[Jupe]

Is this true? Does anyone have evidence of this claim? I hear it a lot, but I don't know.

Many "drones" are build with super-tough carbon fiber frames. Additionally, LiPo batteries (very common in quad copters) can be quite hazardous.

Combine these together and toss one into a running jet engine - I don't believe the danger would be "about the same" as a bird.

[sleepybrett]

My little racing drone is certainly carbon fiber but it weighs a couple hundred grams.

DJI phantoms, last model I saw is built of plastic.

There hasn't been a recorded plane v drone crash that I've seen documented (the last one that hit the news ended up being birds).

Regardless the rules say under 400', not within 5 miles of an airport and some other locations.

I'm not opposed to a drone 'license plate', I'm all for fining or jailing people that are flying these things near the white house. I'm seeing a lot of hysteria right now triggered by some jackasses who can't be responsible with their toys.

[tim333]

Wikipedia has that bird strikes "cause annual damages that have been estimated at $400 million within the United States of America alone and up to $1.2 billion to commercial aircraft worldwide."

So far drone strikes (excluding deliberate military stuff) have caused damages of $0 I think.

[canow]

but tiny toy battery-operated "drones" typically fly at much lower altitude then any jet engine would be flying at... while some birds fly at much higher altitudes then toy quadcopters...