Drone crashes into house

[Geeber100]

A drone crashes into a house in Boulder Colorado.
Boulder residents raise concerns after drone hits Mapleton Hill home

 

[Indiana_pyro]

Well, here we go again.

 

[JeanMcK]

It is unfortunate that people doing things like this will eventually make it harder for everyone. I would bet the person who was flying this had no insurance. There was a case in the UK where a drone hit a toddler who lost an eye. These are not toys and should be used responsibly which includes not flying over people's houses without permission and keeping VLOS, which I know loads of people don't do. I can see much stricter regulations coming in soon, as they have started to in some other countries. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.....

 

[Alan Russel]

Better a drone than a car hitting your house.

 

[gringorio]

As a former 30 year resident of Boulder, I had to read the article. I laughed out loud when I read it was a GoPro Karma... Don't count on the Boulder City Council to do anything logical.

 

[KongWerks]

A drone hits my house almost every time I fly in my yard.

Just more fear mongering. I would wager that more people are killed or seriously injured by objects falling from conventional aircraft than drones will ever cause.

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | What happens to ice falling from planes?

Pieces regularly fall off planes, and officials duck the issue Airlines, government say problem is insignificant

Just 2 quick Google result links

 

[sar104]

A drone hits my house almost every time I fly in my yard.

Just more fear mongering. I would wager that more people are killed or seriously injured by objects falling from conventional aircraft than drones will ever cause.

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | What happens to ice falling from planes?

Pieces regularly fall off planes, and officials duck the issue Airlines, government say problem is insignificant

Just 2 quick Google result links

Those are old links. The 1995 article mentions that there had been no reports of injuries from such events, and the 2009 article describes just one. So drone injuries have already, in just a couple of years, significantly outnumbered those. That doesn't seem like a good wager.

 

[KongWerks]

Just a really quick search. I'm sure there is more relevant information available. I just think that something hitting a house roof making the news is funny in a sad way. Birds, baseballs, golf balls hit my place all the time... Never makes the news though. I found a Frisbee on the roof maybe I should report it as a ufo. It sure looked like a flying saucer when I threw it down.

I just can't see this going good for us. No matter what technology is put into the drone (beacons, strobes, collision avoidance etc) it will always be possible for one to fall out of the sky and hit someone or something.

Hopefully the future is brighter

 

[BigAl07]

News Flash ... If you fly them you will crash them. I can't tell you how many "things" I've hit over my 41 years flying R/C aircraft. I've hit myself, others, a parked car, a moving car, powerlines, trees, buildings, a pond, a lake, and a cow.

At NONE of those scenes was there a news crew... why? Because we didn't call them DRONES! The media is killing the industry and knuckle heads doing dumb things (which this may or may NOT have been) is only adding fuel to the fire.

 

[efh777]

A drone crashes into a house in Boulder Colorado.
Boulder residents raise concerns after drone hits Mapleton Hill home

I llke everyone else is concerned when we see these stories. I live in suburban area in Orange County California. I have two DJI "DRONES" - a P1 and a new P3S. I was coming home and I saw a DJI Phantom about 250 feet over my neighborhood. It wasn't directly over my house, but nearby. Two ladies walking along saw it, and one said to the other "I HEAR YOU CAN SHOOT THEM DOWN IF THEY ARE OVER YOUR PROPERTY". - I wanted to intervene and tell her not only is she wrong (discharge of firearm in city limit), you are more likely to cause more damage if you shot it down, and they lose control. Everyday we walk by ATM's, Stores with Camera's Department stores with Camera's and we don't complain. If someone has a Camera on a drone, they are invading your privacy? What is up with that????

 

[efh777]

News Flash ... If you fly them you will crash them. I can't tell you how many "things" I've hit over my 41 years flying R/C aircraft. I've hit myself, others, a parked car, a moving car, powerlines, trees, buildings, a pond, a lake, and a cow.

At NONE of those scenes was there a news crew... why? Because we didn't call them DRONES! The media is killing the industry and knuckle heads doing dumb things (which this may or may NOT have been) is only adding fuel to the fire.

I agree calling them "DRONES" is a bad idea, but that is how we are identified. I fly my P1 around, sometimes with No camera, just so I don't have to have people worry when I fly near them, or their KID and I am filming them. I do have a Go-pro mount, and can put a camera. If someone had a worry that I was filming them or my kid, I would gladly give them the SD CARD. I would not be stupid enough to hover over someone and film them. We need a media campaign to let them know that we are responsible citizens. The other day, I was getting ready to launch my P1 at a park, and a dog made a B-Line to my drone. I immediately stopped the rotors, and let it sniff. I was more worried that the dog would get hurt, then him hurting my UAV. That is how I remain responsible.

 

[Zigs]

Had a pretty good sized bird hit our picture window again for the umpteenth time. Do I call 911? I guess I didn't realize how dangerous (and newsworthy) it was. In other news, a horseless carriage in 1905 caused several horses to spook, one throwing a rider. Horseless carriages are therefor banned.

 

[andy_k]

Everyday we walk by ATM's, Stores with Camera's Department stores with Camera's and we don't complain. If someone has a Camera on a drone, they are invading your privacy? What is up with that????

What you forgot to add is that every one of those stores and ATM's are operated by companies with strict data collection and control policies - they aren't the ones posting their videos on YouTube

How many drone operators (hobby or commercial) can say the same thing?

People like to think they have some privacy, it reassures them

 

[JeanMcK]

Yes, many things can happen. But a responsible drone owner will have insurance for those unlikely but possible events. A bird flying into your window is not under your control. Your drone is. To the person who hit a moving car and a cow (which arguably puts you in the "knucklehead" category?), that is horrible and you are lucky. There was an incident here in the UK where someone flew drones over horses who spooked and ran into barbed wire and at least one had to be put down. There was an incident in 2015 where an 18-month old lost an eye when someone's drone just clipped a tree. Horseless carriages (ie. cars) are required to have insurance. I don't think anyone is saying you shouldn't fly. What I would say is, be responsible and don't ruin it for everyone else. Get liability insurance and fly according to the rules.

As for cameras, drones can film in people's gardens and in windows (which has happened in a number of cities) and I think that is quite a different beast than CCTV or cameras on ATMs which are in public spaces and not moving around. I do think people are a bit too paranoid about it, but I can see the concerns.

 

[Peter Hartmann]

........., a horseless carriage in 1905 caused several horses to spook, one throwing a rider. Horseless carriages are therefor banned.

.............................................................................................
No - they weren't banned - but many communities DID establish regulations on their use, and equipment.

While I can find no historical record of regulations requiring prop. guards on early autos, I do find regulations about getting mufflers on those things so they wouldn't set fire to grasslands, regulations about lighting, speed limits in cities....registration, licensing...etc.

The regulations that came then and later didn't stop ALL tragedies with motor vehicles...but..I kind of LIKE the idea that when I go out on the roads with mine, the other folks have licenses - meaning...they have established they have at least some semblance of skill to operate the things...AND the things are reasonably safe. For example, we cant have sharp dangerous hood ornaments... dashes now must be padded...... ( see where this argument is going......UPS has already delivered my prop guards...the replacement Phantom 3 isn't due here till next week........!

 

[andy_k]

First comes technology, then comes use which leads to abuse which leads to regulation.

It doesn't matter whether it's land sea or air - no matter what is developed it's only 'spoiled' by those that have no consideration for others.

When the motorways in the UK first opened, there were no speed limits - just people and their vehicle's abilities. It worked well for a while, right up to the point that some car manufacturers were using them to test their prototype Le Mans race cars because their own test tracks didn't have long enough straights - now we have a 70mph limit

The same will apply to drones, model aircraft fliers have rubbed along quite nicely with the authorities, flying within agreed guidelines and not being stupid - sadly that appears to have changed with the current generation of drone owners - many of them don't have a clue just how much damage they are doing to the hobby and many don't seem to care because they'll just move onto the next fad when this hobby is broken

 

[SteveMann]

...So drone injuries have already, in just a couple of years, significantly outnumbered those. That doesn't seem like a good wager.

Small UAVs do not pose any significant risk to people or the National Airspace System. "Dangerous" and "invasion of privacy" concerns are ridiculous, driven by paranoia borne of ignorance. We don't need fact-challenged posts like this to add to the public hysteria. There is absolutely no factual evidence to support the fear of personal drones. There have been more than a million of hours of flight time using these small aircraft worldwide, yet there is not one verifiable report of a drone crash in the US that resulted in a serious injury as defined by the FAA in CFR 49-830.2 to someone not connected to the flight. **Not one**. (A Band-Aid is not a serious injury). It is a safety record that all other segments of aviation would be jealous to have. (In the General Aviation fleet 100,000 hours would include at least one fatality.) Where's the blood and mayhem to justify the perception that small personal drones are a threat to public safety?

 

[andy_k]

Small UAVs do not pose any significant risk to people

Well said Steve, I'm sure the parents of this little lad would be happy to agree with you

Toddler's eyeball sliced in half by drone propeller - BBC News

 

[jason]

Small UAVs do not pose any significant risk to people or the National Airspace System. "Dangerous" and "invasion of privacy" concerns are ridiculous, driven by paranoia borne of ignorance. We don't need fact-challenged posts like this to add to the public hysteria. There is absolutely no factual evidence to support the fear of personal drones. There have been more than a million of hours of flight time using these small aircraft worldwide, yet there is not one verifiable report of a drone crash in the US that resulted in a serious injury as defined by the FAA in CFR 49-830.2 to someone not connected to the flight. **Not one**. (A Band-Aid is not a serious injury). It is a safety record that all other segments of aviation would be jealous to have. (In the General Aviation fleet 100,000 hours would include at least one fatality.) Where's the blood and mayhem to justify the perception that small personal drones are a threat to public safety?

Good to see you're still alive and kicking Steve. Seems there are a few in the UK who believe in FAKE NEWS.

 

[andy_k]

We don't need fact-challenged posts like this?

There have been more than a million of hours of flight time using these small aircraft worldwide, yet there is not one verifiable report of a drone crash in the US

Yet it doesn't matter when you mix 'statistics' using big worldwide numbers yet apply them to a small cross section for effect

Burying your head in the sand and pretending that injuries won't happen because they haven't happened yet is quite ridiculous - quadcopters/drones/UAVs represent a relatively new addition to a hobby that has been largely responsible for it's own safety record due to the 'club culture'.

We can't expect to have accurate figures yet - look back in ten years and then we can start to draw conclusions.

What we should all be doing is promoting safe and responsible flying rather than rubbishing every complaint and calling it fake news - it doesn't fool anybody