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

Drone pilots: you guys are dangerous

again, excellent post!

This is really getting on my nerves as well. Birds WILL and DO cause more damage than drones.
Then the Physics experts claim "density" difference is the key. As if the drones are solid lumps of high carbon steel as apposed to the mostly hollow flimsy plastic cavity with some fragile fiberglass circuit boards inside. When a bird is 100% mass and not near as compressible.
 
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.

A drivers license is not even a close match to this.
A drivers test and license helps assure other drivers that the person driving toward you on a 2 lane highway at 70 mph, wont hit you with the force of a 140mph collision when you pass at a distance less than 7 feet between you in most cases. at a rate several times per hour. They will also know what a stop sign is.
NONE of the same things a drone driver will ever encounter.


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?

We can care or not care. If it wasnt you flying the drone why would you care? I care if a child takes a gun to school, I care if a woman gets raped, I care if a person gets mugged. Care all you want, but that wont stop criminal activity. There are laws against EVERY one of these things. EVEN the drone flight in question. You think MORE laws will fix anything?
How do we know the drone flight wasnt a 107 flight that had been phoned in to the tower? and was perfectly legal? It didnt hit a jet, there wasnt a jet there when they flew. I will not waste energy caring about that at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drgnfli
The study, or the thread title?
A bit of both. Such a small sample size compared to the number of drones out there. Which somehow implied drone pilots are dangerous. If they found 1 out of 192 drone pilot flying dangerously, it can be implied that if there are 7mil drones out there (projected number of drones in US by 2020 from a quick google search), there's going to be at least 36458 drone pilots flying dangerously. Run for the hills.
"Lies, ****** lies, and statistics"

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?
I do care, which is why I don't fly dangerously. I use apps like UAV Forecast to make sure I am not near an airport. But there are a lot of people out there who don't care, and it's impossible to force other people to care when they don't. I think a lot of people in this forum care. Those that don't, probably aren't here. So long debates and discussions in this forum would have little impact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drgnfli
A bit of both. Such a small sample size compared to the number of drones out there. Which somehow implied drone pilots are dangerous. If they found 1 out of 192 drone pilot flying dangerously, it can be implied that if there are 7mil drones out there (projected number of drones in US by 2020 from a quick google search), there's going to be at least 36458 drone pilots flying dangerously. Run for the hills.
"Lies, ****** lies, and statistics"

I disagree on the sample size - statistically speaking that's a decent number. If there is an obvious problem it is that they could not distinguish recreational from Part 107, and so the correlation with FAA airspace classification is weak. It still clearly suggests significant disregard for safety though.
 
Not the best place in the world to fly or conduct a study. How many of these flights were flown by the same drone? How many of these drones were owned by a tourist who picked up a drone a week before he went on vacation? It never amazes me how negative the press is towards hobbyists. In a couple of years this beach will be crowded with drones, delivering pizza.

1540671779643.png
 
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”.

That was an incredibly well written response to that very biased report. I wonder if you're pro Second Amendment. We could use you to respond to some of the so called studies and reports that are done about us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drgnfli
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...


1540748145904.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: JSKCKNIT
Not the best place in the world to fly or conduct a study.

Why?

How many of these flights were flown by the same drone?

If you had bothered to read the study you would know the answer.

How many of these drones were owned by a tourist who picked up a drone a week before he went on vacation?

And that makes it better/okay? This wasn't a study of what motivated people to fly illegally - it was a study of how many were flying illegally.

It never amazes me how negative the press is towards hobbyists. In a couple of years this beach will be crowded with drones, delivering pizza.

Oh - so that makes it okay to fly there illegally?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheech Wizard
Why?
If you had bothered to read the study you would know the answer.
Left Jab
And that makes it better/okay? This wasn't a study of what motivated people to fly illegally - it was a study of how many were flying illegally.
Right Jab
Oh - so that makes it okay to fly there illegally?
And the left hook misses the mark!

I didnt see a link to the article, but was this illegal flights? Maybe they all called the tower in advance.
What no one seems to have noticed or commented on;
MANY UAV flights were done in probably the worst possible airspace, and not ONE single incident.
 
I didnt see a link to the article, but was this illegal flights? Maybe they all called the tower in advance.
What no one seems to have noticed or commented on;
MANY UAV flights were done in probably the worst possible airspace, and not ONE single incident.

That was the weakness in the study, at least as reported - they did not report distinguishing between recreational and Part 107, or comment on whether they were able to check for authorizations/waivers.

192 flights is a reasonable sample for gauging usage, but I would hope and expect that even in that kind of airspace the probability of anything bad happening is much less than 1/192 per flight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lmel2005 and ac0j
That was the weakness in the study, at least as reported - they did not report distinguishing between recreational and Part 107, or comment on whether they were able to check for authorizations/waivers.

192 flights is a reasonable sample for gauging usage, but I would hope and expect that even in that kind of airspace the probability of anything bad happening is much less than 1/192 per flight.
We agree!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: sar104
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.

You can't compare cars and manned aircraft and motorcycles.. etc...etc. to drones. The ONLY thing you can compare with drones is a R/C plane or helicopter. If you are airborne in a Car or Bike, you better be a stuntman. Or possibly a terrorist?

So, you suggest to ban one group, so another group can exist? Is that what you are saying? I say get together with other groups and do some legislature... that's what this country used to be based on.
 
That was the weakness in the study, at least as reported - they did not report distinguishing between recreational and Part 107, or comment on whether they were able to check for authorizations/waivers.

192 flights is a reasonable sample for gauging usage, but I would hope and expect that even in that kind of airspace the probability of anything bad happening is much less than 1/192 per flight.

MUCH better odds than winning the lottery.
 
again, excellent post!

This is really getting on my nerves as well. Birds WILL and DO cause more damage than drones.
Then the Physics experts claim "density" difference is the key. As if the drones are solid lumps of high carbon steel as apposed to the mostly hollow flimsy plastic cavity with some fragile fiberglass circuit boards inside. When a bird is 100% mass and not near as compressible.

You obviously don't have a Duck Press....:p
 
You can't compare cars and manned aircraft and motorcycles.. etc...etc. to drones. The ONLY thing you can compare with drones is a R/C plane or helicopter. If you are airborne in a Car or Bike, you better be a stuntman. Or possibly a terrorist?

So, you suggest to ban one group, so another group can exist? Is that what you are saying? I say get together with other groups and do some legislature... that's what this country used to be based on.


My replies were based on the fact that, in the past, and by other members, it is not uncommon that once the safety record of general aviation is brought up, one response is that you can't compare manned flight and UAS flight. This is then based on the fact that manned flight pilots aren't as reckless because their lives are on the line. Although I completely agree with the "I take less risk because risk could kill me" logic, please understand that when I am advised at how dangerous my hobby is by someone who is involved in a hobby that is infinitely more dangerous than my hobby, I feel it is important to get back to the actual safety record of the two hobbies.

In a past post when I had indicated the "ban recreational flights and let drones go wild" scenario I did qualify it with the statement that I have no desire to ban recreational manned flight (and I should have qualified it on my recent post, but again, I was weary). I hope to keep this opinion, and if the aviation community want's me to keep that opinion, they might want to be a little more objective in the way they present the "dangers" of UAS flight data. It sure comes across that many in the aviation community (including personnel at my 107 test center) would be quite happy if UAS flight were simply eliminated. For those that feel that way, honestly answer the following question: If you could only have either several hundred thousand recreational pilots in the air OR several million recreational UAS pilots in the air, which would result in less loss of life and property damage over a five year period?

I would LOVE to get together with the aviation community and develop sensible regulations. But let's not kid ourselves, exaggerating the "dangers" of UAS flying is not a good starting point.

Peter T.
 
My replies were based on the fact that, in the past, and by other members, it is not uncommon that once the safety record of general aviation is brought up, one response is that you can't compare manned flight and UAS flight. This is then based on the fact that manned flight pilots aren't as reckless because their lives are on the line. Although I completely agree with the "I take less risk because risk could kill me" logic, please understand that when I am advised at how dangerous my hobby is by someone who is involved in a hobby that is infinitely more dangerous than my hobby, I feel it is important to get back to the actual safety record of the two hobbies.

In a past post when I had indicated the "ban recreational flights and let drones go wild" scenario I did qualify it with the statement that I have no desire to ban recreational manned flight (and I should have qualified it on my recent post, but again, I was weary). I hope to keep this opinion, and if the aviation community want's me to keep that opinion, they might want to be a little more objective in the way they present the "dangers" of UAS flight data. It sure comes across that many in the aviation community (including personnel at my 107 test center) would be quite happy if UAS flight were simply eliminated. For those that feel that way, honestly answer the following question: If you could only have either several hundred thousand recreational pilots in the air OR several million recreational UAS pilots in the air, which would result in less loss of life and property damage over a five year period?

I would LOVE to get together with the aviation community and develop sensible regulations. But let's not kid ourselves, exaggerating the "dangers" of UAS flying is not a good starting point.

Peter T.
Its not that its just exaggerated. At this point in the game it is still only guesswork. There is no actual data thats says its any more dangerous than birds. and birds will always out number drones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheech Wizard
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
131,189
Messages
1,560,754
Members
160,156
Latest member
gplunk99