- Joined
- Jun 21, 2020
- Messages
- 3,977
- Reactions
- 3,962
I've been sort of house bound recently due to an illness ( and a little grumpier than normal- hence the post) and so have been playing with my Mini 2 indoors, practicing flying in atti mode (lots too write about there too). Indoors in atti, for most of us, would pretty much require prop guards. So obviously I put some on while keeping the leg extensions on as well. I had to wonder "How much does this setup weigh?" and put the contraption on a jewelry scale. 297 grams.... 47 grams over the generally recognized "weight limit" for a bunch of restrictions. So, 1.6 ounces over the limit. What's that equivalent to?
Anyway, the geniuses that did the computations to come up with the magical 250 gram threshold, I believe, forgot one thing: Distribution of mass. I suppose it came to my attention as I'm reading the new rules for flying over people; "250 grams max, with no rotating parts that can cause lacerations". It reminds me of the old joke; "Which weighs more, 50 pounds of feathers or 50 pounds of lead?" One would think that the measly weight addition of prop guards would be more than offset by the mass distribution in the event of a catastrophic failure over people.
If you look at the configuration below, imagine something like that falling on your or flying into you. Anyone with any kinesthetic awareness can see that the impact of any contact would create little if no harm to the person unlucky enough to be struck. In my mind, the question begs to be asked: Why has mass distribution been ignored in the calculation? You would think that the addition of prop guards, with the minimal addition of weight would make them safer than exposed props but a couple ounces less weight? To me it seems like one-dimensional thinking overlooking at least one aspect that could make drones safer, though exceeding their made up "magic weight number".
While flying over people is a concern, there is no physics rules that says your drone will crash straight down. You might be flying high, away from people, but if one prop fails there's nothing that says you still won't crash into people or property. You'd think some physicist working on the project would create at least one rule exception when it comes to weight AND distribution. In the new rule about flying over people, they were adamant about adding "no rotating parts that could cause lacerations" but failed to accommodate the one simple thing that would have added TWO LAYERS OF SAFETY; PROP GUARDS in spite of having to make a small weight exception.
Dismounting soap box
Anyway, the geniuses that did the computations to come up with the magical 250 gram threshold, I believe, forgot one thing: Distribution of mass. I suppose it came to my attention as I'm reading the new rules for flying over people; "250 grams max, with no rotating parts that can cause lacerations". It reminds me of the old joke; "Which weighs more, 50 pounds of feathers or 50 pounds of lead?" One would think that the measly weight addition of prop guards would be more than offset by the mass distribution in the event of a catastrophic failure over people.
If you look at the configuration below, imagine something like that falling on your or flying into you. Anyone with any kinesthetic awareness can see that the impact of any contact would create little if no harm to the person unlucky enough to be struck. In my mind, the question begs to be asked: Why has mass distribution been ignored in the calculation? You would think that the addition of prop guards, with the minimal addition of weight would make them safer than exposed props but a couple ounces less weight? To me it seems like one-dimensional thinking overlooking at least one aspect that could make drones safer, though exceeding their made up "magic weight number".
While flying over people is a concern, there is no physics rules that says your drone will crash straight down. You might be flying high, away from people, but if one prop fails there's nothing that says you still won't crash into people or property. You'd think some physicist working on the project would create at least one rule exception when it comes to weight AND distribution. In the new rule about flying over people, they were adamant about adding "no rotating parts that could cause lacerations" but failed to accommodate the one simple thing that would have added TWO LAYERS OF SAFETY; PROP GUARDS in spite of having to make a small weight exception.
Dismounting soap box
Last edited: