Another idiot flying over Christmas lights in Yucaipa CA

[HailStorm]

I've lost a Phantom so yeah, it can happen at any time. Does the guy even have prop guards on? I thought it was pretty much a no go to fly over crowds? Is the the TGIF mistletoe drone in the restaurant okay then?

+1

 

[HailStorm]

One mitigating factor is the acceptance or awareness of the risk(s).

With the exception of gun violence (as opposed to a gun accident) you, the proverbial you, accept the risk of transportation related or other casualties The risks are there but the 'authorities' place regulations to minimize them and or protect victims.

Having an object fall or otherwise strike you without your expectation or acknowledgement of said risk is the difference in this discussion.

If I'm at a parade I can expect there could be an accident if a float or other object were to veer off course, etc. Minimal chance but still a chance.

I would not expect to be hit by an out of control or malfunctioning device with possibly spinning blades.

+1

 

[HailStorm]

I always find it interesting, having spent a day or two perusing the old posts, how quickly safety discussions devolve into irrational arguments on this board. Seems there is one camp that thinks a drone hitting you is akin to butterfly wings carressing your face (until you can show him video of otherwise that is...), and others who think a drone hitting you is akin to being fed through a wood chipper.
I think reality lies in between these extremes, don't most of you?

I would not want to hit anyone with my Phantom. I hope I never do. I fly over people, but I make sure they are aware and watching.

 

[Happyflyer]

.....The bottom line is there a device flying around the sky and with it there will always be some risk, but trying to regulate it to the point where no one can be hurt is absurd, it is a balance which must be found and that will always be an opinionated topic.

+1

 

[MadMitch88]

The balance of risk vs reality can be debated until the end of time, with so many opinions everyone will never agree what is considered safe and what is not. Trying to say that one of these devices can not seriously injure someone because it is plastic and weighs a few pounds is ridiculous. It only takes one incident and a movement to get things over regulated due to fear. I agree there is a lot of fear mongering going on and the risk of someone getting hurt is very low, but to say it can't happen..... is very short sighted. Comparing these devices to real planes is apples and oranges and an extreme statement. The bottom line is there a device flying around the sky and with it there will always be some risk, but trying to regulate it to the point where no one can be hurt is absurd, it is a balance which must be found and that will always be an opinionated topic.

Probably the single most lucid, logical and realistic post I've read in this thread.

+10 points for you, good sir.

 

[MadMitch88]

I think reality lies in between these extremes, don't most of you?

I would not want to hit anyone with my Phantom. I hope I never do. I fly over people, but I make sure they are aware and watching.

I think what most of us need to be afraid of is not an actual Phantom crashing into crowds --- but things that can be dropped from a UAV onto people.

How long before we see some idiot dropping a quarter stick of dynamite into a crowded football stadium? Even if it doesnt hurt anyone, the bad publicity will be amplified 1,000 times in the media. "Deadly drones attacking us from the sky!" Y'all know how this will play out. Lots of angry Congressmen promising to ban all drones and inflict harsh punishment on anyone who flies one. Bye bye to our hobby.

 

[tritontr21]

From the videos I've seen of some mishaps, looks more like a lot of stitches. One guy that goofed on a hand catch got chopped up pretty good. Should I post the video?

I know someone who got diagnosed with terminal cancer at 36years old .. They exercised 7 days a week , ate healthy everyday and never texted while driving...

Embrace life brotha.. Cuz s$#$ happens. :ugeek:

+1,000,000.

 

[ianwood]

First off, that looks like the same street with the insanely huge synchronized lighting installation. Pretty darn impressive. These guys aren't dumb.

To the point at hand, it doesn't look like this was an "idiot flying". Steve is right that many people here assume death and destruction are imminent anytime a Phantom flies near anyone. That's simply not the case.

Follow some basic rules and it shouldn't be an issue:

• Closed area, small crowd, aware and able to be alerted = OK after a brief consent and safety discussion.
• Public area, sparsely crowded, able to be alerted = OK with minimum of 100-150ft vertical separation, spotters with VHF radios as needed. Avoid infirm.
• Large crowd, unable to move or be alerted easily = NOT OK, maintain reasonable horizontal separation.

 

[Suwaneeguy]

Looked to me more like a staged event.
As I noticed the lights on both sides of the street were synchronized.
The only time I see that happening is in a movie made in Hollywood on a closed set.
How do you know it was a drone?
Hollywood has cranes that will get the same results.
Hell, for those shots all you would need is a "high lift" or a "cherry picker".

As for the other "idiot" flying over a christmas light house, that certainly was not with a "crowd".
And that one was done with a drone.

 

[HailStorm]

Looked to me more like a staged event.
As I noticed the lights on both sides of the street were synchronized.
The only time I see that happening is in a movie made in Hollywood on a closed set.
How do you know it was a drone?
Hollywood has cranes that will get the same results.
Hell, for those shots all you would need is a "high lift" or a "cherry picker".

As for the other "idiot" flying over a christmas light house, that certainly was not with a "crowd".
And that one was done with a drone.

Well, it is a "planned" event. I guess you could call it staged?
You've never seen synchronized lights before? You can synchronize an entire street, block, or town if you have the participants and the technology. Usually the lights are all tuned to a specific radio station to achieve this.

How do I know it was a drone? The guy who posted it (Jeff Maxey) only has drone videos posted on his channel.
So a good chance that this aerial view from him was from a drone, don't you think?

 

[SteveMann]

Trying to say that one of these devices can not seriously injure someone because it is plastic and weighs a few pounds is ridiculous. It only takes one incident and a movement to get things over regulated due to fear. I agree there is a lot of fear mongering going on and the risk of someone getting hurt is very low, but to say it can't happen..... is very short sighted.

I never said it *cant* happen, I said of the tens or even hundreds of thousands flying, show me ONE serious injury to someone not participating in the flight by a small quadcopter like the Phantom. A Band-aid is not a serious injury (the reporter posing with the microdrone inside a TGIF shoot). An ice-pack is not a serious injury (the August 2013 octocopter crashing into the viewing stands at a really dumb "sporting" event of running with bulls.) BTW - the FAA considers a serious injury as a hospital stay over 24-hours.

Your local know-nothing politicians are the ones likely to try blanket bans, even though they lack the jurisdiction, but consider FAR Part 103 Ultralight Vehicles. People can strap a lawnmower engine with a propeller to their back, strap on a parachute, and fly. No license required. People have died (usually the idiot with the lawnmower engine on his back) including bystanders. But the Part 103 Ultralights are still legal, still no license required, and people still occasionally crash and die.

Yes, it's legal!

 

[HailStorm]

"...the FAA considers a serious injury as a hospital stay over 24-hours."

Man, I get tired of your fabrication of facts.
From the actual FAA website:

Serious Injury
Injuries that result in one or more of the following conditions:

1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within seven days from the date the injury was received,
2) Results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose),
3) Involves lacerations that cause severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage.
4) Involves injury to any internal organ, or
5) Involves second or third degree burns, or any burns affecting more than five percent of the body surface.

Do you have a citation showing the worst injury from the octocopter only required an "ice bag?"
When I read that the owner had to reimburse the 3 people hit for medical expenses, I wasn't aware those expenses were just an ice bag. Can't help but wonder if you made that up too.

 

[SteveMann]

"...the FAA considers a serious injury as a hospital stay over 24-hours."

Man, I get tired of your fabrication of facts.
From the actual FAA website:

Serious Injury
Injuries that result in one or more of the following conditions:

1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within seven days from the date the injury was received,
2) Results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose),
3) Involves lacerations that cause severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage.
4) Involves injury to any internal organ, or
5) Involves second or third degree burns, or any burns affecting more than five percent of the body surface.

Do you have a citation showing the worst injury from the octocopter only required an "ice bag?"
When I read that the owner had to reimburse the 3 people hit for medical expenses, I wasn't aware those expenses were just an ice bag. Can't help but wonder if you made that up too.

just the "victims" interview:
http://wtvr.com/2013/08/26/great-bull-run-crash-victims/

The injured trio headed to the medical tent where they were given ice packs for their injuries. All three admitted that nothing appeared to be a seriously injured or broken on their bodies. They claimed they spoke with event organizers who were apologetic and offered a full refund and an explanation for the crash. The reason that was given to us was that the UAV or the drone, the battery had died, and it basically plummeted because of that.

And thanks for the correction, that it takes 48 hours in the hospital to qualify as a serious injury, not just 24 as I said.

 

[samd012]

Trying to say that one of these devices can not seriously injure someone because it is plastic and weighs a few pounds is ridiculous. It only takes one incident and a movement to get things over regulated due to fear. I agree there is a lot of fear mongering going on and the risk of someone getting hurt is very low, but to say it can't happen..... is very short sighted.

I never said it *cant* happen, I said of the tens or even hundreds of thousands flying, show me ONE serious injury to someone not participating in the flight by a small quadcopter like the Phantom. A Band-aid is not a serious injury (the reporter posing with the microdrone inside a TGIF shoot). An ice-pack is not a serious injury (the August 2013 octocopter crashing into the viewing stands at a really dumb "sporting" event of running with bulls.) BTW - the FAA considers a serious injury as a hospital stay over 24-hours.

Your local know-nothing politicians are the ones likely to try blanket bans, even though they lack the jurisdiction, but consider FAR Part 103 Ultralight Vehicles. People can strap a lawnmower engine with a propeller to their back, strap on a parachute, and fly. No license required. People have died (usually the idiot with the lawnmower engine on his back) including bystanders. But the Part 103 Ultralights are still legal, still no license required, and people still occasionally crash and die.

Yes, it's legal!

You lost me.... wth does an ultralight have to do with this. Anyone can name a million things that can kill you (and all don't need a license), just like the real aircraft analogy and quads its apples and oranges...... enough said.
And for the record you have made it very clear across multiple topics that these small models are not dangerous, heck you even volunteered to be someones crash dummy with a Styrofoam plane before. We can agree to disagree on the fact of whether one can "seriously" injure you, and also disagree on what a serious injury is considered. But one thing I am sure of is that although it is highly unlikely that someone has the chance of being injured (seriously injured) percentage wise by a quadcopter or rc aircraft there is no doubt in my mind that they can (and one day someone will!) be seriously injured.

 

[HailStorm]

And thanks for the correction, that it takes 48 hours in the hospital to qualify as a serious injury, not just 24 as I said.

Sure. And thanks for the citation on the octocopter. Glad to know the facts.

You do realize that according to FAA, the 48 hour hospital stay is only ONE (1) of five criterion that meets the definition of serious injury, right?

 

[HailStorm]

You lost me.... wth does an ultralight have to do with this. Anyone can name a million things that can kill you (and all don't need a license), just like the real aircraft analogy and quads its apples and oranges...... enough said.
And for the record you have made it very clear across multiple topics that these small models are not dangerous, heck you even volunteered to be someones crash dummy with a Styrofoam plane before. We can agree to disagree on the fact of whether one can "seriously" injure you, and also disagree on what a serious injury is considered. But one thing I am sure of is that although it is highly unlikely that someone has the chance of being injured (seriously injured) percentage wise by a quadcopter or rc aircraft there is no doubt in my mind that they can (and one day someone will!) be seriously injured.

I have to agree with you. We haven't been hit by a meteorite yet have we? But man, there sure is a lot of people working to prevent that from happening. In Mister Mann's world, we would wait until the meteor hit before we took preventative measures.
I think drone hits in the long run will probably happen slightly more often than meteorite hits, but still the potential should be recognized.

You don't pull an Ultralight out of a box, throw a battery in it and take off flying. No license is required, but about 20-30 hours of instruction is required. And you follow the exact same rules that the FAA is asking us to follow.

 

[Meta4]

When you are seriously considering the risk presented by a hazard you have to look at the potential consequences and the likelihood of the event happening.
The forum is full of people dwelling on absolutely worst case scenarios because they excite the imagination but to get things properly in perspective you need to calculate:
The probability of a Phantom falling - Phantoms rarely fall out of the sky
The probability of a falling Phantom hitting a sensitive target - of all the spaces a falling quad can hit very few can be damaged
The probability that it will cause serious injury - there is a whole spectrum of potential consequences and serious injury is at the far end of this.

If you focus on what could happen, you'd definitely never drive a car and you'd always buy tickets in every lottery.
You'd never have a firearm and probably never leave the house.
But remember that most injuries happen in the home.
What could happen is only one part of proper assessment of risk.

 

[ianwood]

Ultralights are fully relevant. It's a flying machine that goes further and higher than a Phantom can and requires nothing from the FAA. SteveMann, thanks for bringing up that example. It highlights a duality.

The FAA is proposing you need a pilot's license to operate a sub 5lb quadcopter even if you never operate above 400ft. And yet to strap a lawnmower on my back and cruise around at several thousand feet, I need nothing.

 

[MadMitch88]

The FAA is proposing you need a pilot's license to operate a sub 5lb quadcopter even if you never operate above 400ft. And yet to strap a lawnmower on my back and cruise around at several thousand feet, I need nothing.

Which is exactly why the FAA needs to be shut down and their headquarters in DC demolished and turned into a quadcopter park for poor urban youth.

 

[SteveMann]

Ultralights are fully relevant. It's a flying machine that goes further and higher than a Phantom can and requires nothing from the FAA. SteveMann, thanks for bringing up that example. It highlights a duality.

The FAA is proposing you need a pilot's license to operate a sub 5lb quadcopter even if you never operate above 400ft. And yet to strap a lawnmower on my back and cruise around at several thousand feet, I need nothing.

I think that Ultralights are a good analogy to use in our comments to the approaching NPRM.
Here's the whole Part 103 text (it begins at the end of the first page)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title14-vol2/pdf/CFR-2012-title14-vol2-part103.pdf

It's an interesting read - just change Ultralight to UAV and you'll get an idea of where we could be heading.