Welcome Inspire Pilots!
Join our free DJI Inspire community today!
Sign up

Horrifying crash into crowd

I've asked those questions dozens of times in dozens of forums and nobody seems to have a logical answer.

This may not be a logical answer that you happen to like, but, here goes:

There have been thousands and thousands of carefully constructed safety studies over the last 100 years of manned aviation. The safety issues are all also written in blood. Every paragraph in 14 CFR was written because somebody became a grease-stain on the ground. Meanwhile the drone industry is rather new, and a similar amount of study has yet to be completed (but is underway). Safety regulation tends to move at the speed of smell, and while it's frustrating, it's a necessary part of the whole process.
 
This may not be a logical answer that you happen to like, but, here goes:

There have been thousands and thousands of carefully constructed safety studies over the last 100 years of manned aviation. The safety issues are all also written in blood. Every paragraph in 14 CFR was written because somebody became a grease-stain on the ground. Meanwhile the drone industry is rather new, and a similar amount of study has yet to be completed (but is underway). Safety regulation tends to move at the speed of smell, and while it's frustrating, it's a necessary part of the whole process.

That logic would seem to argue for less regulation than more! Manned aviation safety regulations come about after a major accident and a cause can be determined, NOT before because of some "what if" scenario. Currently we have ZERO major accidents involving commercial and hobbies drones out of MILLIONS of flights over the past few years. This is post 9/11 "preemptive" regulation that we have currently in regards to sUAS.

Just think where aviation would be today if in 1908 airplanes were banned from flying within 5 miles of any person or building because there just wasn't enough study on the safety of manned aircraft. If we are serious about safety we need to also acknowledge when a situation carries very little safety risk, such as a lightweight drone vs a heavy manned aircraft flying over persons or property. The fact that we don't have different weight classes for UAS points to the fact that it is just easier to say "NO" for the FAA. Whatever happened to the 2kg (4.4lbs) and below class of UAS that was proposed?
 
That logic would seem to argue for less regulation than more! Manned aviation safety regulations come about after a major accident and a cause can be determined, NOT before because of some "what if" scenario. Currently we have ZERO major accidents involving commercial and hobbies drones out of MILLIONS of flights over the past few years. This is post 9/11 "preemptive" regulation that we have currently in regards to sUAS.

Just think where aviation would be today if in 1908 airplanes were banned from flying within 5 miles of any person or building because there just wasn't enough study on the safety of manned aircraft. If we are serious about safety we need to also acknowledge when a situation carries very little safety risk, such as a lightweight drone vs a heavy manned aircraft flying over persons or property. The fact that we don't have different weight classes for UAS points to the fact that it is just easier to say "NO" for the FAA. Whatever happened to the 2kg (4.4lbs) and below class of UAS that was proposed?

Well, first, I agree with you. But let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Say your under-2kg drone, with a 7.9V
750mAh LiPo fully charged gets ingested into a Bell's turbofan engine intake... I think instant release of 21,000 joules will leave more than just a mark.
 
That logic would seem to argue for less regulation than more! Manned aviation safety regulations come about after a major accident and a cause can be determined, NOT before because of some "what if" scenario. Currently we have ZERO major accidents involving commercial and hobbies drones out of MILLIONS of flights over the past few years. This is post 9/11 "preemptive" regulation that we have currently in regards to sUAS.

Just think where aviation would be today if in 1908 airplanes were banned from flying within 5 miles of any person or building because there just wasn't enough study on the safety of manned aircraft. If we are serious about safety we need to also acknowledge when a situation carries very little safety risk, such as a lightweight drone vs a heavy manned aircraft flying over persons or property. The fact that we don't have different weight classes for UAS points to the fact that it is just easier to say "NO" for the FAA. Whatever happened to the 2kg (4.4lbs) and below class of UAS that was proposed?

Your answer is a good one, but it's problematic. Please allow me to elaborate.

Like many other drone pilots, a huge problem I have with present FAA drone regulations is they completely lack logic and common sense. While I understand that no official studies have been done in the drone/fatality/injury/property damage field, it's pretty common knowledge that there are no drone fatalities. (Okay...I think in the entire history of RC aviation, there are < 5). It's also common knowledge that drone property damage is a fraction of its full-scale counterpart. And finally, injuries (non-fatal) due to multirotor crashes vs. full-scale aviation has no comparison. So, while I get that no "studies" have been conducted in the field of drone forensics, it's pretty easy to build a convincing safety argument in favor of drones vs. full-scale aviation with a laptop, a projector and about 30 minutes. But the frustration doesn't end there.

As impossible as it seems, it's not just the FAA who appear to be blind to the massive safety record gap between RC Aviation vs. full scale. There appears to be a whole gaggle of NON-FAA folks who don't get it or see it, either. I think I could easily make a case that if you're going to ban drones over residential, then it only makes sense to ban full-scale over residential, too, to just about any I.Q. demographic, age demographic, race demographic, etc. I would show a typical helicopter crash - not even a remarkable one - and assert, "This one crash caused 100x more damage than the entire history of model aviation combined." Seems like THAT would be a pretty easy case to win.

Now, remember...we're not talking about a drones potential for taking down a helicopter or airplane here (THAT is a study that needs to be done). We're talking about the POTENTIAL damage that can be done DIRECTLY by an electric 5 lb. drone vs. a 2-100 ton flying fuel tanker. One could almost remove ALL common sense and ALL logic, and STILL conclude that regulating the former out of residential areas, and not the latter, is about as cockamamie a safety imbalance as any history has ever seen.

The problem isn't just the FAA. It's the press, housewives, the average-Joe-citizen, and even the brand new drone pilot who got pummeled with a well-constructed propaganda campaign. I'm sure you agree.
 
Last edited:
It's also interesting that the stock photo of "the drone" in that article was an Inspire 2, and the actual drone looks like .. a Typhoon H? That's careless reporting, actually.

When it comes down to it dispensing candy with a drone over a mixed crowd is just **** foolish. Sorry. Doesn't matter if the thing was permitted, or whether the laws make sense. Anyone with any experience knows that these whirlybirds can come down at ANY time ... they don't, usually, but they CAN. WHY ask for more trouble?
 
Such stupid decisions here. Could have been much worse. What kind of *** would agree to do that with a drone?
 
It's also interesting that the stock photo of "the drone" in that article was an Inspire 2, and the actual drone looks like .. a Typhoon H? That's careless reporting, actually.

When it comes down to it dispensing candy with a drone over a mixed crowd is just **** foolish. Sorry. Doesn't matter if the thing was permitted, or whether the laws make sense. Anyone with any experience knows that these whirlybirds can come down at ANY time ... they don't, usually, but they CAN. WHY ask for more trouble?

So with this logic, do you support banning manned aviation from flying over built up areas or large crowds?
 
  • Like
Reactions: slim.slamma
If a crash happens just be prepared to turn yourself in!
If a pilot can't handle what's comes after a crash don't be flying over crowds!

The pilot that crashed into the army helicopter over Staten island turned his self in. That's all I ask, be prepared to step up.
 
As an American that's all I ask of my fellow country men. Have insurance if your playing with a toy over my head.
 
So with this logic, do you support banning manned aviation from flying over built up areas or large crowds?

Mutlitrotor would be safer over crowd with secondary flight characteristics, no? But this did not have any, even being a hex. Even a manned chopper has a chance of auto-rotating to a softer "landing". Drones plummet. They are also not as likely to have regular airworthiness inspections done as full-sized craft (which kill people anyway), and apparently, as in this case, allowed to fly over crowd with a load the aircraft was not necessarily designed for, or tested appropriately with.

As for regulation, and logic, and rationality ... well sorry, but that's not what we are dealing with. Incidents like this, however minor especially compared to highway carnage (not races or airshows where people go for spectacle, but "simple" transportation), add fuel to the witch hunt. We don't need more knee-jerk, reactionary regulations to limit where and how we can fly, do we? But we know "mob rules" and people get their knickers in a bunch all too often.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
22,277
Messages
210,655
Members
34,334
Latest member
unitedconveyormktg