Looks like the one I saw. I think an earlier report said it struck her. And yep.. the press love a good story.Hughie said:
I feel its only a matter of time
- Thread starter fin032
- Start date
I'm guessing statistically it's not likely a falling radio controlled aircraft will hit someone, but that's why such occurrences are called accidents. And I don't understand our predilection to think they will fall on a teenaged, healthy, male and cause minimal physical injury. The population is comprised people (and animals) of all ages from baby to advanced aged, all physical conditions from infantile to frail, and excellent abilities to avoid or no abilities to avoid something falling on them from the sky.
It is also probably statistically likely an accident is going to happen as the density of radio controlled aircraft over the heads of folks increases and ignorant and inexperienced children and adults operate that increasing number of radio controlled aircraft.
This addresses only operator error, let alone the mechanical failures that can happen to any of us at any time as we trust, quite frankly, toys with questionable reliability.
I'm just saying start believing a falling UAV will hit someone and cause serious injuries or a fatality.
As an additional comment, the video showing the person laying on the ground under a recently crashed Phantom, demonstrates some of Darwin's theory of natural selection. Is there a statistician in our group that explain how that improves the odds of an accident?
It is also probably statistically likely an accident is going to happen as the density of radio controlled aircraft over the heads of folks increases and ignorant and inexperienced children and adults operate that increasing number of radio controlled aircraft.
This addresses only operator error, let alone the mechanical failures that can happen to any of us at any time as we trust, quite frankly, toys with questionable reliability.
I'm just saying start believing a falling UAV will hit someone and cause serious injuries or a fatality.
As an additional comment, the video showing the person laying on the ground under a recently crashed Phantom, demonstrates some of Darwin's theory of natural selection. Is there a statistician in our group that explain how that improves the odds of an accident?
Not wishing to be negative or doom and gloom, but I do get frustrated by those who use the logic .. nothing has happened so far, so therefore, nothing will happen in the future. Please. Go and read a book on statistics or something.
Until pilots stop flying over people and built up areas it is going to happen. Its a bit like someone saying a year ago that a police helicopter has never crashed into a pub in Glasgow in living memory, so therefore it will never happen.
Until pilots stop flying over people and built up areas it is going to happen. Its a bit like someone saying a year ago that a police helicopter has never crashed into a pub in Glasgow in living memory, so therefore it will never happen.
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,301
- Reaction score
- 9,242
I haven't seen anyone using that logic.Hughie said:
But some have suggested that the disaster is inevitable reasoning isn't justified. Multicopter accidents can happen and it's possible that they will happen - but multicopter crashes causing loss of life as alluded to by some posters will be rare or freak events if they happen.
Here are some rare freak causes of death that are going to kill many more people than multicopters to put things in perspective.
Lightning strike - 26 fatalities in the US for 2014
Bee sting - about 50 fatalities per year in the US
About 22 people are killed in the US every year by cows
Vending machines kill about two people per year in the US
Falling coconuts cause about 150 deaths annually (worldwide).
Falling icicles kill about 15 people in the U.S. each year
Rail crossing collisions - 251 in 2014 USA
Meta4 said:
OK, I have. If you check the posts, you will see this is certainly the view of 1 or 2 contributors. I don't share that view, by the way.
Meta4 said:
I think the likelyhood of it happening is increasing... not decreasing just because an incident has not happened.
My real concern is what the media will make of just one single bad incident, and the impact this will have for all of us.
The use of a particular word- and the perceived meaning- varies greatly with the geographical position.
Here in London UK the 'D' word is little used.
Not only does it conjure the image of some threat that requires the attention of authority or press, but also calls into question the mind set of the toy helicopter owner. It would be assumed they dressed using items from the army surplus shop.
Here in London UK the 'D' word is little used.
Not only does it conjure the image of some threat that requires the attention of authority or press, but also calls into question the mind set of the toy helicopter owner. It would be assumed they dressed using items from the army surplus shop.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
The worry for me (in the US) is lawsuits.
If you cause harm to life, limb, or property you will likely be sued.
This can be very co$tly!
If you cause harm to life, limb, or property you will likely be sued.
This can be very co$tly!
While perhaps as rare as getting hit by a falling coconut, someone somewhere will be hit by a falling UAV. It may very well be a freak accident of statistically improbable proportions, but it will happen.
The certainty in the US is the operator will be sued and may face the wrath of the FAA, if the FAA ever gets the rules written, approved and in place as law.
The certainty in the US is the operator will be sued and may face the wrath of the FAA, if the FAA ever gets the rules written, approved and in place as law.
Buk said:
I agree. Our biggest concern, IMHO, isn't the idiot flier who takes ridiculous chances and injures someone out of carelessness or negligence. Our biggest concern is the media. Anything that I've been involved in, and have seen media coverage of, has had me screaming at the TV screen. They NEVER get anything right. Sensationalism always trumps truth. Always.
If .01% of all quadcopter sales results in injury... the sky will most assuredly be falling...
-slinger
I'm concerned about a drone taking down a plane ... getting sucked into an engine or hitting plane props, etc.
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
So much misguided doom and gloom. The risk of a Phantom doing significant harm is infinitesimally small by comparison to many commonly accepted activities undertaken all the time in the civilized world. Quit suckling at the teat of the fear mongering media.
ianwood said:
Agreed- but only if the idiot type operator is excluded from the equation. Unfortunately this is not the case.
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
Idiots are in plentiful supply. They don't need a Phantom to be a menace to society. And they should not dictate what we can and cannot do.
Ian, I don't think I'm misguided. I've seen and read a lot of the good and bad publicity UAV has garnered and feel I can differentiate between sensationalized and factual representations of events. What burns me is the comments on forums that take this context, "this stupid idiot is ruining the hobby for the rest of us". That in my opinion is misguided. While there may be stupid people doing stupid things, there are just as likely ignorant people who don't take advantage of forums like this, don't watch YouTube, nor meet with more experienced flyers. Ignorant meaning uneducated versus stupid meaning routinely making poor decisions.
I also don't wish to be considered a purveyor of gloom and doom, just being in my mind realistic. The more cars on the roads the more likely an accident will occur from mechanical failures, driver inexperience, operating while under the influence, weather, and on and on. How much different is the realm of the UAV and the world of the automobile? **** happens.
I love the hobby and enjoy seeing others enjoy the hobby and also enjoy observing the fruits of those working commercially. It offers a freedom to experience something I am unable to experience without a Phantom. To view vistas I normally would not see, to travel at heights and speeds I would not usually enjoy. Realistically, somewhere at sometime, someone, and I work hard to make sure it is not me, will have an accident with unfortunate consequences.
I also don't wish to be considered a purveyor of gloom and doom, just being in my mind realistic. The more cars on the roads the more likely an accident will occur from mechanical failures, driver inexperience, operating while under the influence, weather, and on and on. How much different is the realm of the UAV and the world of the automobile? **** happens.
I love the hobby and enjoy seeing others enjoy the hobby and also enjoy observing the fruits of those working commercially. It offers a freedom to experience something I am unable to experience without a Phantom. To view vistas I normally would not see, to travel at heights and speeds I would not usually enjoy. Realistically, somewhere at sometime, someone, and I work hard to make sure it is not me, will have an accident with unfortunate consequences.
Here's my take on it. I been an RC modeller for nearly 30 years and built and flown every single type of aircraft there is. From simple 4 channel trainers right up to 1/3 scale 45Lb P-47 and everything in between.
In 2003 there was a young girl killed by a trainer at an uncontrolled, no club, public flying heathland site.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-177139/Teenager-killed-hit-model-plane.html
The incident was about 5 miles from our well controlled and well run club site. The public flying site had no rules, no control and anyone could take anything and fly. They did not need insurance, training, advice or guidance. The site was open to to the public. Dog walkers, motorbikes, joggers, pinicers etc
The place was an accident waiting to happen.
There was some press fallout locally, the story came and went and that was it.
Just before that was a young lad killed at a model show
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/503181.stm
The trouble with quadcopters, Phantoms in particular, is that they are so easy to fly, therefore, anyone can get one and fly it. You don't really need training to fly and therefore a skill level and because they are easy to fly, people won't join "clubs" to get help and advice. So I reckon Quadcopter flying is a very singular hobby. People won't and don't see the relative dangers of flying in local parks, over major roads, near built up areas etc.
A Phantom weighing 3-4Lb coming down has the potential to hurt someone, but a model aircraft doing 50-60mph and an IC engine on the front doing 18k revs with a razor sharp carbon prop on IS going to really hurt (or kill).
I strong advice anyone to join the BMFA, get their insurance. They represent modelers in the UK and they've done ok up till now.
In 2003 there was a young girl killed by a trainer at an uncontrolled, no club, public flying heathland site.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-177139/Teenager-killed-hit-model-plane.html
The incident was about 5 miles from our well controlled and well run club site. The public flying site had no rules, no control and anyone could take anything and fly. They did not need insurance, training, advice or guidance. The site was open to to the public. Dog walkers, motorbikes, joggers, pinicers etc
The place was an accident waiting to happen.
There was some press fallout locally, the story came and went and that was it.
Just before that was a young lad killed at a model show
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/503181.stm
The trouble with quadcopters, Phantoms in particular, is that they are so easy to fly, therefore, anyone can get one and fly it. You don't really need training to fly and therefore a skill level and because they are easy to fly, people won't join "clubs" to get help and advice. So I reckon Quadcopter flying is a very singular hobby. People won't and don't see the relative dangers of flying in local parks, over major roads, near built up areas etc.
A Phantom weighing 3-4Lb coming down has the potential to hurt someone, but a model aircraft doing 50-60mph and an IC engine on the front doing 18k revs with a razor sharp carbon prop on IS going to really hurt (or kill).
I strong advice anyone to join the BMFA, get their insurance. They represent modelers in the UK and they've done ok up till now.
Well,I am sure that you are entitled to your opinion. Not sure why you feel the need to express it here in this way. First nothing seriously has happened with the 100's of thousands of 3/4lb rc's out there. But I feel that this "Sky is falling or is going to fall mentality" is exactly what the news media likes to do to create sensational news. Yet they have yet to prove this premise true. Sounds to me, you have a premonition of gloom and doom. If sh$t is going to happen, then it is going to happen...something none of us that are responsible, can control...so what is the point, and how does this further our hobby on this board. There...that is my opinion.Buk said:
Regarding the discussion of a serious injury, I agree with Stevemann, to a point. Yes, I don't think a falling Pahantom could kill someone. BUT, even with all rotors dead, just the tip of one, could put an eye out. If that happened to me, I would call that a serious injury. If it happened to a young child, it will still be serious, but a lot more criminal in the media.
Frankly, if my Phantom did that! I would be devastated if it happened and I don't know if I could live with what I did. I do think the Phantom 2 can carry the small amount of nylon and lines needed to achieved a greatly reduced speed. The weight problem will come in with using a metal spring to launch the chute. With the descent speed being so slow, it will be a challenge.
Or, just add a loud audio device so everyone will hear it and hopefully they will get out of the way. That would be very easy to do. BTW, I just patented that, too!
Frankly, if my Phantom did that! I would be devastated if it happened and I don't know if I could live with what I did. I do think the Phantom 2 can carry the small amount of nylon and lines needed to achieved a greatly reduced speed. The weight problem will come in with using a metal spring to launch the chute. With the descent speed being so slow, it will be a challenge.
Or, just add a loud audio device so everyone will hear it and hopefully they will get out of the way. That would be very easy to do. BTW, I just patented that, too!
I have my own opinion on the matter, but in the end it doesn't matter since laws will be made based on the worst case examples...
I found it interesting, in the following video to the left in the initial scene, an unsuspecting couple sitting on grass had a quad fall within feet of them. The bird was dead, no sound to warn of something overhead. If you listen to the tail end of the video, you'll hear wtf. I guess it will be wtf for a while...
FWIW, not the pilots fault for the crash. And how was he to know the eventual flight path would be a close call. Regardless, he is responsible for whatever happens to others - person or property. Just use common sense when flying, people are rarely looking to the skies for falling objects... It's like having a neighbor driving golfballs towards your house without you knowing, the last thing you'd expect is to have a golf ball hit your house...unless you lived on a golf course, then you would be expecting it to happen every now and then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... GRpRdQWfxw
I found it interesting, in the following video to the left in the initial scene, an unsuspecting couple sitting on grass had a quad fall within feet of them. The bird was dead, no sound to warn of something overhead. If you listen to the tail end of the video, you'll hear wtf. I guess it will be wtf for a while...
FWIW, not the pilots fault for the crash. And how was he to know the eventual flight path would be a close call. Regardless, he is responsible for whatever happens to others - person or property. Just use common sense when flying, people are rarely looking to the skies for falling objects... It's like having a neighbor driving golfballs towards your house without you knowing, the last thing you'd expect is to have a golf ball hit your house...unless you lived on a golf course, then you would be expecting it to happen every now and then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... GRpRdQWfxw
N017RW
Premium Pilot
RichWest said:
Life is nothing but a run at the odds.
I for one though am doing what I can to be sure I'm not a statistic.
I can't afford to be sued for damages my aircraft may cause.
I too have used the golf course analogy (i.e. what can be reasonably expected as possible both when and where).
Similar threads
