Bloomberg: Consumer Drones Unlikely to Cause Injury

[Westernflyer]

Fascinating article.
It basically says that consumer drones are unlikely to cause injuries. And there are design ideas that would further reduce injuries even more (drones that are designed to break apart for example). The video in the article doesn't exactly come up with the same conclusion as the article itself.
Good read.

Small Consumer Drones Unlikely to Cause Head Injury, Study Says

The small, popular drones flooding the commercial market are unlikely to cause severe head injuries if they fall out of the sky and strike people, a new study has concluded.


The results are similar to findings earlier this year by researchers associated with the Federal Aviation Administration and offer more justification for opening the door to unmanned operations over crowds.


Read more: Hard Knocks for Drone Industry: Dummies Taking Hits for Safety

The FAA had planned to release by the end of 2016 a preliminary outline for allowing at least some drone flights over people. Such rules are needed by multiple industries from network television news shows to drone delivery pioneers, such as Amazon.com Inc. and Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google.

The U.S. government temporarily put the effort on hold after law enforcement agencies objected, saying there needs to be better ways of tracking unmanned vehicles before they’re unleashed over people.

The Virginia Tech study looked at three models made by China-based SZ DJI Technology Co. The smallest was the Phantom 3, which was flown straight into a crash-test dummy’s head and also dropped on the dummy to simulate falling from the sky.

While the risks from the Phantom 3 were minimal, the potential for injury increased dramatically as drones weighed more. A DJI S1000+ model, an eight-rotor copter weighing 24 pounds (11 kilograms) had an injury risk of about 70 percent in some tests.

Read more: Amazon, Google Push for Drone Deliveries Gets Boost From FAA

The FAA in April released similar results of studies it had financed. “So many people are watching these studies,” Earl Lawrence, director of FAA’s Office of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration, said in an interview earlier this year. “FAA needs it to support our rulemaking activities, but so does every other civil aviation authority and interest groups throughout the world."

The agency last year adopted regulations allowing routine small-drone flights for commercial purposes, but restricted them to within sight of the operator, no higher than 400 feet above ground and not directly over people.

 

[Drestin Black]

Everything and exactly what i've Been saying for a year

I promise you we will be legally flying over people in less than a year.

 

[BigAl07]

Everything and exactly what i've Been saying for a year

I promise you we will be legally flying over people in less than a year.

While I do believe that we will see more flexibility in this restriction I don't see them simply opening up the floodgates and allowing anyone and everyone to do so. I can see the FAA allowing the Part 107 waiver process and requiring applicant to explain certain details, safety features, and mitigation practices to help ensure public safety when flying over people.

If you're operating a microUAS I see no harm in flying over people even crowds. Anything more than that I have no problem in limiting/restricting who can fly over people/

 

[Drestin Black]

Once again I'll be the squeaky wheel...

What exactly is the difference between a part 107 flier with a 107.39 waiver vs hobby flier? One test that you need a B on - and doesn't deal with HOW to fly or make ANY assurances of skill. A part 107 flier means zero.0 towards indicating skill/safety level, it just means they passed a test about reading maps, knowing rules, some FAA guidelines, etc.

A guy who has only ever been a hobby flier could easily be 100% a safer flier than someone who is a part 107. Same as someone who has a drivers license. Does having that license mean they are a better driver than someone who didn't get one (bar example due to the legal requirement to have one to drive at all but I hope the point is made).

Flying over people is a safety issue - but should be kept in respect to potential danger.

Revisiting cars: the reasons seat belts are mandated and required is because of extensive histories of repeated testing and statistics it was found that using them made a HUGE difference in reducing severity of injury, so big it was impossible to ignore, and there wasn't a lot of resistance to the law (some but ultimately not that much)

Testing has shown what real world experience bears out, injuries from drones are trivial in number and minor in impact. The huge number of pure amateurs flying every type of drone has produced almost no genuine, real world concern. I'd like to mention that when people say, but the number of drones sold is exploding, reminder: many MANY of these, I believe the majority, are the sub $300 range of what I call toy drones. Most can't go more than a few hundred feet, and travel only 10 mph max. They weigh very little and more and more come equipped with prop guards built in or in the box and recommended for all flights. While it's a genuine concern that a 20 octocopter with a RED camera system and gyros falling 400 feet straight down on someone's head - that's not the likely scenario. It's the four prop, under 2 lbs plastic toy bouncing off a hat or shoulder.

In order for Amazon and google and FB to accomplish their goals with drone use they are going to have to get the FAA to allow flying over people without a one for one waiver as there won't even be a pilot per drone to license. Those efforts, which I expect to succeed, will trickle down to us in the form of significantly relaxed rules about flight near people.

I think things are going to improve not get worse. Round one of regulations are generally in need of serious reshaping after they encounter the real world, and in the real world, legal or not, pilots fly over people.
Or as my dad would say: Two kinds of pilots who ever break the rules: those that do and those that deny it.

 

[YogiFlyer]

Once again I'll be the squeaky wheel...

What exactly is the difference between a part 107 flier with a 107.39 waiver vs hobby flier? One test that you need a B on - and doesn't deal with HOW to fly or make ANY assurances of skill. A part 107 flier means zero.0 towards indicating skill/safety level, it just means they passed a test about reading maps, knowing rules, some FAA guidelines, etc.

A guy who has only ever been a hobby flier could easily be 100% a safer flier than someone who is a part 107. Same as someone who has a drivers license. Does having that license mean they are a better driver than someone who didn't get one (bar example due to the legal requirement to have one to drive at all but I hope the point is made).

Flying over people is a safety issue - but should be kept in respect to potential danger.

Revisiting cars: the reasons seat belts are mandated and required is because of extensive histories of repeated testing and statistics it was found that using them made a HUGE difference in reducing severity of injury, so big it was impossible to ignore, and there wasn't a lot of resistance to the law (some but ultimately not that much)

Testing has shown what real world experience bears out, injuries from drones are trivial in number and minor in impact. The huge number of pure amateurs flying every type of drone has produced almost no genuine, real world concern. I'd like to mention that when people say, but the number of drones sold is exploding, reminder: many MANY of these, I believe the majority, are the sub $300 range of what I call toy drones. Most can't go more than a few hundred feet, and travel only 10 mph max. They weigh very little and more and more come equipped with prop guards built in or in the box and recommended for all flights. While it's a genuine concern that a 20 octocopter with a RED camera system and gyros falling 400 feet straight down on someone's head - that's not the likely scenario. It's the four prop, under 2 lbs plastic toy bouncing off a hat or shoulder.

In order for Amazon and google and FB to accomplish their goals with drone use they are going to have to get the FAA to allow flying over people without a one for one waiver as there won't even be a pilot per drone to license. Those efforts, which I expect to succeed, will trickle down to us in the form of significantly relaxed rules about flight near people.

I think things are going to improve not get worse. Round one of regulations are generally in need of serious reshaping after they encounter the real world, and in the real world, legal or not, pilots fly over people.
Or as my dad would say: Two kinds of pilots who ever break the rules: those that do and those that deny it.

There are waaaayyy too many weeds in that post for me to say anymore.

 

[Drestin Black]

There are waaaayyy too many weeds in that post for me to say anymore.

Try this little step:

How exactly does passing the test for part 107 make you a more physically competent pilot? Did it teach you how to fly your particular drone?

 

[N017RW]

There's already documented injuries.
Fake news!!!

 

[anotherlab]

Everyone can read what they want from that article. This line caught my eye:

The study focused solely on head trauma and didn’t assess the potential for rotor blades cutting the skin or other injuries.

If a Phantom drops out of the sky because a malfunction or pilot error, the odds of head trauma are low. However, the risk of eye damage or permanent facial scarring from being hit by a rotor are risks that should be studied. We just need to see a study that measures the effect of a Phantom class drone with propeller shields. It's like fans for cooling in your home. If they were not encased inside a shield, people would be suing left and right. The FAA (pick the governing body of your jurisdiction) could just say that if you want to fly over people, shield your drone.

 

[Drestin Black]

There's already documented injuries.
Fake news!!!

I don't think anyone said there weren't... and ?

 

[N017RW]

And?

I'm referring to the article's title.
So it seems Bloomberg, or at least Mr. Levin, did.

 

[Drestin Black]

And?

I'm referring to the article's title.
So it seems Bloomberg, or at least Mr. Levin, did.

Title: "Consumers Drones Unlikely to Cause Injury"

Fact: Consumers drones have very rarely (therefore unlikely) caused injury.

Where is the false news?

 

[Drestin Black]

Everyone can read what they want from that article. This line caught my eye:



If a Phantom drops out of the sky because a malfunction or pilot error, the odds of head trauma are low. However, the risk of eye damage or permanent facial scarring from being hit by a rotor are risks that should be studied. We just need to see a study that measures the effect of a Phantom class drone with propeller shields. It's like fans for cooling in your home. If they were not encased inside a shield, people would be suing left and right. The FAA (pick the governing body of your jurisdiction) could just say that if you want to fly over people, shield your drone.

Agree, putting prop protectors on would dramatically reduce the already tiny chance of injury from drones further.

I need to test again just how much impact on performance prop protectors have. The ones I originally got from DJI disable the forward obstacle avoidance and so I stopped using them. I recently found some that not only don't disable OA but are white in front and red in back so you get some additional visual aid for the orientation of your craft.

 

[N017RW]

un·like·ly
ˌənˈlīklē/
adjective

1. not likely to happen, be done, or be true; improbable.

 

[BigAl07]

I fully admit taking the Part 107 test does not automatically create a better pilot but it does give more credibility and more importantly ACCOUNTABILITY than your average hobby flier.

When a person goes through the effort to pay and take the test they can no longer say "Oh I didn't know that...". They have been exposed (even if a small degree) to the official interpretation of the FAA Rules & Regulations for UAS. Even though I fully believe the Part 107 test in itself is a complete failure I think it needs to be there (and tougher). We see people every day who passed the test asking the most basic and elementary questions which were covered over and over and over again in test prep. What's happened is people are studying to pass the test as opposed to learning the material so they can apply it in their UAS operations. Those two things are night and day different.

I for one, look forward to the day when there is a physical flight test for UAS operations. Everything else is pointless if the person can't actually fly the aircraft safely.

With all of this being said, I don't think we'll ever see a blanket "Flying over people" release and I completely agree their should not be one. We need some form of accountability not only for safety's sake but also to help John Q. Public know that the aircraft flying directly overhead is mostly likely being operated by someone who at least knows the rules and consequences.

 

[Drestin Black]

un·like·ly
ˌənˈlīklē/
adjective

1. not likely to happen, be done, or be true; improbable.

Yea. That's the word and its definition.
And?
(Let me save us a round of quotes. See the word "or"?" that chops off your trying for "not...be true" and let's us focus on the intended (and accurate) use of the word: "not likely to happen"

Why are you so anxious to show that drones cause great harm?

 

[N017RW]

Dressed in,

I don't have to prove anything. Harm is already documented.

You are not qualified to tell me what the author intended.

Out of respect I will tell you I am done conversing with you here.

May as well put me on ignore. I'd be honored.

Cheers

 

[Drestin Black]

Dressed in,

I don't have to prove anything. Harm is already documented.

You are not qualified to tell me what the author intended.

Out of respect I will tell you I am done conversing with you here.

May as well put me on ignore. I'd be honored.

Cheers

I'm sorry you don't want to debate but just want someone to agree with you. The title of the article is literally accurate, no ad hominem from you will change it. And I'm just as qualified as anyone who has basic English 101 skills to interpret plain English words.

I'd ignore you but that's not debate that's just burying your head in the sand.

I don't agree with a blanket rule against overflight and don't think it should be wide open. There is a happy medium and fact based research, like covered in this article, should drive the direction of laws, not personal opinion.

Have a great night

 

[Drestin Black]

I fully admit taking the Part 107 test does not automatically create a better pilot but it does give more credibility and more importantly ACCOUNTABILITY than your average hobby flier.

When a person goes through the effort to pay and take the test they can no longer say "Oh I didn't know that...". They have been exposed (even if a small degree) to the official interpretation of the FAA Rules & Regulations for UAS. Even though I fully believe the Part 107 test in itself is a complete failure I think it needs to be there (and tougher). We see people every day who passed the test asking the most basic and elementary questions which were covered over and over and over again in test prep. What's happened is people are studying to pass the test as opposed to learning the material so they can apply it in their UAS operations. Those two things are night and day different.

I for one, look forward to the day when there is a physical flight test for UAS operations. Everything else is pointless if the person can't actually fly the aircraft safely.

With all of this being said, I don't think we'll ever see a blanket "Flying over people" release and I completely agree their should not be one. We need some form of accountability not only for safety's sake but also to help John Q. Public know that the aircraft flying directly overhead is mostly likely being operated by someone who at least knows the rules and consequences.

Exactly!
"Real" pilots train in aircraft and are tested in such before solo flight. A real pilot license says, this person has actually proven they can fly the craft.

A part 107 test says a person knows the answers to most of the questions in this test. But it doesn't testify to their ability (literally, if at all) to fly a UAS. I know a part 107 who's crashed and I know some hobbyists who haven't (yet lol).

I'd like to see the test expanded to include some practical UAS operation skills. Even if really basic like, pre-flight checklist. How to take off, how to land. Basic control knowledge - that kind of thing. That would give that certificate a lot more weight.

 

[BigAl07]

Exactly!
"Real" pilots train in aircraft and are tested in such before solo flight. A real pilot license says, this person has actually proven they can fly the craft.

A part 107 test says a person knows the answers to most of the questions in this test. But it doesn't testify to their ability (literally, if at all) to fly a UAS. I know a part 107 who's crashed and I know some hobbyists who haven't (yet lol).

I'd like to see the test expanded to include some practical UAS operation skills. Even if really basic like, pre-flight checklist. How to take off, how to land. Basic control knowledge - that kind of thing. That would give that certificate a lot more weight.

I train UAS pilots and I can tell you first hand that we have a massive need for hands-on flight testing. When we train we not only teach basic flight skills but also extensively test the "what ifs". We turn off GPS, cover their screen so they fly without tablet, provide tons of distractions, and more because those things HAPPEN in the real world.

 

[Drestin Black]

I train UAS pilots and I can tell you first hand that we have a massive need for hands-on flight testing. When we train we not only teach basic flight skills but also extensively test the "what ifs". We turn off GPS, cover their screen so they fly without tablet, provide tons of distractions, and more because those things HAPPEN in the real world.

Kudos - I'm thinking of, for example, those online test helpers. They teach you only exactly what appears on the test and that's it. Your approach is what is really needed.