I am disappointed in one of our own members for his neglegent decision to fly over freeways.

[Motopreserve]

Regardless of whether it has happened already or not - I personally would not want even a smaller ($500) drone to fall from the sky onto my hood while I'm doing 60mph in congested traffic. Nor would I want it to land on my person, particularly if the props were still spinning.

Of course, maybe that's just me.

 

[scotth]

There are voluminous examples of people flying irresponsibly. I would put this flight in that category. There are also plenty of examples of pilots of full size aircraft flying irresponsibly. A lot of them are dead. The difference is, the full size folks have passed knowledge and practical exams and theoretically are supposed to understand the risks (and rules) whereas toy drone flyers.. just need a credit card.

How about the pilot of this drone? Was he flying irresponsibly too?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-34936739

Eventually injuries will increase, just like with snowblowers, trampolines, pools, chainsaws. The plaintiff bar will jump in and lawsuits will drive the cost of the hobby up.

 

[fengshuidrone]

Blue Collar,

A few of us in here have been flying manned aviation for a VERY long time. No accidents. Personally, I've been directly involved with high level unmanned aviation for 11 years. Many accidents. I've been involved with high level R&D for a couple years, and some of those are beyond what most have ever seen. The accident rates are even higher.

Our level of MR's use auto pilots that are realistically no more than toys, with motors and ESC's made from the cheapest components and lowest level of underpaid, unskilled labor available. Most of the radio equipment is similar, with the exception of Futaba, who had been manufacturing very sophisticated industrial robotic systems for a very long time.

Not to mention that many of these components are being used in home builds by first timers who are new to the hobby and probably in most cases are unaware that there are any safety issues to even think about. I personally think that there are folks out there buying this stuff that have more money than brains. I am answering questions all the time on various forums from people asking stuff that they should be able to find on their own (but they lack the research skills to properly accomplish this) so they ask others, which is ok if the others they ask are giving the correct answer. Then they argue with what you tell them after they try to follow your directions and fail because they just shouldn't be trying to build a quad in the first place. There is no way this person succeeds so they give up and go buy a $900.00 DJI and then have it fly away because they forgot to calibrate the mag before their flight. I know, I'm getting off track here but like I've said already, common sense is a bad name.

 

[Old Man]

Some good points brought up in this thread thus far. Yet to be mentioned is that manned aviation is still the safest form of passenger transport available, by a considerable percentage. There was a position that manned aviation for low level ops was as dangerous as our MR's, but that's absolutely not the case. Consider the number of news helicopters being operated across the country everyday. Considering how the movie industry uses aviation for shoots the incident rate is infinitesimally small. Some of the medivac stuff has been experiencing a higher than usual accident rates but perhaps the nature of where they take off and land puts them in a higher risk category.

Manned aviation uses checklists for every phase of operation. There's the pre-flight check list, take off check list, landing check list, and post flight check list. A massive amount of training goes into the en route phase of flight, and if a commercial operator that level of training is even more intense. There's aircraft inspection and maintenance schedules that have to be complied with, along with avionics inspection cycles. All of which have to be performed by trained and certified technicians, that are only allowed to use parts that have passed an extensive certification process for quality assurance. Expect some of that to be levied on us sooner or later.

A truly professional MR operation will make extensive use of training and check lists to assure safety and minimize equipment losses. They will also inspect their areas of intended flight prior to executing to be aware of all the potential issues that could cause grief if left ignored. They develop a plan before they fly and then fly the plan. In other words, they generate a risk assessment in order to practice risk management. That is something woefully lacking in most of the MR operations we see every day, be it at the semi pro or amateur level, and until that improves some things just should not be done with MR's if people will be at risk underneath them.

 

[violetwolf]

Good post Old Man. Risk management and professional conduct was kind of the point of my post on the previous page mentioning the Canadian requirement for our Special Flight Operations Certificates... and yet I get lampooned by a couple of members for it. Sigh

At the very least everyone should have a first aid kit and fire extinguisher on hand for every flight. Beyond that, a pre-flight and safety checklist would be nice... maybe bring a friend to act as a spotter... maintenance logs..

Dad was a bush pilot. I'd logged 100's of hours by the age of ten so I feel you.

 

[dazzab]

How about the pilot of this drone? Was he flying irresponsibly too?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-34936739

Doesn't sound like it from what the article states. Appears to be a horrible horrible accident.

But there are lots of people flying quadcopters around children all the time. Some time ago I remember seeing a video of a guy who would land his octocopter by having his daughter (who looked about 12) stand underneath it and catch it as he brought it down. I guess he thought that was a cool thing to do.

 

[scotth]

Some good points brought up in this thread thus far. Yet to be mentioned is that manned aviation is still the safest form of passenger transport available, but a considerable percentage. There was an position that manned aviation for low level opes was as dangerous as our MR's, but that's absolutely not the case. Consider the number of news helicopters being operated across the country everyday. Considering how the movie industry uses aviation for shoots the incident rate is infinitesimally small. Some of the medivac stuff has been experiencing a higher than usual accident rates but perhaps the nature of where they take off and land puts them in a higher risk category.

Manned aviation uses checklists for every phase of operation. There's the pre-flight check list, take off check list, landing check list, and post flight check list. A massive amount of training goes into the en route phase of flight, and if a commercial operator that level of training is even more intense. There's aircraft inspection and maintenance schedules that have to be complied with, along with avionics inspection cycles. All of which have to be performed by trained and certified technicians, that are only allowed to use parts that have passed an extensive certification process for quality assurance. Expect some of that to be levied on us sooner or later.

A truly professional MR operation will make extensive use of training and check lists to assure safety and minimize equipment losses. They will also inspect their areas of intended flight prior to executing to be aware of all the potential issues that could cause grief if left ignored. They develop a plan before they fly and then fly the plan. In other words, they generate a risk assessment in order to practice risk management. That is something woefully lacking in most of the MR operations we see every day, be it at the semi pro or amateur level, and until that improves some things just should not be done with MR's if people will be at risk underneath them.

And it took the Vic Morrow accident to draw the FAA's attention to the use of aircraft on movie sets, and the creation of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual requirement (http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.3,Ch8,Sec1) which by the way also applies to UAS (mostly). If you didn't get your 333 with an MPTOM also part of the paperwork and approved, you STILL can't fly closer than 500' to anyone that's not required for the operation of the UAS (the FAA doesn't consider people 'on camera' as being required). So you're pretty much limited to inspection type of work.. legally.

 

[fengshuidrone]

Good post Old Man. Risk management and professional conduct was kind of the point of my post on the previous page mentioning the Canadian requirement for our Special Flight Operations Certificates... and yet I get lampooned by a couple of members for it. Sigh

At the very least everyone should have a first aid kit and fire extinguisher on hand for every flight. Beyond that, a pre-flight and safety checklist would be nice... maybe bring a friend to act as a spotter... maintenance logs..

Dad was a bush pilot. I'd logged 100's of hours by the age of ten so I feel you.

I missed the lampoonig you mentioned after going and re reading things. If you are referring to my post, I was in complete agreement with you and meant nothing to be taken sarcastically or in a bad way.
Oh, and Blue Collar, I posted that crash video to show that any idiot can get his hands on this stuff and cause it to come crashing down (potentially on someones car hood.) This guy on the video is clearly one of those people with more money than brains who should probably be banned from doing things like this, but won't be because it's still a free country, money talks and he can go buy another one already built for him. The landing gear falling away from the craft is one sure giveaway that this guys pre-flight check involved only his "looking at it" while it sat there idling. The fact that he appears to be flying in a "remote" location can be a moot point because if he would have had a fly away as well as the crash he had, it could have flown away, then crashed (a logical series of events I would guess) causing untold $ in damage. That thing had some HUGE batteries on it. Have you ever seen the video where the crashed drone's battery catches fire? Li Po's are known to burst into flame upon impact. If you don't believe me just go hit one with a hammer. I bet at least half the people flying these things are not aware that they are piloting potential incendiary bombs waiting to ignite with a really bad landing.
Multiply that potential to catch fire with the possibility that it crashes into a refinery on it's wayward flight.
Li Po and other re chargeable batteries have caught fire in the cargo holds of airplanes transporting them for distribution to retailers causing crashes to occur. I think at one point there was talk of banning them altogether.
Why didn't the batteries catch fire in the video? Maybe he got lucky. The point is they can, will and have caught fire in the past and could again.
Old Man, the checklist.......the checklist that most store bought drone operators know nothing about. I use an app called EZ GUI that hooks up through BT. One of the coolest features in that app is an included checklist that can be customized and easily accessed before each flight. I use it. It works. Listen to your elders you young whipper snappers. Develop a checklist and use it.

 

[Old Man]

I bet at least half the people flying these things are not aware that they are piloting a potential incendiary bombs waiting to ignite with a really bad landing.
Multiply that potential to catch fire with the possibility that it crashes into a refinery on it's wayward flight.
Li Po and other re chargeable batteries have caught fire in the cargo holds of airplanes transporting them for distribution to retailers causing crashes to occur. I think at one point there was talk of banning them altogether.
Why didn't the batteries catch fire in the video? Maybe he got lucky. The point is they can, will and have caught fire in the past and could again.

Another great point and one mostly over looked. I've been flying RC for the better part of 50 years and fires from crashed models was an extremely rare event. Until... Once models changed from a glow or even gasoline fuel source to a lithium battery fuel source fires from crashed planes and helicopters increased exponentially. Toss in fires caused at the field, AND in the home from battery mismanagement for a little icing on the cake. Then turbines were introduced, using propane and Jet A as a fuel source that when combined with a hot exhaust outlet often provide a very entertaining but also very dangerous explosion during a high speed meeting with the ground or other object.

The flying of RC aircraft really hasn't become any more dangerous than it ever was but some of the components used have created a condition where mistakes have a much greater impact on everything around them than they used to. The flood of "know nothing" new users buying consumer drones and some of the higher quality small MR toys is where the hobby/profession is having problems. Those people need to be reached before the purchase concludes. I've seen a few "drones for Christmas" commercials on the tube already and they are making the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

As in anything else, education and training is the key to developing safe operating practices. I doubt those outfits pimping their MR training courses do anything of any significance with with maintenance training, which is as important as the flying side. That stuff is left to people like us and places like MR Forums to spread the word. The manner in which we deliver that info has an impact on how it's received. Something we need to remember to avoid having ears close when we speak. I think we do a pretty fair job for the most part.

 

[Old Man]

And it took the Vic Morrow accident to draw the FAA's attention to the use of aircraft on movie sets, and the creation of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual requirement (http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.3,Ch8,Sec1) which by the way also applies to UAS (mostly). If you didn't get your 333 with an MPTOM also part of the paperwork and approved, you STILL can't fly closer than 500' to anyone that's not required for the operation of the UAS (the FAA doesn't consider people 'on camera' as being required). So you're pretty much limited to inspection type of work.. legally.

Scott,

Glad you brought the Morrow event up. I remember it well. Something to consider with that one is it has always taken an event where people have died, and in some cases that have had high media visibility, for the DOT/FAA/NTSB to develop new safety regulations. Typically those are "knee jerk" reactions and go well overboard with their intended purpose. The longer people operating our stuff can go without creating a media debacle the better off we will be. It only takes the use of common sense (evidently not that common anymore) to prevent bad things from happening.

 

[Old Man]

There are voluminous examples of people flying irresponsibly. I would put this flight in that category. There are also plenty of examples of pilots of full size aircraft flying irresponsibly. A lot of them are dead. The difference is, the full size folks have passed knowledge and practical exams and theoretically are supposed to understand the risks (and rules) whereas toy drone flyers.. just need a credit card.

How about the pilot of this drone? Was he flying irresponsibly too?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-34936739

Eventually injuries will increase, just like with snowblowers, trampolines, pools, chainsaws. The plaintiff bar will jump in and lawsuits will drive the cost of the hobby up.

I'm going to disagree with a previous post that saw this as just as accident. Based on the information in the article I view it as irresponsible operation that caused a terrible accident. If the operator had been more cognizant of his area conditions the aircraft would not have clipped the tree. The tree would have been avoided or the flight not conducted because the operating area was too small and obstructed to be safe. The pilot in command is solely responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft and the outcome of every flight. Although the event occurred in the U.K. their regulations are virtually the same as ours in pilot responsibilities.

 

[Blue Collar]

And even with the MPTOM requirement there have been 19 deaths. All the certifications and checklists in the world will not make full scale safer than drones when it comes to aerial photography and video. You can certainly argue that the incident rate is extremely low with hollywood film crews and news choppers but there have been incidents that have a led to loss of life and property. In 2010 two news choppers collided and crashed in Phoenix, AZ causing loss of life. 10 people died in Argentina this year when 2 helis collided while filming a reality tv show. At this point there has been much more filming done with drones (just look at youtube as many of you point out) and not one significant incident of injury or property damage.

Let me ask you all this, would you rather be involved in 1 full scale accident or 1000 multi rotor crashes? If we are going to do a true risk assessment of aviation activities a 2 pound phantom or even a 35lb alexa mini carrying mr is just not in the same category as a 1500lb helicopter. You can even argue that all activities that can be accomplished with these much smaller aircraft should be left to them and them alone.

And yes minor accidents like the infant loosing an eye (yes it is horrible that an infant lost an eye but its not something that would be considered a life threatening injury) will increase just like accidents with snowblowers, weed eaters, lawn mowers and ect. Do you all advocate that lic. requirements should be in place for powered lawn equipment because any idiot with a credit card can get them?

I can certainly understand if you work in the high end UAV industry or own a full scale aerial filming operation where you would want as many regulations on suas as possible, but to claim it is all about safety seems to ignore the fact that the "s" in suas makes them much less of a risk and inherently safer. If these things were such a danger we would be seeing the damage rates increasing by this point. Small hobby drones out number general aviation aircraft by about 5 to 1 at this point (the aopa states that there are only about 260,000 ga aircraft in the US and the FAA states by this xmas there will be 2 million hobby drones in the US) and other than a few cases of bad lacerations I can't find any incidents of significant injury or property damage caused by them. I can't even find a video filmed by a suas that shows someone's privacy being violated (the other reason people give for the need of SUAS regulation). So when I see threads like this that freak out about unsafe operations of suas I have to wonder where this concern is coming from.

 

[fengshuidrone]

People like me are tired of people like him causing extra laws to be passed on the rest of us because of his irresponsible actions. The RC hobby was being left alone until all the idiots started flying drones. That is where the concern is coming from. The AMA and those who follow its well established practices were doing just fine safety wise until DJI got involved. Now we have the feds threatening all kinds of ridiculous knee jerk reactionary laws because anyone with enough money instead of passion who doesn't give a crap about the hobby or other people for that matter can start flying.
The only way left for us with passion to try and keep things from being entirely taken over by big brother is to let those who are making us look bad (like the pilot in question) know about it and hopefully others can learn from this and avoid his obvious errors. At least they are fairly obvious to me.

 

[Old Man]

Blue Collar,

I understand where you are coming from and the basis for your argument but the foundation is skewed. I'm not saying you are outright wrong but I truly disagree with your assessments.

The only reduction in risk is to to the operator of the sUAS. Everyone else is still at risk, at greater levels than with manned operations. That's why the DOT/FAA published the risk assessment figures used for the sUAS registration desires. sUAS ops COULD be safer, but the equipment isn't there yet. Roughly 48,000 people died in auto accidents last year, yet operation of an automobile is considered "safe". Cherry picking reference data does not present well to people that have comprehension of the larger picture. sUAS only appears "safer" at the moment because the use inside this country, and most others, for commercial operations is not yet wide spread. There is yet to be a data base generated that records sUAS incidents and injuries at all levels. Even RC aircraft have had their share of fatal and serious injuries, generally involving the operator of the model aircraft. That data is difficult to obtain but serious research will expose it. None of the major MR manufacturers will publish the numbers of reported flyaways and component failures they have received from their users, we have to use anecdotal evidence from forum posts to develop a reference. What is clear is those rates are higher than what is acceptable.

As one involved in the high end side of sUAS I oppose an increase in regulations beyond what is needed to provide for safe operation of our stuff. Anyone operating sUAS commercially should be certified at some level and understand safety and airspace. I do believe "tiered" regulations will be/are necessary for different classes of sUAS operation though. BLOS ops are vastly different from low level, line of sight operations, and different and considerably better equipment is necessary for such operations. Operator requirements need to be much higher for BLOS ops because they will be operating in the manned aircraft environment and must be fluent in how the system works to effectively participate in it. Using line of sight equipment I've consistently flown out over 130 miles with sUAS and know without any doubt we cannot maintain see and avoid with the equipment available to us now, and that the response of the operator during emergency situations is something that has to be ingrained into the operator, with other safety features integrated into the sUAS hardware/software. If comm and GPS are lost at the same time many sUAS are programmed to terminate continued flight in a self destructive manner. I've seen many hit the ground, both near and far, but the training and systems involved with them prevented injury to people on the ground. I've only got a bit over 2000 hours of PIC time with higher end commercial sUAS and many times that on the maintenance and R&D sides. At one time I was a full scale flight instructor. On the RC side of things I've been at it so long I stopped counting the hours many years ago, so I believe I have a basis of foundation for my positions.

Nobody can yet say that about multirotors since they are completely uncontrollable if the power fails, and still take off to places unknown by themselves with high frequency. Someone getting hit with a 15" to 32" carbon prop is not something I want to see. I've already seen what props of the same size do on humans with RC. Some of those occurred with RC aircraft under full control of an operator, some after positive control or radio link was lost, but the fact remains that in far too many of those instances someone got seriously hurt or killed.

There's also the one item that has yet to be addressed, and that's system comprehension of what people are using for their MR activities. The vast majority do not understand the relationships of the equipment being used, nor do they understand the programming of their flight controllers, and in many cases how to make safe alterations to that software when such options are available. Some manufacturers are loathe to provide detailed system information to their users. Those alone can be the difference between a safe and unsafe activity. Buy and fly does nothing for the promotion of safe flight practices. In fact, it does just the opposite.

 

[dark_star]

no doubt, the idiots are destroying the industry. for us old timers its especially sad because when we had the business to ourselves (pre phantom and other garbage) it was so much more exclusive, safe and satisfying. I like when videos of reckless or dangerous crap is posted to shame the operators. it may actually be one of the few things we can do to help make some real change.

but the flip side is that all this debate is pointless. we're preaching to the choir. also the cat is long out of the bag. no amount of caa, faa, EU rules, ops manuals, town rules or anything will keep the idiots from doing this things. way too cheap, easy and fast to deploy inspire and do 'sick' shots that get views on snapchat and insta. they don't care about any GD ops manuals, don't know about them, will never have them, and outright laugh at those of us dealing with it.

who can blame them?? all of us who are 100% legal have so many restrictions and complications- the joke could be on us.

please, I want and totally believe that safety should be number one. everything I do is legal and conservative. paperwork, permits, plans filings. but the main issue is that the playing field is not level and, worse, it will never be. the barrier to entry (cost/complexity) is gone and now the idiots come in. the race to the bottom started a few years ago.

these kind of videos that duck posted are one symptom. there are more. but the true, main takeaway is that there is no solution. just like no solution to crack pipes, bums and bad music. anyone can do this and the pros suffer.

if someone has true, practical solution, please let us know.

 

[fengshuidrone]

There's also the one item that has yet to be addressed, and that's system comprehension of what people are using for their MR activities. The vast majority do not understand the relationships of the equipment being used, nor do they understand the programming of their flight controllers, and in many cases how to make safe alterations to that software when such options are available. Some manufacturers are loathe to provide detailed system information to their users. Those alone can be the difference between a safe and unsafe activity. Buy and fly does nothing for the promotion of safe flight practices. In fact, it does just the opposite.

I hate to bash the multiwii community because I am obviously a member there, but most people who use the multiwii firmware are completely unaware that their software comes with the failsafe function disabled by default and it must be set up, tested, and tweaked until it operates as expected. The lack of adequate documentation available to first time builders and users of the platform is out of control and in many cases dangerous. It is entirely up to the user of this platform to research and troubleshoot setup and any other problems that may arise and many have no clue how to do this. Multiply that problem by the dozens of firmwares being used out there and then add in all of the DJI style non programmable FCs (probably even worse) and there is obviously issues beyond the ability to ever be fixed.

 

[Old Man]

Dark Star,

I believe the process is currently in play to level that playing field. Unfortunately I also believe those standards will be much higher than most of us will ever be able to participate in outside of the 333 process. We should be grateful to those outfits that got that process started because I see the day not too distant where those not having a 333 could find themselves excluded from low level commercial activities.

 

[Old Man]

Multiply that problem by the dozens of firmwares being used out there and then add in all of the DJI style non programmable FCs (probably even worse) and there is obviously issues beyond the ability to ever be fixed.

Whether you are aware or not, the FAA has been working extremely close with a couple of sUAS firms to develop the equipment and operating standards for sUAS ops. Several systems are being operated literally on a daily basis with the FAA in constant attendance and receiving detailed reports and reference data on all aspects of those operations. Recent press releases from one sUAS group have been making a discreet reference to how things are going to be. Ultimately the issues you describe will be "fixed", but I have concerns about the manner the fix will be in.

 

[Blue Collar]

I would not disagree that some forms of commercial uav ops should be regulated and greater safety measures should be in place, such as blos and heavier uavs especially if they are operating in airspace with other aircraft. But the majority of vids like in the original post that people complain about do not fall under those situations. Currently most commercial operations do not fall into that category either.

We can thank the over reaction to these videos by the media (which includes threads likes this) for regulation as much as the videos themselves. Phantom crashes into WhiteHouse lawn end result pick up broken pieces, phantom crashes into ferris wheel end result cheap plastic table broken, S800 crashes into crowd at soccer match end result pick up broken pieces, Ricky Martin tries to catch a mr end result a few stitches but the media acts like it is inevitable that the audi commercials of the world will be the end result.

And yes we have incomplete data of mr accidents which is as much of an argument against regulation as for. I am fully aware of fatal accidents involving rc aircraft but as you stated most if not all of them involved the operator and those in recent memory involve someone performing 3d heli maneuvers to close to themselves.
But at this point I am confident in saying that there is as much hobby uav flying going on as general aviation flying going on and the major accident rate for hobby uavs in basically zero to date.

If your concern is regulation of traditional RC activity (flying at an AMA field) I wouldn't worry to much. The FAA has not seemed to willing to do that, you may have to register but if you are an AMA member you kind of already are.

 

[scotth]

Whether you are aware or not, the FAA has been working extremely close with a couple of sUAS firms to develop the equipment and operating standards for sUAS ops. Several systems are being operated literally on a daily basis with the FAA in constant attendance and receiving detailed reports and reference data on all aspects of those operations. Recent press releases from one sUAS group have been making a discreet reference to how things are going to be. Ultimately the issues you describe will be "fixed", but I have concerns about the manner the fix will be in.

The 'fix is in' alright..