2 ms·
Sucking a bird into a jet engine, obviously. Was this a rhetorical question? The jet engine is mounted to a plane. It's designed to withstand bird strikes wi
by LeifCarrotson 8y ago
Sucking a bird into a jet engine, obviously. Was this a rhetorical question?
The jet engine is mounted to a plane. It's designed to withstand bird strikes without exploding - they literally blast frozen turkeys into it with an air cannon - but they can still cause engine out situations that result in crashes or emergency landings and risk the lives of the hundreds of people on board. Not to mention the huge repair costs all that incurs.
I value the safety of the people aboard that plane far above the comfort of the birds that would like to live at the airport, to the extent that scaring millions of birds is worth doing if it's likely to save the lives of a couple hundred people. Though that's getting pretty close to the threshold at which it ceases to be worthwhile.
Also, if I was in the bird's shoes, I would much prefer to be scared by a drone than ingested into the jet engine...
- HanayamaTriplet 8y agoI think you misread the question, which could perhaps be more clearly phrased as "What’s worse to suck into a jet engine - a bird or a bird-scaring drone?"
- deelowe 8y agoI think the parent meant: What's worse to suck into a jet engine -- a bird or a bird scaring drone?
- maltalex 8y agocan confirm.
- drewmol 8y agoHe was pondering what's worse for a bird: extremely low occurance but surely instantaneous death, or getting to live knowing you'll be driven from your homeland to eventual extinction from robot invaders and wind turbines.
- shawn 8y agoI like how there are three different interpretations of the question.
- userbinator 8y ago...and that the "third" one is also amusingly absurd. (Imagine a "bird-vacuuming drone.")