I've always tried to fly responsibly at all times. I am cognizant of weather, people/pets, surroundings and right-of-way in the sky. Nothing in life is guaranteed 99.9999% of the time. Is it OK for me to levy a 99.9999% guarantee on you, that you drive perfect and responsible (no radio, no food, no phone, no talking, no distractions - period)? No. That's not life in general - we don't live in a bubble. Well at least the general population doesn't.
I am fine with sane safety measures put forth... Certifications, registrations, etc. But this is a hobby like many others. People own many kinds of recreational hobby gear that can endanger the operator or surrounding people - yet, they're accepted because people think they understand them. Most don't, however, understand simple engine operation - yet drive cars.
All mechanical vehicles have the guarantee to fail at some point or another and, yes, someone is 100% guaranteed to get hurt at some point in time. But, please don't ruin my hobby because you choose not to understand it.
DO NOT FLY NEAR PEOPLE.
It's that simple. No functioning machine can ever be inherently safe, safety is the result of continuous exercise of good judgement. When operating a large nitro powered helicopter, featuring 700mm long carbon fibre knives that spin at 2000rpm, controlled by an imperfect operator, through an imperfect electronics system, powered by an unreliable motor I am aware that it is an intrinsically dangerous object, and I only fly it in controlled areas, without bystanders who could get hurt.
And it annoys me to no end when I see some idiot crashing his DJI into a building (no flying within 400m of a built-up area - don't fly near people), or a new guy with a t-rex or raptor helicopter flying near people in a park in the middle of town (Don't fly near people!) Or someone who should know better like a model aero club member flying over the pits or the viewing area or the carpark (don't fly near/over people!)
I actually want something like the machine described in the article, because I want to be able to film myself skiing, without the horribly cliched helmet cam, but unless I can get something small enough that it CANT hurt someone in a collision, or something with very robust collision avoidance, I can't use it. Ideally both, because even with perfect collision avoidance, something else could still break.
I'm not arguing for draconian policy measures. I just want manufacturers to focus on and market reliability and safety features. It's a win-win for users and manufacturers.
Manufacturers are clearly aiming for these drones to be everywhere and for everyone to own one. With many, many people flying for the first time everyday there are going to be accidents. If manufacturers can reduce the harm caused by these accidents then they'll have a much easier path for FAA regulations and public acceptance.
For users, they get the ease of mind that crashes won't be catastrophic for their drone and a reduced chance that they'll inadvertently hurt someone.
I want proper insurance, liability, etc. when things fail, and good risk management.
I don't want stupid safety.
In the US maybe, I can't.
> You can still (barely) buy model rockets.
In the US maybe, I can't.
> You can buy glass windows (which shatter into thousands of sharp pieces if broken).
In the US maybe. Safety glass is really not very dangerous, and it's standard.
I see them selling in Target all over the place. When I was a kid you had to find a pretty specialized store.
I only mention the general cost because - there's not that much margin in these things to achieve what you want. Nobody will spend $2300 on a Phantom if that additional $1000 is for upgrades to safety and ignorance factors.
There are many things that didn't start out with any guarantees of implied safety - and many things that are assumed safe, when not operated safely, are inherently very risky / unsafe.
Finally, there are easily many tens of thousands of hobby grade drones out there - flying daily, operating (for the most part) safely (again partially dependent on operator). How many deaths have occurred to date?
Something that really bothers me is that when I first started flying the general reaction I had was of excitement - although I was generally no less cautious. The RC craft I flew drew interest and excitement from bystanders and it was generally a good experience. Now, I am overly cautious when flying anywhere near public areas. I've received comments about how I should "go somewhere else", even when I was flying in an area where there were no people, but someone decided to seek me out since they saw the craft from remote. And I've generally just tried to stay out of places I know would be potential hazards if there was a malfunction where I lost control.
Do I still fly in "tight" locations? Yes - I do. I've flown my neighborhood to assess storm damage for my neighbors knowing that there are people - but in those situations I always fly with prop guards and try to fly over houses, not over sidewalks or roads. And then there's the artistic side - I like taking shots of architecture and some of those situations require thoughtful planning or waiting for an area to clear.
I can't help other people's ignorance and I will say that you flying untethered with no experience is not something DJI or I should have to worry about - that's your choice and risk to weigh. If I was your neighbor I'd have a frank conversation with you about your actual skills and ability to ascertain risk.
In my opinion golf is far more risky than flying "drones" (I prefer RC quad-copter, but to each their own). I play golf, I love it. I'm not going to stop playing because you hit golf balls off your deck into your neighbors yard and then expect Titleist and Callaway to fix your bad decision.
Well, not that I agree with the need for what he says, but what you describe is easily solved:
People WOULD pay $2300 on a Phantom if the "upgrades to safety and ignorance factors" were compulsory and so every drone on the market had to bear that extra $1000 in its cost.
I'm not disillusioned though - it will happen, I'll lose an ESC mid-flight and I'll have to deal with trying to guide an uncontrollable aircraft that I may not have line of sight on. Pretty much next to impossible to guarantee anything in that situation.
There are the two similar, but very different scenarios: 1) controller crashes RC aircraft into person because of negligent flying, or 2) loss of control due to hardware failure crashes RC aircraft into person
Both are real scenarios with cars and scenario 2 isn't accounted for during license testing. What people need to understand is that these devices shouldn't be outright banned because of impending accidents. Yes, those will be unfortunate - but the hobby has good recreational and business use cases in my opinion.
A drivers license is a bad example.
Life is inherently dangerous, and almost every technical innovation is first met with objections with how it will cause loss of life. The danger of accidental personal injury from drone is probably an order of magnitude lower than the danger of accidental personal injury from discarded banana peels.
> I want 99.9999% reliability and strong safety guarantees as a feature.
Then you want the technology not to exist, which I think is a terrible shame. It's like crying "fire hazard" around a Tesla. If you want a hobby device to rant against, try scooters, those things are much more deadly and rightly deserve to be taxed and regulated. [1]
The Lily drone if it actually performs anything like that video, is pure awesome, and absolutely the future. If it can be made quiet enough and compact enough it replaces everything from the cinematographer at your wedding, to the selfie.
It also probably looks good in black with a nice white pin-stripe, with the letters N-Y-P-D, floating around Times Square, and running no-knock warrants. 10 - 15 generations along actually, this thing is quite terrifying, for completely different reasons than 'OMG it will fall on me'.
[1] - http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/the-most-dangerou...
Maybe drones need to start to incorporate parachutes to slow down the fall in case of problems like these, or maybe even airbags to ease the crash. Not that it would make it 99.9999% reliable, but it should be better than nothing. And also won't completely thrash your drone when it crashes.
edit seems nine_k already commented with a similar idea
It's an upgrade from "expensive rock with sharp blades falling out of the sky" to "expensive rock with sharp blades falling out of the sky spinning at X0 RPM, and the sharp blades are also spinning at X00 RPM"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek0FrCaogcs&feature=youtu.be
The comment that mentioned parachutes was talking about how a drone crashed at an event and almost injured people. My personal homeowners liability policy covers things like hitting someone with a shopping cart in the grocery store and hurting them, it probably would also cover a drone, but if you don't have insurance it could expensive real quick.
The cool thing about sidewalks is that they are elevated and it takes some effort to hop on to one and run over pedestrians (especially when there is a protective lane of parked cars). Drones, on the other hand, are poised to fall on people, with no barriers.
In my case it didn't occur when I was flying the quadcopter but rather when I was bench testing the ESCs (yes, I knew abstractly I should remove the props before doing this but I got lazy after a while of testing and eventually it bit me).
Having said all of this I mostly agree with the grandparent post (though I do recognize that a 2 lbs drone could, theoretically, kill someone) in that the solution to this as a safety issue is primarily just don't fly a quadcopter over anything you wouldn't feel comfortable crashing it into (basically don't fly over people or valuable property it could potentially damage). As long as you stick by this rule of not flying over anything you're not afraid to crash it into you already have a good (if not inexpensive) failsafe, which is just cut the throttle completely.
And that seems like it's being pretty generous. In most "quadcopter crash" videos I've seen on YouTube the drone was much higher. Sometimes even hundreds of meters.
[1] http://diaryofnumbers.blogspot.com/2010/11/death-by-coconut....
If there were as many drones (of that size & rotor size) overhead as there are vehicles on the road, I'd still expect to have zero to single-digit fatalities from drones every single year--at least from "falling out of the sky onto people's bodies."
Perhaps there are more likely cases where the drone is the indirect cause, like breaking someone's windshield and causing a fatal car accident.
Am I okay with my new born infant's soft little squishy skull living in a world with drones, which occasionally drop out of the sky?
Yep.
And we do live in that world, actually. They've already been "introduced," as you put it.
Already been introduced(bad term)? So 1 in 3 households have a drone in the U.S.? OK 1 in 4? You can always count on this statistic- 1 in 10? Nah? Surely 5% of Americans own or use the services of a drone then right? Yeah then they haven't been introduced yet
They're so small I doubt they'd have much of an impact on light aircraft either.
For the large bird test, the engine is allowed to shutdown.
The energy we are talking about is not insignificant. I'm actually in favor of allowing people to fly drones with as little restriction as possible but let's not pretend there aren't some risks.
In any event, it takes a person 8s to get close to terminal velocity — that's a drop of 300m or so.
The energy involved is certainly non trivial but energy is not the whole story. The densest, heaviest pieces will be the battery and motors.
Too lazy to do the calculations :P
But the issue is the effective minimum height for a parachute to be any use.
In order to make flying aerial drones safer, DJI, maker of popular quadcopters like the Phantom 2, is currently developing a parachute system called DropSafe, which can be deployed instantly in a case of emergeny
Unfortunately, currently we probably make do with a few less nines on all these items.
A drone that loses an engine falls out of the sky and lands on top of anything that is below it, and as of right now, there are no evasive maneuvers that can be executed. Especially for drones that are being used to record large public gatherings, things like multiple engines or parachutes should be absolutely mandatory, at least by the organizers of the event.
Needless to say, I'd bet it'll take one or two insurance claims until they are.
To my knowledge, no commonly sold cars are exclusively drive-by-wire for the braking system. If you lose all control in a car, you can turn off the ignition and forceful application of the brakes allows you to stop, even if you lose the power assistance.
By contrast, the most common failure mode for a drone in the air is... it falls out of the sky. That's pretty much the long and the short of it. There is good reason that flying objects should be held to a higher standard of safety.
I even suppose that parachutes or stability with 1-2 engines lost might not be "mandatory". The cost of insurance of unequipped craft flying on a major event would be so high that nobody would even try that.
I have a fairly cheap drone with a built-in camera and, no doubt, it could cause a scratch or bruise if it hit you at full speed, but luckily it's nothing like they used to be.
However I would think these drones' propellers are shorter thus less dangerous? Any ideas?
For the most part, these little ones can probably hurt you as much as being hit with a rogue frisbee in the park. No decapitations. The bigger ones (Phantoms and the like) are more autonomous and better at avoiding crashes. Still, it's always a possibility and if you think you have any business flying one, you will know not to do so in a manner that makes it likely to hit anyone.
I think of it like riding a bike or a motorcycle. When you ride a bike you are supposed to stay on the road but a lot of people (especially kids with smaller bikes) will sometimes ride on the sidewalk or through the park anyway. This isn't usually a big deal because they won't do any major damage in the unlikely event of a crash.
But an adult on a large bike or a motorbike will get a ticket for riding on the sidewalk because you can do a lot more damage and you're probably moving a lot faster. As an adult on a big bicycle or motorcycle, you're obligated to only ride it in such a way that you don't put people at unnecessary risk.
I think of the little toy quads as the equivalent of kids' bikes and the Phantoms and larger video-centric copters like motorcycles. Sure, fly the toy in the house or in the park but if you're carrying cameras and gimbals and big battery packs and larger rotors, you really need to plan your shoots and locations to avoid the greater risk (IMO). It's a fair tradeoff for a fun hobby.
But yes, the huge blades [1] compared to the small and softer wings of a quadcopter make a big difference.
[1] http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bA3wp9h3abI/maxresdefault.jpg (same model that killed him)
You can't do these sorts of things at all with human-sized helicopters - they're not maneuverable enough. In fact, the increase in maneuverability as high-powered single-rotor helicopters scale down is actually a problem for human reaction time. Model helicopters conventionally used a mechanical flybar in order to make the helicopter less responsive to inputs and more controllable. More recent innovations in flybarless electronics have enabled fly-by-wire control to substantially speed up responsiveness while still permitting stable flight when desired.
A single-rotor stunt helicopter is very different from a camera multirotor. A 1.6m carbon fiber blade vs a (usually plastic) 0.1-0.4m blade. A high-powered two-stroke engine vs a battery and motors.
And very importantly, the purpose of the two aircraft is entirely different. This type of helicopter uses collective and cyclic pitch oscillations, and a rudder. That's a completely different control scheme than a normal multirotor, which uses differential thrust. It lends itself to storing energy in the angular momentum of the blades at low collective pitches (running the rotor progressively faster while hovering), and then releasing it all in a maneuver by setting the pitch higher. That means the flat, strong carbon fiber rotor blades can be travelling at a tip speed of 400mph or higher. Even a very large camera-toting quadrotor is likely to have a (plastic, thin, bendy) rotor tip speed in the 100-150mph range - they're optimized for hovering battery life, and differential throttle has limited maneuverability, and the slower & larger the better. Being so much ligher per (disposable, easy to break) prop means that even at similar tip speeds the angular momentum is much diminished.
"Video footage has emerged of Mr Pirozek, who was a world-recognised aerobatic flyer, putting his Trex 700 helicopter through a series of remarkable tricks, including one that involves dropping the $1,500 model out of the sky by turning off the engines and restarting them just before the model chopper hits his head."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0wvXoZ9KYg
Lastly, "beheaded" seems to be a linkbait overstatement, and is considered dubiously by the medically inclined - even with all the power behind those blades, the skull is a very strong thing. The eyewitness comment was that there were wounds to his scalp, which tabloids turned into "cut off the top of his head" and then into "cut off his head". There were wounds to his scalp, but the ones to his throat are likely the ones that killed him. You don't need to sever the spinal column to slit a throat with a sharp blade.
In most legislations I am aware of, RC flight requires an operator to be in control of the drone.
Why is the paraglider flying under the drone 50ft off the ground?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_goose [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549
Flock of drones is unrealistic too.
The more I think about it, the more I think, the risk of flying these things in populated places just isn't worth it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9rnTk6FBzs
hehe
The air drag from the balloon will be an issue. OTOH the motors could be run at low power when cruising and at high power when speedy maneuvers are required.
The size will definitely be bigger. But if we talk about professional-grade drones (for video reporting, etc), they are large and expensive as they are. Improved safety and thus easier time getting allowed in to a worthy event might be more important than a lean package.
Edit: which makes for a lonely hobby.
>HOW DO THESE AIRSHIPS HANDLE IN WINDS?
>Hyperblimps, like traditional planes, can handle winds according to the speed of the ship. Our top speed as of July 10, 2010, is 40 mph, enabling a skilled operator to fly in winds of about 15 mph. We hope to be surpassing that speed soon. As for crosswinds, the ship is simply “crabbed,” just as a traditional plane is.
I take it you don't drive, or allow yourself to be driven, right?
If you are using alpha/beta FC firmware or your settings are still being tweaked you shouldn't anywhere near people anyway.
I've lost engines that resulted in nasty crashes. As I fly quads almost exclusively they are always nasty. As such, I never fly over or near people (other than myself).
I've read of full power loss, but never personally experienced it.
In any case I think I'd be more afraid of bad FC firmware that resulted in a fly-away event. Those are super dangerous as the machine just takes off into the air and away from you. That has the potential to be MUCH worse as the altitude they eventually fall from is significant. If you've never seen a full-power ascent of a multicopter then you're in for a surprise at the speed at which they can disappear while going straight up.
Mix that with a dual power system and 6 or 8 motors and I think you get MUCH better redundancy and fault tolerance.
And while you are at it perhaps a disconnected drogue chute that deploys if a watchdog signal is lost. Not something that is large, just enough to slow the decent to non-dangerous speeds.
To say nothing of things like active sonar/lidar avoidance and a secondary navigation system of some sort for when GPS is unavailable.
Optical flow can hold pretty stable when GPS is unavailable, other types of CV like SLAM even better.
Optical flow can hold position pretty well-- but will they be able to figure out how to navigate by it!?
I just got nervous and called few people and cracked down the drone.
Then decided never play with them in domestic living area.
99.9999%
Things are amazing, and nobody's happy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEY58fiSK8E
There are people starving to death on the one side of the planet while there are others who don't know what to do with their money on the other. I'm not saying everyone should be driving Ferrari's but in 2015 there shouldn't be people without shelter, food or basic medical safety lying around. If we as a society solve THIS problem then, everybody will much more happy than it is today.
That said, flying objects are inherently dangerous. I was at a bike race and a guy was following the pack with a DJI drone. One motor suddenly failed and the thing plummeted to the ground from 40ft and broke into a bunch of pieces. Luckily, it didn't hit anyone but it would have been a major incident if it had.
There's a lot of excitement about the cool, flashy features of these drones (following, waterproof, nice camera) but no assurance that it won't suddenly break and kill someone.
I want 99.9999% reliability and strong safety guarantees as a feature.