more bad news

[CarlJ]

We would have to know the terminal velocity of a Phantom to accurately suggest what damage could be caused by one striking someone from free-fall (as Ian said). That said, it's sure to leave a mark, and it's amazing it hasn't happened - yet.

Oh but it will, and I can't wait to see THAT in the British press...

 

[GoodnNuff]

We would have to know the terminal velocity of a Phantom to accurately suggest what damage could be caused by one striking someone from free-fall (as Ian said). That said, it's sure to leave a mark, and it's amazing it hasn't happened - yet.

Oh but it will, and I can't wait to see THAT in the British press...

You need to know terminal velocity to suggest what damage could be caused?

Throw your Phantom at your child's or your spouse's face with their hands tied behind their back from across the room. We're they injured? Now throw your Phantom into a the head of a stranger's child at the park. I don't care whether your drone's terminal velocity was reached or not, did it leave a mark? Did the parents inquire about the object's velocity or just the damage to their child?

 

[PsychopathRC]

Not sure I'm in agreement.
The danger is never the hobby or the a/c. It's the people.
Like many devices or technologies drones can be used for good or evil and responsibly or carelessly and recklessly.

That's pretty much what I said. In the right hands, it's fine. It's just the stupid people who make it dangerous.

 

[4wd]

I don't think anyone disputes that a falling phantom would hurt your head, but the other fanciful risks - being put out by a Government minister - are so astonishingly imaginative (and/or ignorant), it suggests some back room think tank trying to manipulate opinion to favour imposing new controls.

 

[CarlJ]

We would have to know the terminal velocity of a Phantom to accurately suggest what damage could be caused by one striking someone from free-fall (as Ian said). That said, it's sure to leave a mark, and it's amazing it hasn't happened - yet.

Oh but it will, and I can't wait to see THAT in the British press...

You need to know terminal velocity to suggest what damage could be caused?

No, "accurately" suggest. A cubic inch of bone can in principle bear a load of 19,000 lbs. (8,626 kg) or more — roughly the weight of five standard pickup trucks, making it about four times as strong as concrete, but that all flies out the window depending on how fast the force is being applied. So as you can see, terminal velocity is a very important figure in determining the extent of injury (credit to Ian).

It's been estimated that terminal velocity could be reached within 20-30 seconds at a speed between 40 - 50mph, and at that speed, and at a weight of 2lbs 11oz, if the Phantom fell just right it could indeed cause death.

Still, this information will not dissuade many here

 

[CarlJ]

it suggests some back room think tank trying to manipulate opinion to favour imposing new controls.

We just call them idiots on Youtube, but think tank works too.

Let's face it, they're the real enemy here...

 

[WessexWyvern]

We would have to know the terminal velocity of a Phantom to accurately suggest what damage could be caused by one striking someone from free-fall (as Ian said). That said, it's sure to leave a mark, and it's amazing it hasn't happened - yet.

Oh but it will, and I can't wait to see THAT in the British press...

You need to know terminal velocity to suggest what damage could be caused?

No, "accurately" suggest. A cubic inch of bone can in principle bear a load of 19,000 lbs. (8,626 kg) or more — roughly the weight of five standard pickup trucks, making it about four times as strong as concrete, but that all flies out the window depending on how fast the force is being applied. So as you can see, terminal velocity is a very important figure in determining the extent of injury (credit to Ian).

It's been estimated that terminal velocity could be reached within 20-30 seconds at a speed between 40 - 50mph, and at that speed, and at a weight of 2lbs 11oz, if the Phantom fell just right it could indeed cause death.

Still, this information will not dissuade many here

Are the public entitled to only be protected from broken bones and death or from injury in general? A drone doesn't have to be traveling at all to cause a nasty injury, rotating blades can cause lacerations or possibly blindness.

It matters not what injuries a golf ball can do, it's an established sport which has proven itself to be acceptably safe to the participants and to the public over many decades, the public rightly or wrongly, on the whole are comfortable around golfers. But when it comes to modern legislation, fairness and rational thought play no part. There will be two factors that will over ride the actual risk of being struck by a drone when formulating new laws, number 1 will be public perception number 2 will be the lowest common denominator. If the public / voters say they have a fear of drones then you can expect further legislation. If the lowest common denominator continue to fly in congested areas close to or over crowds you can expect that legislation to be very restrictive.

If a government based its safety regulations on the terminal velocity of moving objects vs the force required to break bones, I'd want a new government.

 

[CarlJ]

Are the public entitled to only be protected from broken bones and death or from injury in general? A drone doesn't have to be traveling at all to cause a nasty injury, rotating blades can cause lacerations or possibly blindness.

Rights are personal, when you try to extend them to include others, you've stepped over the line. Any injury sustained by an innocent bystander is unacceptable.

It matters not what injuries a golf ball can do, it's an established sport which has proven itself to be acceptably safe to the participants and to the public over many decades, the public rightly or wrongly, on the whole are comfortable around golfers.

Risk and mitigation, there is risk in everything we do. I assume by your statement that you are in agreement that Phantoms should only be flown in large open fields, much as golf is played? Because that would be the mitigation side of it...would it not?

But when it comes to modern legislation, fairness and rational thought play no part. There will be two factors that will over ride the actual risk of being struck by a drone when formulating new laws, number 1 will be public perception number 2 will be the lowest common denominator. If the public / voters say they have a fear of drones then you can expect further legislation. If the lowest common denominator continue to fly in congested areas close to or over crowds you can expect that legislation to be very restrictive.

If a government based its safety regulations on the terminal velocity of moving objects vs the force required to break bones, I'd want a new government.

I'm not the government...

 

[PsychopathRC]

I thought we were all Phantom pilots. Here to defend our hobby. But instead it's anarchy! Lol

 

[ianwood]

There is no such thing as 100% safe. Every time you fly, you're putting yourself and anyone else within one battery's distance at risk. And like most everything else we do, it is a matter of estimating the relative risk to determine what's acceptable. But, because there's no real data, we all guess. Poorly.

People generally suck at estimating risk. People don't think twice about crossing the street or sitting in a car yet many are scared of flying. Beach goers will identify being mistaken for a tasty shark snack as a present concern yet the odds are something like 300,000,000 to 1.

To assess risk properly you need a structured analysis of probabilities, frequencies and magnitudes of loss. Everything else is just putting a finger in the wind.

I accept that from time to time, golfers show up in the hospital, sometimes with serious injuries. So why don't they wear hard hats? Because the probability of significant injury or death is still too low to for it to be worth the effort. That's not to say near misses don't happen all the time. They do. They're much more probable. This is why you need to consider the distribution of potential outcomes to put things in perspective:

• Golfball landing within 25ft of you - medium
  Golfball landing within 5ft of you - low
  Golfball hitting you - very low
  Golfball hitting you in the head - extremely low
  Golfball hitting you in the head and causing significant injury - minimal

The same distribution would more or less apply to a falling Phantom. The more people you add, the more the risk of hitting someone increases. But it's a logarithmic (not linear) escalation which means it stays very low until the curve starts to accelerate and then it quickly grows. The point in that curve at which it become an unacceptable level of risk is highly subjective.

 

[WessexWyvern]

I thought we were all Phantom pilots. Here to defend our hobby. But instead it's anarchy! Lol

We have to be realistic about what sort of restrictions we can expect from our governments.

 

[WessexWyvern]

There is no such thing as 100% safe. Every time you fly, you're putting yourself and anyone else within one battery's distance at risk. And like most everything else we do, it is a matter of estimating the relative risk to determine what's acceptable. But, because there's no real data, we all guess. Poorly.

So are governments. If public opinion wants more restrictive legislation on drones because they fear getting hurt, I can't see the government responding with 'you probably won't get hurt....well not much anyway'.
And let's face it, public opinion isn't great right now. The media are loving all those guys flying over stadiums, next to airports and over theme parks. Almost everybody I talk with regarding drones will bring up invasion of privacy or safety concerns, the new one being from terrorism.

 

[CarlJ]

All Ian is saying (I think) is that what we are currently engaged in conjecture. There are a lot of factors, and variables to consider, and we just don't have any hard data upon which to relay.

You can sense growing frustration with the direction that the hobby is moving, and understandably so, the media hasn't exactly been kind to us. In the end we only have control over ourselves, we can't control the actions of bad actors. We have to assume the worst, and hope for the best in terms of legislation. The fact that we can not agree even among ourselves, and have zero ability to self police means that it is inevitable that someone will do it for us. A bitter pill, but there it is.

We can encourage new pilots to act responsibly, but there will be equal encouragement (by example or words) on the other side. I think it just comes down to the type of person you are.

 

[CarlJ]

Almost everybody I talk with regarding drones will bring up invasion of privacy or safety concerns, the new one being from terrorism.

I hear the privacy thing all the time as well, it's amazing where a persons mind will take them. Gay marriage? Sex with goats! Quadcopter? Pervert!

It's revealing. :lol:

 

[PsychopathRC]

I think the sad truth is that there will always be some numpty who flies a UAV around places they shouldn't. It's like drivers, drinkers and even anyone who works. We can all pick up bad habits. I think the best result might be to make anyone flying a UAV, need a licence of some sort. Make pilots prove that they aren't ignorant.