Quebec woman hit with a falling P3

[Brew132]

This is my fear. I'm not sure how this works for hobbiest but if we were to get a lawsuit on our hands is it pretty much out of pocket?

 

[Traveler]

Yes we do operate with some risk. Even if you stay far away from people, the bird can cover a great deal of distance on a loss of control. You have to be ready to make the sacrifice with a CSC. All said though, I think we all partake in a more dangerous event daily, i.e. Driving a car. Kind of crazy if you think about the fact that you and another will travel at greater or equal to 55 mph towards each other and pass within only a few feet of each other. Puts some perspective on being hit by a 2.5 pound flying/falling object vs a mass amount of weight in the form of unforgiving steel.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[atariman]

Can't compare a drone to driving a car. You have a physical link to the car as opposed to a drone.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[N017RW]

Yes we do operate with some risk. Even if you stay far away from people, the bird can cover a great deal of distance on a loss of control. You have to be ready to make the sacrifice with a CSC. All said though, I think we all partake in a more dangerous event daily, i.e. Driving a car. Kind of crazy if you think about the fact that you and another will travel at greater or equal to 55 mph towards each other and pass within only a few feet of each other. Puts some perspective on being hit by a 2.5 pound flying/falling object vs a mass amount of weight in the form of unforgiving steel.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

Yes you (proverbial) do participate in what some call dangerous events. But you are aware of the risk and do so willingly.

The car v drone analogy is oft used but cannot compare Chinese toys to a highly regulated industry.
The drivers are licensed and insured. The cars built today are many times safer than ever.

I doubt this woman (or anyone) was advised of the risk(s) and consented to the dangers this pilot exposed her to.
He will have to pay in one or more ways.

The whole hobby/industry will suffer PR in the wake as now anyone there who witnessed or later heard of the incident has another reason to 'fear' drones. Not from privacy but from personal injury. One they may have never considered before.

 

[Helidronemedia]

Title pretty much says it all. Looks like the pilot was hired by the event but unlicensed. Just wonderful news for the hobby today.

This DJI Phantom 3 drone hit a Quebec woman in the head

Actually, the news stated the pilot that crashed it was not hired by the event. Apparently he was a recreational user who didn't know/check the laws. The event was captured by the crew that actually was hired for the event. They were well away from the crowds but we're fortunate to catch it.

 

[DeadGrunt]

Well since about all I have seen posted is about the drone being alright thought I would put this in here from that article

This isn't a joking matter guys .Wake up
What if that was little Sally or Johnny . You know ,your kid
OK..carry on with the humor .
I don't see any in it but that's JMO

I cannot agree with you more. Imagine if it was a baby on a blanket, and hope she sues the heck out of him. For whomever posted that it came down at an angle, and looked staged, I disagree. Once an object loses its forward air speed, for the most part, it comes straight down with very little forward thrust once inertia is lost. Gravity increases its descent speed, not forward speed. But I am no rocket scientist and this is taken from Newton's First Law of Motion, but don't take my word for it, read their brevity of it here.

Introduction: The traditional phrasing of Newton's First Law of Motion is this: An object at rest will remain at rest (forever!), and an object in motion will remain in motion (forever!) in a straight line with constant speed, unless acted upon by an outside force. Note that this statement is meaningless unless you know what a force is. What is a force? Any push or pull. Other synonyms: tug, nudge, poke, shove, prod, impetus, heave, yank

Alternate phrasing of Newton's 1st Law: An object cannot change its velocity by itself. Something outside must exert a force. This property is called inertia. It is a natural resistance to acceleration that all objects have. The greater the object's mass, the greater this resistance.

You’ve probably heard of this before, and may even think that it is obvious, but it’s not. In our everyday experience, things don’t keep moving unless something pushes them. Coasting cars come to a stop; boxes slid on the floor come to a rest unless you keep pushing on them. The reason most things in our lives do NOT keep moving forever is because there almost always is an “outside force” — friction. When friction is reduced to insignificance, inertia becomes much more obvious. For example: a hockey puck sliding on an ice rink, or the puck on an air hockey table. The invention of the wheel, while not removing friction entirely, greatly reduces friction and makes it easier to keep things moving. The idea of inertia wasn’t discovered by Newton, despite being called “Newton’s First Law”. It was actually discovered by Galileo.

In the case of this falling drone, he was probably in a directional, not hovering procedure, and either CSC'd it, or something else stupid, and lost it. Forward thrust or inertia may have taken over, but in the end, gravity is going to bite you in your "fourth point of contact." (As it is called in Airborne units).

 

[Erised]

It's sad when people get hurt and it does not matter where or by who it is made it just a machine, I made a good living designing and fixing machines, implemented many types of fail safes and then you put in the human factor and ship will happen. The best cars and air crafts and pretty much most things in your home will eventually break. I do my maintenance and inspections and most of my machines and they still eventually fail but I must say they usually outlast my friends machines that do not do their maintenance. I am also a cause of my machine failures so when in doubt pick NO. If you ask yourself I'm not sure if I should fly there? You just answered your own question, you don't know so don't do it.

 

[DeadGrunt]

It's sad when people get hurt and it does not matter where or by who it is made it just a machine, I made a good living designing and fixing machines, implemented many types of fail safes and then you put in the human factor and ship will happen. The best cars and air crafts and pretty much most things in your home will eventually break. I do my maintenance and inspections and most of my machines and they still eventually fail but I must say they usually outlast my friends machines that do not do their maintenance. I am also a cause of my machine failures so when in doubt pick NO. If you ask yourself I'm not sure if I should fly there? You just answered your own question, you don't know so don't do it.

Great point and have seen people pull out their aircraft at the local flying area, rush everything to get it in the air and take off. No prop inspection, not hovering, just up and away. I could not agree more.

 

[Traveler]

Would I be happy if I were hit by a drone or other falling object, heck no, but having been struck by a car, as a bystander, I would take the drone hit. My point of the car was to simply say that life is a risk, and as sure as we continue to put flying toys in the air, people are going to get hurt. I fly as safe as I can, never directly over bystanders, but I can't control the uncontrollable. From a PR standpoint, no one is going to care if a drone hits someone because of a faulty design, operator error, or operator neglect. Media doesn't report on that part of all drone incidents. Can each person on this forum honestly say that they never fly within the drones range of a bystander. That would be difficult. I believe that all persons on here try to minimize the risk to the public, and always fly with the intent to cause no harm to others, but this will not be an isolated event. The OP made a big error in judgement. He put the odds in the favor of probable accident by flying within the range of so many, but make no mistake, if you fly with just one bystander within range of a flying machine, there is risk!

I wish and hope for us all to have safe flights. Keep the odds in your favor!



Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Morro Man]

This is why Im looking to film whales and dolphins. They wont sue.