Re: Am I wrong in thinking that if ..
All new Engine designs/planes are tested to prevent structural failure of the Engine encasement. Any new plane design has to survive a complete engine disintegration (whatever caused it) without puncturing the wing, fuel tanks. Planes are designed to be able to land on a single engine, if one fails.
Oh, here we go again. It's all not a problem because doing something utterly stupid during the most critical part of a journey doesn't add any danger whatsoever.
Well, let's take an example where you CAN get your head around then. You know that a car has two separate brake circuits, yes? When one circuit falls out, you still have two wheels that can brake (we're assuming for the moment that you still have engine support). Do you really think that your car will just slow down in the exact same manner as before - as if nothing's wrong at all? See that sudden traffic jam form in front of you? Think you can still go from 120 km/h to a standstill in exactly the same distance?
It's exactly this "oh it can't harm because engines can take it anyway" stupidity that leads utter idiots to operate drones where it's really a bad idea, so I have a proposal:
Let's round up a group of these twats and use them as test dummies. Let a remote guided plane with this f*ckwits land whilst someone flies a drone into an engine in the name of science - after all, it allegedly can't harm at all. It combines getting real data with disposing of some idiots that would not even be suitable for the B Ark.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
