a risk to airliners than government officials and trade unions have claimed.
The study, which the government
refused to reveal in full despite being asked by industry and news media alike, is the key piece of supposedly scientific evidence backing its proposed Drone Bill.
That Parliamentary bill is due to be published in spring this year. It will
create new criminal offences targeted at fliers of drones that weigh more than 250g who fail to register with the government and pass mandatory safety tests before using their craft. The risks caused by drones to manned aircraft were allegedly quantified by the study.
The Register has obtained a redacted copy of the study and compared the public statements from its sponsors with what the research actually states.
A press release summary of the drone collision study,
first published when the government revealed its registration plans last year, was used by airline pilots’ trade union BALPA as
evidence of a “proven drone collision threat”.
However, as is evident from the full study, the only windscreen that was penetrated was penetrated by “components” in pre-testing. The photo appears to be a still from a series - beginning on p52 of the redacted study – showing a lighter drone impacting, and failing to penetrate, the window.
In reality, the full study – carried out on behalf of the government by defence R&D company Qinetiq and testing firm Natural Impacts – found that for airliners, the risk posed was far less alarming than both the union and the Department for Transport had claimed. Instead of penetrating cockpit windows, rigorous tests of drones launched against Airbus A320 windscreen panes, fitted to a testbed cockpit, found that drone-airliner collisions will crack but not penetrate such windows.
The Airbus A320 series, comprising the A318, A319, A320 and A321 aircraft, is one of the most widely-used airliner families in the world.
When it
announced the drone registration scheme (PDF, 65 pages) the government said: “For airliners, the test results are more reassuring - only a much heavier drone of above around 2kg in weight would cause critical damage and only when airliners fly at higher speeds.”
BALPA was explicitly involved with the study “to assure safety by influencing requirements such as minimum design and operational standards for [remotely piloted air systems, i.e. drones].”
A trade union spokeswoman told us: “We stand by the characterisation we made at the time of the report’s publication. Drones pose a huge potential risk to aviation safety if not flown sensibly.”
The Department for Transport had not replied to us by the time of publication. We will update this article with their response when it gets to us.