Safety by virtue of funding source

If an AWES prototyping or science benefits from state funding, do you presume there is a standard for reporting the findings of that r&d which are important to the safe deployment of the technology?

Possibly not. Maybe the case could be argued that reporting would be detrimental to the public investment or the company IP.

Aviation authorities globally report on standards and accidents … But which relevant bulletin pages should we scan and repaste here?
Anyone suggest some search pattern data which could be automatically run (maybe with IFTTT) or open access locations which could be shared…
With relevant open science safety data?

Well this seems useless…

ECCAIRS: European central repository for aviation accident and incident reports

The European Coordination Centre for Accident and Incident Reporting Systems (ECCAIRS) provides the European Central Repository for accident and incident reports in aviation. ECCAIRS implements Directive 2003/42/EC on Occurrence Reporting in Civil Aviation by offering a centralised and standardised way to collect, share and analyse safety data related to aviation accidents and incidents.

Access is restricted to authorized authorities.

1 Like

That seems like the perfect place to ask your question.

The PR issue is a strong incentive to not share accident reports. I think most people will not easily understand the amount of crashing that may be required to develop new AWE.

Also, what is the value? A prototype will fail in many ways. The team will incrementally improve on the design based on this feedback. An outsider will not know that a new software algorithm being tested was the direct source of a crash.

I personally think this makes most sense once the AWE rigs are transferred out of the R&D companies into hands of end customers. In the meantime, crash statistics are better dealt with inside the companies producing the kites.

Is the following being related to the topic?

1 Like

The data is collated by a public body so there is probably a freedom of information implication, invoking access rights for concerned parties.

For full disclosure… Maybe I should have reported to this database when I stood beside 7 tethers snapping as one, I recommend others to avoid that situation. Also… In a very old test, I saw an anchor thrown through the air above my head. Again… You really don’t want that.

Was sharing on twitter youtube etc more responsible? At least people can read about it, & it’s where they find out about the system itself.

This unfortunately is no laughing matter. An injury to an outsider is a bad thing any way you look at it. If a single tether breaks and the kite drifts off, that situation is really difficult to manage in high winds.

I dont want this to be a new chapter of soft vs rigid kites, but a rigid kite may be better able to handle a broken tether situation by landing at the winch…

A safety lesson learned in private and not shared could allow loss of life by another party that did not have access to the safety lesson.

Yes, AWE R&D involves a lot of crashing, as a pioneering aviation field, but should not involve a lot of venture-capitalist cover-up. Investors also deserve to know who is crashing and why. Expect lawsuits by harmed parties from both investment and direct victim classes.

Yes, soft kites are very dangerous if known safety methods are not applied, but high-mass high-velocity rigid aircraft are the greater traditional hazard as reflected in aviation regulations.

A kite-killer mechanism that turns a soft kite into a falling cloth may well be safer than early over-dependence on a rigid aircraft returning autonomously to base.

Multiline topologies are a better fit to soft kite units, due to less tether-drag at lower inherent velocities and other practical issues.