Skier almost hit by falling drone during competition run on TV

Possibly it was staged to make drone look bad and dangerous. I'm not falling
for that. Probably more convincing if it for cause some injury.

I am not in the habit of being disrespectful, but this is a ridiculous comment.
 
I am not in the habit of being disrespectful, but this is a ridiculous comment.

A tiny bit of research turns up that drone laws in Italy are a bit in a state of flux with many thinking the laws are to lax. Politics has deep pockets and a drone and camera are cheap. Here is what Italy has now, I quote this from an Italian flyer.

"For anyone planning to bring their quad to Italy for their hols you should be aware that ENAC (the italian CAA or FAA) has introduced new restrictions on what you can fly, where you can fly it and, most importantly, why you fly it.

The law itself is complex and self-contradictory in parts - in others it is simply impossible to comply with. Further, it is still in the process of amendment although it came into force on 30 april.

In a nut-shell, if you are flying purely for your own amusement you can do so VFR-only up to 70m (about 230ft) agl out to a radius of 150m (about 164yards) (or maybe 200m (about 218 yards) depending on which paragraph you choose). FPV is completely forbidden even with a spotter. The normal rules apply as in the UK about subjects being under the direct control of the pilot and not overflying populated areas or gatherings. In particular it is forbidden for hobbyists to overfly beaches and national parks and to fly within 8km (5miles) of airports at any altitude. You will also require proof of third-party insurance cover specifically for your quad. These are usually quite cheap and valid world-wide. As an indication my own policy (the only one currently available in Italy) gives cover up to 3 million euros. Again, the law does not stipulate the amount of cover required, but its the only one I could get so it may be taken as indicative.

For anyone who wants to know more there is a copy of the regs in english on the ENAC site at Enac - Remotely Piloted Aerial Vehicles Regulation

For commercial flights (anything not hobby-related, even if not for money), the regulations become exponentially more complex and costly to comply with. I can help anyone who needs it with translations etc. if required. I should point out that I am by no means a lawyer, however.

If you are a member of a rc control/model club they might have links with FIAM, the Italian Federation of AeroModellers which has been very helpful. Their site is atFederazione Italiana Aero Modellismo unfortunately only in italian, but, again, let me know if you need help.

I don't like to be a wet blanket, but things are completely up in the air (pun intended
smile.png
) at the moment and we are all waiting to see what actually happens as time goes on. "


http://www.enac.gov.it/repository/C...ation/N1220929004/Reg SAPR english_022014.pdf

 
They may realize that there isn't a fully secure operation of a free flying drone. ESC failure, IMU error, FC error, motor failure, communication failure, EM interference, battery failure, GPS failure, air frame failure and pilot error are all legitimate concerns.

I love this hobby, but the tech isn't yet ready for flying over unsuspecting people. Cheap labor, cheap electronics, and gravity are a poor recipe for safety.

Commercial UAS manufacturers will need to follow strict test protocols (to failure) to determine tear down need and part replacement frequency, as well as build in redundancy (hex or octo-copter, twin power source, twin FC with fault protocols, drop-safe, etc) before they get released over the public.

I've registered my Phantom with the FAA, I'm buying liability insurance, and will take the risk when I fly my Phantom 3. But please don't fool yourself that there isn't any risk. Flying machines are complex; they always have been and always will be.

Fly safe, stay away from people and traffic, and try and get liability insurance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GundoLarry
Here is what Infront Sports says went on:

23 December 2015
During the slalom race of the FIS Alpine Ski World Cup in Madonna di Campiglio/Italy in the evening of 22 December 2015, an unmanned drone DFC-COPTER XR1 carrying a broadcast camera crashed into the snow during the second run of Austrian ski racer Marcel Hirscher.

The drone had been used to provide aerial shots of the slalom race, and was part of the host broadcast operation of Infront Sports & Media. The drone and the drone pilot have been provided by a third party service to Infront Sports & Media.

The initial technical report indicates a malfunction of the drone. According to the drone operating company, the most likely reason is a strong and unforeseen interference on the operating frequency, leading to limited operability. Detecting this, the pilot followed the official security procedure, purposely flying the drone as close as possible to the ground before releasing it. The aim was to destroy the drone, in order to prevent it from losing control.

We very much regret that this happened and especially that it was in close proximity to an athlete, in this case Marcel Hirscher. We are extremely relieved that no one was hurt and apologise once again to Marcel Hirscher, as well as to the FIS, the Austrian and Italian Ski Federations and the Local Organising Committee.

Infront has decided to mandate an external independent expert with a formal investigation of the matter.

For the time being, FIS and Infront have decided to refrain from using drones for broadcast purposes until a fully secured operation can be ensured.

Wow. What a pile of rubbish! They say it was interference and they lost control. So how do they bring it down if they couldn't control it? And why would they decide to dump it 2ft from the skier?

This is a failure on multiple levels:
  • Any flight controller worth it's weight has a failsafe return-to-home capability. The FAA requires it for commercial use. Why did this FC not RTH automatically?
  • In the absence of reliable GPS (which can be determined by the FC automatically), it should initiate a controlled descent in position. Why did it not execute an automated descent if GPS was unreliable?
  • There is no way any half-way decent RC protocol would allow interference to command the drone to act independently of the controller. It should only enter failsafe if no signal is received. What protocol was being used that this was even possible?
  • The operators should have tested their equipment in conjunction with other RF equipment being used prior to the event. Were such tests conducted?
  • The operators should have identified suitable ditch areas to crash land the drone prior to operation. Were such ditch points identified beforehand?
  • Why was this 30lb machine allowed to be right over the course? The drone should never have been positioned directly over the course. Which areas was the drone allowed/not allowed?
  • The operator should not have executed a CSC directly over the course especially while a skier is approaching. Why would the operator think this was the safest action?
  • If the operator had enough control to execute a CSC, why didn't they guide it away from the course first?
I stick with my initial suspicion which is sudden battery exhaustion due to cold environment and operator error. Or, it was a hit! The drone landed only feet from the skier. So stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
Wow. What a pile of rubbish! They say it was interference and they lost control. So how do they bring it down if they couldn't control it? And why would they decide to dump it 2ft from the skier?

This is a failure on multiple levels:
  • Any flight controller worth it's weight has a failsafe return-to-home capability. The FAA requires it for commercial use. Why did this FC not RTH automatically?
  • In the absence of reliable GPS (which can be determined by the FC automatically), it should initiate a controlled descent in position. Why did it not execute an automated descent if GPS was unreliable?
  • There is no way any half-way decent RC protocol would allow interference to command the drone to act independently of the controller. It should only enter failsafe if no signal is received. What protocol was being used that this was even possible?
  • The operators should have tested their equipment in conjunction with other RF equipment being used prior to the event. Were such tests conducted?
  • The operators should have identified suitable ditch areas to crash land the drone prior to operation. Were such ditch points identified beforehand?
  • Why was this 30lb machine allowed to be right over the course? The drone should never have been positioned directly over the course. Which areas was the drone allowed/not allowed?
  • The operator should not have executed a CSC directly over the course especially while a skier is approaching. Why would the operator think this was the safest action?
  • If the operator had enough control to execute a CSC, why didn't they guide it away from the course first?
I stick with my initial suspicion which is sudden battery exhaustion due to cold environment and operator error. Or, it was a hit! The drone landed only feet from the skier. So stupid.


Agree, somehow somewhere somebody is looking to reduce liability. I am simply not seeing it though.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31