DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Drone pilots: you guys are dangerous

jeplane

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Messages
325
Reactions
520
Age
54
Study: Small Drone Flights Often Unsafe

A significant number of all recreational drone flights sampled were conducted in ways that posed a hazard to navigation, according to a new study released this week by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University researchers. The study used data collected between May 17 and May 29, 2018, that used an AeroScope deployed on an educational building adjacent to the Daytona Beach (Florida) International Airport (DAB).

“At least 21.5 percent were determined to exceed the maximum defined altitude limits of their UAS Facility Map area,” the study noted. In one case, a sUAS was detected at 90 feet msl within 0.25 nm from the approach path of DAB's Runway 7L just seconds after an aircraft had approached. The researchers concluded, “Assuming the pilot was performing the published ILS approach, the aircraft would have crossed the Runway 7L threshold crossing at a height of 88 feet msl...the aircraft descended through the UAS altitude while on approach.”

“Unmanned aircraft operated as close as 0.50 nm to public airports and 0.35 nm to heliports. Altitudes ranged from ground level to 1,286 agl, with the mean altitude of 238 agl.

Shame on us for not complying with AMA and FAA guidelines.

No wonder part 336 has been abolished. Sigh...
 
Study: Small Drone Flights Often Unsafe

A significant number of all recreational drone flights sampled were conducted in ways that posed a hazard to navigation, according to a new study released this week by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University researchers. The study used data collected between May 17 and May 29, 2018, that used an AeroScope deployed on an educational building adjacent to the Daytona Beach (Florida) International Airport (DAB).

“At least 21.5 percent were determined to exceed the maximum defined altitude limits of their UAS Facility Map area,” the study noted. In one case, a sUAS was detected at 90 feet msl within 0.25 nm from the approach path of DAB's Runway 7L just seconds after an aircraft had approached. The researchers concluded, “Assuming the pilot was performing the published ILS approach, the aircraft would have crossed the Runway 7L threshold crossing at a height of 88 feet msl...the aircraft descended through the UAS altitude while on approach.”

“Unmanned aircraft operated as close as 0.50 nm to public airports and 0.35 nm to heliports. Altitudes ranged from ground level to 1,286 agl, with the mean altitude of 238 agl.

Shame on us for not complying with AMA and FAA guidelines.

No wonder part 336 has been abolished. Sigh...
There is a very good chance the pilots discussed in that article aren't registered at all. And will probably NEVER register. I hope the data from aeroscope was passed on to authorities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheech Wizard
I am reading this thread right now as I watch "Air Disasters" on the Smithsonian Channel.
How long do you think it will take to get enough material make a TV series about "Drone Disasters" ?
Some people on this forum act like there all ready is! :D
 
Are there any statistics as to how many drones are currently being used in the US (approx of course)
 
The study doesn’t surprise me at all. I have been flying radio controlled airplanes and helicopters for years. Most RC pilots are very careful and adhere to Academy of Model Aeronautics guidelines which are very concerned with safety. Then quadcopters/drones become popular and all of a sudden you’ve got tons of new pilots who haven’t been brought up on AMA rules. Go out and buy a drone and go fly. Go to YouTube and look at drone videos. A significant number of them shows the operators violating the rules about line of sight, not flying over people, altitude limitations, not staying out of the flight path of manned aircraft and other things endangering people. A large number of media stories appear about idiots doing really stupid things. This gives the public and legislators the impetus to impose more strict regulations. Once again a minority of idiots ruin things for everyone. I have my part 107 certificate. I may be wrong but it appears that the new FAA statute is going to require testing of basically all RC pilots, tens or hundreds of thousands of whom scrupulously follow the rules. Many are older and won’t get tested but may quit flying as a result. Perhaps testing and certficating of the new drone pilots will reduce the number of dangerous things many of them do and in that sense it is a good thing but it is punishing a lot of self-regulated RC pilots most of whom wouldn’t dream of doing the dangerous stuff many new drone pilots do.
 
Seems like an over reaction and generalization.
Considering that people have to take driving tests and pass (theoretical and practical) before they can get a drivers' license, and they have to have 'L' and 'P' plates for a while, you still find people speeding, beating the red lights, DUI, basically driving dangerously, you realise some people just don't care. Whether they are driving a car or flying a drone.
 
Seems like an over reaction and generalization.
Considering that people have to take driving tests and pass (theoretical and practical) before they can get a drivers' license, and they have to have 'L' and 'P' plates for a while, you still find people speeding, beating the red lights, DUI, basically driving dangerously, you realise some people just don't care. Whether they are driving a car or flying a drone.

The study, or the thread title?
 
I am not sure I understand.

Are you saying that we should not care if a drone is being flown 0.25 mile from Daytona airport, and it is also flown at the same altitude and same path as jets landing?
 
As usual I have a problem with the article (and the report) as it, as usual for the “drone” articles that I tend to see, reeks of bias. Imagine my surprise that a flight college has determined that drones could be potentially hazardous to flights… (article quotes in italics)

“A significant number of all recreational drone flights sampled were conducted in ways that posed a hazard to navigation…Researchers also evaluated sUAS detections against the FAA’s UAS Facility Map (UASFM) established for the Daytona Beach…. The UASFM shows the maximum altitudes for authorized Part 107 UAS operations around airports that do not require additional safety analysis….…….“At least 21.5 percent were determined to exceed the maximum defined altitude limits of their UAS Facility Map area,” the study noted.”

The article is about hazardous recreational users and recreational users were not required to comply with UASFM maps when the study was done. (In fact, as pointed out by the study, the LAANC system WASN’T EVEN IN PLACE at Daytona when the study was done.) I am 107 certified, live approximately 3 miles from a Class C airport, and have routinely flown recreationally above the LAANC standards for my backyard. I have contacted the tower before each flight and advised them that I would be flying up to 400’ and they have been fine with it. (And, although I know they weren’t “giving me permission”, the entire tone of the conversation indicated that they were not uncomfortable with my flights. The folks at the tower have consistently been courteous, helpful, and curious in a positive way about my flights. They have called me and notified me of nearby chopper traffic and, if I could detect in their voice or statements that in any way they wanted me below 400’, I would have asked for their recommendation and abided by it.)
This could have just as easily been stated as “Recreational drone users are SO safety conscious that nearly 80% abide by stringent altitude restrictions that they aren’t even required to obey.” But of course, that doesn’t work well with the title “Small Drone Flights Often Unsafe”

“Unmanned aircraft operated as close as 0.50 nm to public airports and 0.35 nm to heliports. Of the 190 data points, 96.8 percent were detected within 5 sm of an aerodrome, with 84.2 percent detected within 5 sm of two or more aerodromes.

Of course, it is NOT illegal, or exceptionally dangerous, to operate recreationally in these areas if it is done in a legal manner, but again, that isn’t mentioned.

“Altitudes ranged from ground level to 1,286 agl, with the mean altitude of 238 agl; at least 6.8 percent of platforms were detected above 400 agl, eight between 400 and 500 agl, two between 500 and 1,000 agl, and three above 1,000 agl.”

Many on this forum feel that it is legal to fly above 400’ recreationally and it is somewhat of a gray area. (Let’s not debate that on this thread please….) I choose to stay under 400’ and so do over 93% of the recreational users near the Daytona Airport.

“The majority of detections occurred within urban areas. Nearly 48.7 percent of detections occurred in residential neighborhoods; 28.3 percent near single-family homes, 20.4 percent near multi-family buildings, and 21.5 percent proximate to commercial, industrial, or public properties. Just 12.0 percent occurred near unimproved land and parks where drones could be operated relatively safely.”

So according to this article, it is unsafe to fly a UAS “near residential neighborhoods,…near single-family homes,…near multi-family buildings,… proximate to commercial, industrial, or public properties”. Are you kidding me?

“One sUAS operated within 0.3 nm from the Tomoka Correctional Institution.”

Which is of course completely legal.


So let me rewrite the article:

Recreational Drone Pilots Show an Abundance of Caution

A recent study by Embry Riddle University conducted near the Daytona Airport in Florida shows that a significant majority of recreational drone users not only abide by the rules, they fly much safer than they are required to.

Of the 190 flights secretly monitored by Embry Riddle (using equipment graciously developed by DJI to spy on users of DJI drones without a warrant), it was determined that over 93% of all recreational drone users obey the law. In fact, most recreational drone users fly at less than 60% of the altitude that they are federally recommended to fly at. When you consider that there presently isn’t a police force for the skies whose sole job it is to monitor drone activity, this is astounding. Imagine if 93% of all cars on the road obeyed speed limits even if they knew there were no police to catch them. Heck, imagine if 93% of all cars obeyed the speed limit even WITH the police there to stop them.

Other encouraging news from the study:
  • It appears that the “Geofencing” feature installed by DJI on their drones prevented some folks from unknowingly taking off to close to the airport.
  • The closest anyone flew to a prison was over three times as far away as they were allowed to fly.
  • Although over nine out of ten drone operators behave in a completely legal manner, over 80% of recreational drone pilots voluntarily fly within much stricter commercial UAS altitude limits, EVEN THOUGH THEY DON’T HAVE TO.
This study confirms what drone operators have known all along, and that is that the vast majority of them fly legally and safely. It is truly a great day for recreational drone users now that Embry Riddle has put everyone’s mind at ease about drone use in the United States.


In closing, maybe we can get the president of Embry Riddle to release the following statement:
“If we could only have the pilots we train each year achieve the outstanding safety record of the millions of recreational drones flying every day over the US. All these years of flying drones by unlicensed, untrained recreational operators and not a single fatality in the US. I am deeply troubled by the dismal safety record of general aviation in the US and the hundreds of deaths and millions of dollars of damage that it has caused. Perhaps we can learn from our friendly responsible drone operators how to better “Be smart and fly safe”.
 
Put Geofencing permanently in all drones NOT commercial grade. Leave the inspire, and better to be sold ONLY to those who do commercial work, and have been certified to do so.
Then leave US alone like you do Ultra Lights, Powered Parachutes, and Hot air balloons.
 
How they know that the drones flying "dangerously" were flying for recreational reasons?

And if there were MANY flying dangerously, where are the injured and the dead?

It's so tired to read about the same conspiracy, over and over.
 
MOST of us do fly responsibly but to the aHoles that push the limit Way WAY above the 400 ft limit, do this.........
Sit down with wife and kids tonight and explain how you mistakenly brought down a LifeFlight chopper by flying too high. They haven’t caught me yet but it’s only a matter of time.
So very sorry for the 3 dead and the fact i’ve Ruined your lives.
Wish I could go back 11 hours..............
 
Put Geofencing permanently in all drones NOT commercial grade. Leave the inspire, and better to be sold ONLY to those who do commercial work, and have been certified to do so.
Then leave US alone like you do Ultra Lights, Powered Parachutes, and Hot air balloons.

I sort of agree with the first suggestion but, depending on the nature of the incident, operators of even small drones such as the DJi Spark could potentially cause serious injury or loss of human life. Authorities like the FAA in most instances base the regulations on worst-case scenarios so, regardless of the type of UAV involved, they will certainly crack down bigtime should incident statistics show a sustained upwards trend. But in general, I do like the idea of hard-coded Geofencing.

I believe that registration of the drone should become part of the Sales process like when buying a car (in Australia for example). In Australia, recreational UAV owners do not have to register their drones with CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority) but I predict that this requirement will be introduced sooner than later.

In regard to Ultra Lights, Powered Parachutes etc. the comparison is not valid due to the fact that, unlike UAV operators, real pilots are risking their own lives every time they go aloft. Accordingly, the incidence of reckless and irresponsible behavior in the Piloted Aircraft sector is rare compared to what seems to be occurring with UAVs.

In any case, don't believe for a second that pilots of Ultra Lights or any other type of aircraft are not subject to what some consider to be draconian FAA (or CASA) scrutiny. We should be celebrating the fact that strict regulations are in place and only those who think it's OK to break the rules should be worried about being on the receiving end of harsh penalties.
 
Last edited:
In regard to Ultra Lights, Powered Parachutes etc. the comparison is not valid due to the fact that, unlike UAV operators, real pilots are risking their own lives every time they go aloft. Accordingly, the incidence of reckless and irresponsible behavior in the Piloted Aircraft sector is rare compared to what seems to be occurring with UAVs.

In any case, don't believe for a second that pilots of Ultra Lights or any other type of aircraft are not subject to what some consider to be draconian FAA (or CASA) scrutiny. We should be celebrating the fact that strict regulations are in place and only those who think it's OK to break the rules should be worried about being on the receiving end of harsh penalties.

In the USA, unfortunately, Ultralights, powered Parachutes etc. Require NO registration number on the aircraft, NO pilots license, and NO training. I agree, it is dumb for a non pilot to try to fly one, but it happens OFTEN here.

Thats the funny thing.

Scenario #1

Me: Hey look at this cool remote control toy aircraft I got, its the size of a shoe and it can take pretty good pictures and Video!

The FAA: HOLD ON there buddy! That is a dangerous aircraft! Before you fly it I need you to take a test on your knowledge of airspace and aircraft safety. Then we need to assign you a special number that you need to display on your toy too. do not fly over 400', you must keep it in your view at all times, and be more than 5 miles from a n airport, or call the airport and give them a flight plan. By the way, dont even THINK about trying to sell a picture or video without paying for a more expensive permit and meeting more requirements!

Scenario #2.

Me: Hey, I just bought an ultralight kit. I think I will assemble it and build a runway on my farm. Then I can fly when and where ever I want!

The FAA : That is really cool! Hey, you can use a real airport if you want to save the cost of your own runway! By the way, watch out for other airplanes!! Have fun!
 
.....the comparison is not valid due to the fact that, unlike UAV operators, real pilots are risking their own lives every time they go aloft. Accordingly, the incidence of reckless and irresponsible behavior in the Piloted Aircraft sector is rare compared to what seems to be occurring with UAVs......

Look, I’m not trying to put down recreational flying when I say this, but I’m weary of hearing that argument. I am weary because although I understand the logic, it completely ignores the fact that non commercial flight is PROVEN to be almost INFINITELY more dangerous than UAS flying. Private aircraft crash and kill pilots, innocent passengers, and sometimes innocent people on the ground on a regular basis. This is happening now, and it was happening long before people flew drones. I get it that a private pilot has less incentive to be reckless, but that isn’t preventing them from killing people. I’m not talking about potentially killing people, I’m talking about ACTUALLY killing people on a near monthly basis. As I’ve said before, if safety REALLY is the concern, ban recreational manned flight and let the drones go wild under 400 feet.

Private flight, like recreational drone flying, is a hobby, yet I don’t see articles titled “For the Tenth Time This Year an Aeronautical Hobbyist Has Killed Himself and Several Other People! When Will the FAA Ban This Often Fatal Pastime?, or, “Embry Riddle Study Indicates That If A Recreational Pilot Crashed Into a Playground Near the Airport at 10:00 am Hundreds of Children Could Be Crushed and Incinerated.”

Near misses between manned aircraft are not as uncommon as they should be, and you tell me what will do more damage to the leading edge of a Mooney’s wing, a Phantom 4 or a Cessna 150? Where’s the University study with high speed/slow motion video of that scenario?

It’s my opinion that we’re unnessarily restricting what is an enjoyable and obtainable pastime (drone flying) based on exaggerated risk scenarios. My “opinion” doesn’t mean much because as we’re seeing, the restrictions keep increasing.

Sorry for the rant, but I’m watching what was once an innocent and enjoyable recreational pursuit being regulated out of existence unnecessarily.
 

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
131,187
Messages
1,560,743
Members
160,158
Latest member
JReynolds078