Flying over towns and cities?

[AlanTheBeast]

But to pick hairs, systems that affect safety should be designed, as far as possible, to accommodate idiocy

The problem with idiot protection is they are always inventing better idiots.

 

[stratos]

I was thinking of a particular pasture not far from a tiny airfield not far from an airport now closed... if I flew a drone there, between the trees that "box in" that pasture, I would be safe and aircraft nearby would be safe for no pilot in his right mind would be below 300' there ... but with the new rules I would be in the wrong ..... totally insane...

I thinkin fear is whats driving this concerns. When you think about it. The typical drone hobbist carrys about 3-4 batteries. Which can be about 1 hr of actual flight.

Now if you are flying way below 80 meters shouldn't be an issue whatsoever and the time frame is so minimal that even potential collisions are ridiculously small. Now there are some helipads that I have called to request permission to fly and they told me :

1) dont fly higher than 80 meters
2) if you see or hear a heli you bring your **** down immediately
3) dont fly ridiculously close to us
4) maintain los at all times
5) dont call us again

Ymmv

 

[BorisTheSpider]

It more likely to win the lottery than to get hit in the head by a drone.

Someone wins the lottery every week.

 

[BorisTheSpider]

I can fly a C-172 over Montreal at 1000' AGL. If I lose the engine I will have scant available landing locations and so put people at risk as I (heroically) attempt to land the aircraft in the city....

Well then you shouldn't be there.

I'm presuming there's a "glide clear" rule in Canada regarding overflying built up areas in single engine aircraft?

If you know an engine failure will put people at risk, don't fly there.

 

[BorisTheSpider]

I am not sure if any of you caught the Mythbusters episode where they tested several consumer level drones to see if the props could actually cut someone and cause them serious harm. They were unable to do so. I think the biggest danger really of any SUAV of this level is the thing dropping out of the sky and hitting someone on the head.

I agree though, the risk from a falling drone is much higher.

Using Energy of falling object to do a crude calculation of a 0.7kg falling mavic after losing a prop 100M up results in an impact velocity of 98MPH and an energy of around 680 joules.

That's around the muzzle energy of a .357 magnum: http://wredlich.com/ny/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/muzzle-energy.png

Energy doesn't tell the whole story of course, so of course they won't do exactly the same thing when they hit you, but both will definitely mess up your day and if anyone doubts that a falling mavic will do real damage then feel free to fly yours into your head at 100 miles per hour and see what happens.

 

[Airmunn]

No I don't fly only in the desert, I'm just not dumb enough to fly toy-grade consumer electronics with absolutely zero redundancy or certification over concentrations of people and property.

Well said[emoji106]

 

[BorisTheSpider]

Mate, there is a lot of assumptions here.

On the contrary, you're the one making all the assumptions. Here's a few of the assumptions you've made:

1) why would someone hit the RTH if you just want to take a pic of yourself and party goers from 5 meters up and 10 meters away.

You've assumed the radio link won't glitch out and drop. You've assumed no-one will be using anything nearby that interferes with it. You've assumed no-one will intentionally jam it. You've assumed RTH won't get pushed accidentally.

2) being licensed or unlicenses will not help at all if you have a major compass issue

I'm certainly not in favor of licensing for non commercial drone use, but actually that's not true because if people could control their mavic in atti mode there wouldn't be a problem here. You don't even have a compass on many quadcopters, yet they can be flown quite safely.

What you said is a lot like saying "having trained pilots won't help if the autopilot fails" - of course it will, the automation is just there to help, not to replace a pilot.

3) crashing into someones baby, intresting. as not all parks are densly populated by babys only an idiot will fly nearby a baby or a kid.

There's two major assumptions here.

1. That you know where the **** thing will fly. If it suffers a GPS reflection or similar in a park, you have no idea in which direction it will go. Same when it hits a bird and has just enough ability for continued flight left to fly itself to the scene of the accident.

2. This one is the biggest and worst assumptions of all: that you are not an idiot. If you're in the habit of making that assumption, I'd recommend either stopping doing that, or staying away from aircraft.

4) why do you asume the road is next to the shooting location, that is ridiculous.

City parks are next to roads.

5) again why will anyone taking theirselfs a picture will do smart RTH if the drone is on clear LOS and only 10 meters again.

For any one of the myriad failures of the uncertified, untested, cheap components in it's hardware and software systems that I've already discussed.

Furthermore, because pilot error is a constant factor that can only be mitigated and not eliminated - one easy way to mitigate the risk of it is to not do things that mean an error will endanger other people unreasonably, like flying close to people in occupied parks.

 

[Andart]

[quote uid=5620 name="Strafe1" post=135432]The Mavic certainly isn't toy grade, by generally accepted categories of sUAS's, and it most certainly has redundancies built into it. You may feel otherwise, but you to most, I believe you would be wrong in your characterization of the Mavic, and by extension, even the pro level of quads available since they are using the same technology. [/QUOTE]<br /><br />LOLOLOLOL<br /><br />The Mavic is absolutely toy grade. Commercial and industrial multi-rotors start at $10k and up. There is nothing "pro" about the Mavic beyond DJI's marketing.<br /><br />However, that's beside the point...<br /><br />Flying over dense concentrations over people, property, vehicles, and radio interference is just asking for problems. I fly NEAR downtown and take pictures of downtown, but it do it from the safety of clear areas. A Mavic falling from over the height of downtown buildings onto a city street could easily kill someone.


Your point on cost is pathetic .
You say 10k for a pro quad
Well in percentage terms a mavic is a lot closer than say a single seat plane is to a jumbo jet .
Now I can buy a toy drone for $20 that is a huge percentage away from a mavic .
So u think you need to rethink quoting prices .
Also in your earlier argument you talk about bad operators, annother failed argument as a bad pilot can bring down the most exspensive air craft in the world .
What makes something pro is the fact you can earn money to live on by using it .
Now to make something the best in its field would be to separate it from a toy .
Now I don't know of any other quad that is portable by folding it to a compact size that is more expensive than a mavic also mavic dose have many redundancies , to quote a rotor dropping off is no different than a wing on an aircraft failing , also as mentioned above you can't use pilot error to justify crashes due to RTH .

 

[AlanTheBeast]

I thinkin fear is whats driving this concerns. When you think about it. The typical drone hobbist carrys about 3-4 batteries. Which can be about 1 hr of actual flight.

Now if you are flying way below 80 meters shouldn't be an issue whatsoever and the time frame is so minimal that even potential collisions are ridiculously small. Now there are some helipads that I have called to request permission to fly and they told me :

1) dont fly higher than 80 meters
2) if you see or hear a heli you bring your **** down immediately
3) dont fly ridiculously close to us
4) maintain los at all times
5) dont call us again

Ymmv

Makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately Canada's new rules are not written in "Common sense" they are written in the dry and (mostly) unambiguous language of lawmakers along with the notion that a severe $panking is in order if you break them.

So if corporal Cherry gets a call from some "concerned citizen" who happened to see the news splash about this he will send officer Orifice out to check it out. Meeting the conditions of that rule (and not common sense) he can write up a report and send it on to TC. Then you are cooked for up to $3000. I'm tempted to dangle my **** out and get a fine and present it in court, but at that level it would not have much traction and I certainly can't afford a higher court challenge (those run a quarter million in general).

 

[AlanTheBeast]

Well then you shouldn't be there.

I'm presuming there's a "glide clear" rule in Canada regarding overflying built up areas in single engine aircraft?

If you know an engine failure will put people at risk, don't fly there.

The rule in Canada is 1000' above. So while flying downtown I can be laterally away from the core and if the engine fails there are a number of options to land - all requiring a certain intestinal fortitude and skill. But it is never w/o risk. There is no law that says I _must_ have a place to land at all times. That falls under airmanship.

 

[frankiez]

In the prior Canadian "guidelines" to getting the SFOC there was an implied requirement to secure the control system so that "innocents" could not get control of the drone....

Good idea. I guess he was at the reception and was having too good of a time and just set the controller down. Problem is these kids don't need a lot of instruction to figure it out.

 

[BorisTheSpider]

The rule in Canada is 1000' above. So while flying downtown I can be laterally away from the core and if the engine fails there are a number of options to land - all requiring a certain intestinal fortitude and skill. But it is never w/o risk. There is no law that says I _must_ have a place to land at all times. That falls under airmanship.

Interesting, I presumed you would have equivalent laws to the ones I'm familiar with where it's mandatory to be able up glide clear of a built up area in a single engine aircraft. Like you said, if that's not mandatory in Canada it just becomes an airmanship point, of course if you can't glide clear and you have a bad day you're unlikely to be around for the court case anyway...

This does raise the interesting comparison also of single engine helicopters which often operate in large towns and cities, with their interpretation of the rules including a river or decent sized park as a suitable area to make an emergency landing if they lose the engine.

Again, I think that's pushing the rules to the edge of what is a reasonable interpretation, and it would be up to a court to decide after the accident whether what they did was legal or not, but if they can do so then why not a UAV.

 

[Flawless]

I think people need to drop the hyperbole and the comparisons to other aircraft. DJI UAVs are a lot less common than toy quadcopters. Saying a Mavic is like a twin seater compared to a 747... that doesn't even mean anything. You're just obfuscating the discussion with pointless grading systems.

If you want to make a comparison; try cars, which are a consumer grade item with vastly different operating specifications, safety systems, luxuries and price points.

 

[andy966]

I agree though, the risk from a falling drone is much higher.

Using Energy of falling object to do a crude calculation of a 0.7kg falling mavic after losing a prop 100M up results in an impact velocity of 98MPH and an energy of around 680 joules.

That's around the muzzle energy of a .357 magnum: http://wredlich.com/ny/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/muzzle-energy.png

Energy doesn't tell the whole story of course, so of course they won't do exactly the same thing when they hit you, but both will definitely mess up your day and if anyone doubts that a falling mavic will do real damage then feel free to fly yours into your head at 100 miles per hour and see what happens.

Deadly Drones MiniMyth

 

[AlanTheBeast]

Interesting, I presumed you would have equivalent laws to the ones I'm familiar with where it's mandatory to be able up glide clear of a built up area in a single engine aircraft. Like you said, if that's not mandatory in Canada it just becomes an airmanship point, of course if you can't glide clear and you have a bad day you're unlikely to be around for the court case anyway...

This does raise the interesting comparison also of single engine helicopters which often operate in large towns and cities, with their interpretation of the rules including a river or decent sized park as a suitable area to make an emergency landing if they lose the engine.

Again, I think that's pushing the rules to the edge of what is a reasonable interpretation, and it would be up to a court to decide after the accident whether what they did was legal or not, but if they can do so then why not a UAV.

First off I'm wrong about it not be encoded in Canadian law. It is. I always regarded it as an airmanship issue which is really more important. The law recognizes that some flight over towns/cities is required where an aircraft (esp. helicopters) might not be able to successfully land in the case of an engine failure. The law demands that one be able to land w/o creating hazard to people on the surface - exception is made for helos engaged in "air work" (construction, for example).

That said, a drone falling out of the sky in the city is unlikely in the first place in the hands of someone competent and if it did the chances of harming someone are slim indeed (it's mostly rooftops and pavement). Keep away from crowds of people; avoid parks with people in them, and so on and the risk is tiny except for property damage. That's covered with a cheque or insurance.

One thought however: I don't know if it's impossible for a quad to be programmed to fly with 3 rotors if one fails - or at least reduce descent speed in that instance. I think drones will have to move in the direction of dual independent battery systems and enough rotors to fly when another rotor/motor/controller fails. If that comes about, then we'll likely all be flying hex copters as a minimum - same designed for max payload on 3 rotors (not any three - the system would have to be designed to interleave the controls and rotors while taking into account the direction of rotation).

 

[AlanTheBeast]

I think people need to drop the hyperbole and the comparisons to other aircraft. DJI UAVs are a lot less common than toy quadcopters. Saying a Mavic is like a twin seater compared to a 747... that doesn't even mean anything. You're just obfuscating the discussion with pointless grading systems.

If you want to make a comparison; try cars, which are a consumer grade item with vastly different operating specifications, safety systems, luxuries and price points.

Not at all. Different classes of a/c have different cert. requirements for reasons (nothing to do with their size other than the ability to carry human beings).

And it's the safe carriage of people that makes 99% of the difference.

So that does not make a MP a toy in the hands of one making a professionally planned flight to capture high quality images to make a high quality product in post.

OTOH, a MP flyer who uses it in suspect ways (carry a heavy load; mod with another camera on top; extreme long distance flight attempts; landing on a moving vehicle...) is definitely drifting into 'toy' operation.

I keep saying it: drone safety is not about the drone.

 

[Oingo Boingo]

Its illegal all over the world.

 

[Oingo Boingo]

I'm sorry, what? Do you just fly in the desert?

You dont have to fly in the desert. Lots of scenic stuff to film away from people and roads. Because if you crash ur little toy, you could injure someone.. And by the sounds of it 90% of the pilots on the forum have never driven a RC car let alone fly a drone. I dont need to fly in the desert... I capture MTB races. So i film in the middle of nowhere out on trail somewhere. But i still keep a distance away from the riders.

 

[Oingo Boingo]

You're not claiming the Mavic is toy grade, are you? I didn't see a previous post referring a different craft.

Well its in no way professional grade

 

[Flawless]

Not at all. Different classes of a/c have different cert. requirements for reasons (nothing to do with their size other than the ability to carry human beings).

And it's the safe carriage of people that makes 99% of the difference.

So that does not make a MP a toy in the hands of one making a professionally planned flight to capture high quality images to make a high quality product in post.

OTOH, a MP flyer who uses it in suspect ways (carry a heavy load; mod with another camera on top; extreme long distance flight attempts; landing on a moving vehicle...) is definitely drifting into 'toy' operation.

I keep saying it: drone safety is not about the drone.

I agree, that the onus of safety is on the pilot. A good pilot can fly ATTI when the GPS drops out, or CSC when in immediate danger of causing harm. They're also far less likely to get into such situations, as they plan ahead and assess risks (and are better at handling situations when they arise).

My comment was that the analogy for fixed wing aircraft just didn't work given the vast differences in categorisation. You can compare a pencil and a pen, but comparing all types of pencil against all types of pen is pointless.