Maybe even auto laser-turrets for more epic-ness?

Since we have such a shitshow of a US government, can someone tell the new FAA person to add turrets to planes? Ya know, 'Murica 2nd Amendment and all… 👀

Surely, nothing will ever go wrong with this? Right?

  • ThomasCrappersGhost@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I have a better idea….why not cover up the front of the engines so the blades aren’t exposed. Let’s face it, it’s really dangerous having that area open like it is.

  • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    The bullets that don’t hit the birds would rain down on populated areas.
    Bird strikes happen at lower altitudes and airliners fly much higher than birds unless they’re taking off or landing, and they almost always takeoff or land near a populated area.
    More people would die on average from stay bullets then from airplane crates caused my bird strikes

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      What’s the terminal velocity of a bullet? My guess is that it’s similar to the terminal velocity of a penny.

      In other words, raining bullets are highly unlikely to directly kill anyone (although they could still sting if they hit you, or chip your windshield).

      They could use ice bullets and solve that problem though….

      • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        That depends mostly on their size, as size is reduced mass decreases faster than drag. Smaller birdshot is no longer dangerous after a couple hundred yards while large rifle bullets can kill even after traveling several miles.

      • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        You are incorrect. Many people have been killed by bullets falling back to earth. There is even a law in Arizona named after a little girl killed that way.

        Shooting guns in the air should result in prison and lifetime forfeiture of the privilege to own firearms. It’s irresponsible and extremely negligent.

        And I’m not anti-gun. I own 3 and enjoy target shooting. What I am, is anti-gun ownership by morons.

      • Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Terminal velocity is really only relevant for objects that go below terminal velocity and then start falling. Bullets famously come out of guns very fast, so fast they go into people.

        While air will slow the bullet down, tell that to the guy over over 2 miles away from Viacheslav Kovalskyi

        Now, bird shot ain’t sniper rounds, but the point stands.

        • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Bullets also famously come out of guns horizontally. As they travel, their horizontal speed decreases due to friction (slowly) and their horizontal speed accelerates until it hits terminal velocity.

          Now one point here is that the only place where you’d be shooting at birds is during takeoff and landing; this is near the ground, and in both cases, the aircraft is nose up — which means the bullet wouldn’t be traveling at height until it lost momentum and fell, but would instead follow an arc that would still likely preserve a lot of forward momentum as the bullet approached the surface of the earth.

          But it’s not falling bullets that are dangerous; it’s bullets moving forward with velocity that cause damage.

    • A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah, that one at Reagan was just especially tragic and in a wild week.

      Any repercussions of the gutting of the FAA and similar crap from the administration will likely take more time to become apparent, as the general air traffic control system becomes less regulated

  • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    That would be cool. Boringly though, there are safer ways as well. Birds tend to be scared of loud bangs, so you could scare them away with just sounds.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    The intake of a jet engine can kill birds a dozen at a time. The exhaust can drive them extinct. A turret would be just showing off.

      • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 hours ago

        the shareholders usually don’t get much. the top managers are the ones filling their pockets. sometimes the top managers also own shares tho

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Or just add a bomb that can be remotely detonated, so whenever an accident happens, they can detonate the bomb and shift the blame from the regulators / aircraft manufacturer to “terrorism”, then they can pass another Patriot Act Enabling Act to combat terrorism.

      • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        You do if those drones lay down firepower to clear the airspace for the aircraft.

        And as a side benefit, the drones stay in the ATC zones where aircraft go through bird airspace, so you don’t have weapons on foreign planes AND you can shoot down anything else that makes it into the aircraft’s collision zone, like other drones, balloons or military helicopters.