Study Finds It’s Actually Very Difficult to Seriously Hurt Someone With a Small Drone

N017RW

Premium Pilot
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
8,961
Reaction score
3,240
Location
Palm Beach Co.- FL
Acknowledging that just about anything can damage an Eye and since a drone will too I'll just have to say the loss of an eye(s) is a 'seriously hurt' (sic) so I find this story subjective at best (dubious).
 

PointGeorge

Premium Pilot
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
58
Reaction score
52
Good article on the reality of the dangers from our small drones are overblown.
In probably less time than we can predict there will be hundreds if not thousands of much much larger, and more dangerous, commercial drones in the air.
I feel that part of the current frenzy about our hobby is to get us out of the way, so the big boys can rule the air.

YMMV
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
360
Reaction score
297
Age
18
Yes there are many daily things that are more dangerous than a small drone, and a person's reflexes usually are fast enough to respond to things flying at their eyes, but I think our phantom drones are very dangerous if they hit a person. A tiny drone isn't that dangerous but a 3 pound 45 mph flying weed eater is very dangerous!
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2016
Messages
1,027
Reaction score
533
Location
Sarasota FloriDuh
Good article on the reality of the dangers from our small drones are overblown.
In probably less time than we can predict there will be hundreds if not thousands of much much larger, and more dangerous, commercial drones in the air.
I feel that part of the current frenzy about our hobby is to get us out of the way, so the big boys can rule the air.

YMMV
Nailed it. It's ALWAYS about the money.
 

N017RW

Premium Pilot
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
8,961
Reaction score
3,240
Location
Palm Beach Co.- FL
You can't envision any way for ALL types of aviation to share the NAS?
Just no way?

Next will be driver licenses so the big boys' autonomous vehicles can rule the roads.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
4,021
Reaction score
1,797
Age
63
Location
UK Brit living Latvia
I have seen nasty cuts that could have severed tendons etc. if just a tiny bit to one way ... from small toy size rotors ....

I have taken people to hospital after incidents with 8" prop as well as others.

When people talk about what props can do - I recall an incident that involved a motor / prop I was testing.

A 2836 brushless with an 8x6 standard APC style prop on was mounted securely to my workmate. The throttle was advanced and just as it hit full throttle - one blade sheared and sliced into the bench edge. That edge is a good 30mm or more thick high quality hard ply.
The blade buried itself more than half blade width into that ... and needed a big knife to ease it out.

That was on a less powerful motor than the Phantom uses and a smaller prop of similar GFN material.

Whether believed or not .......... props are DANGEROUS ... in ALL sizes.

Here's facts that tend to get overlooked :

1. E props are generally thinner and sharper than wet fuel props.
2. Electric motors when anything gets into the prop will ramp up demand for more power to try keep turning, as you withdraw item from prop - it will turn and strike again ...
3. A wet fuel prop when something gets into prop that stops it - engine stops ... that's it.
4. Electric motors can start if you just knock a stick or switch on a radio if no failsafe active.
5. Wetfuel engine only runs when you physically start it.
6. Electric motor models are commonplace now in all sorts of shops ... any kid can now buy ...

Why make those points ? Because of the misconception that E-Motors are safer. Their 'convenience' itself and availability in many shops makes them a risk. Call me paranoid if you like - but having been cut myself by a $30 'toy' and seen others ... I make my case.
 
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
709
Reaction score
487
Age
64
Location
Georgia, US
I find it very difficult to believe in 'studies'...

And I confess I didn't read the article, but what is the definition of 'small'?

A Tello? A palm-sized drone? A nano?

Sounds like a click-bait headline to me
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: N017RW
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
4,021
Reaction score
1,797
Age
63
Location
UK Brit living Latvia
Having read the linked report .... I find it ridiculous in all honesty.

The 'ASSURE' group states clearly :

"ASSURE’s UAS focus is on research, education, and training critical to safe, efficient, and successful integration of UAS into the nation’s airspace etc "

Its like any group who want to bring tech into everyday life - they can produce studies and data to support.

Similarly any group who wishes to outlaw such tech - can also produce studies and data to support their PoV.

Ask any person if they consider a cut face ... lost eye .... if its serious.

The study mentions that : "Earlier testing of injury data strongly supported our assessment that long-standing fatality data was overly conservative and largely not applicable to injuries resulting from impacts by more elastic sUAS. "

Well - I'm sure that motor manufacturers can produce studies that show that most auto accidents are non fatal.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2019
Messages
18
Reaction score
9
Age
65
I think the study concluded that it was difficult to kill somebody - not “injure” them with an impact from the small fixed-wing and multi-rotor UAVs tested. There are many other kinds of UAVs that are faster and heavier that would clearly be more dangerous.

In any case, I think the stated purpose of the study was to help establish and/or to demonstrate that standard, industrial testing procedures can be applied to testing UAVs - similar to how cars are crash tested and rated. The results of such testing and rating could facilitate legal cases, and benefit insurance companies and consumers.

Many commenters here seem to be drawing incorrect conclusions about the purpose and scope of the study.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
4,021
Reaction score
1,797
Age
63
Location
UK Brit living Latvia
I think the study concluded that it was difficult to kill somebody - not “injure” them with an impact from the small fixed-wing and multi-rotor UAVs tested. There are many other kinds of UAVs that are faster and heavier that would clearly be more dangerous.

In any case, I think the stated purpose of the study was to help establish and/or to demonstrate that standard, industrial testing procedures can be applied to testing UAVs - similar to how cars are crash tested and rated. The results of such testing and rating could facilitate legal cases, and benefit insurance companies and consumers.

Many commenters here seem to be drawing incorrect conclusions about the purpose and scope of the study.
It doesn't take Einstein to know that it would be a rarity for a UAV such as ours to kill someone. But that was also said about model RC Helicopters. There have already been a number of fatalities from Rc Heli's. One particular sad case was a young girl died from injuries sustained from a medium sized RC Heli - it wasn't even a biggie - in a UK park just a couple or 3 years ago.
The pilot was in fact a regular flyer who was generally regarded as a very good RC Heli flyer.

I disagree with your final comment for simple reason that the study is clearly stated to 'contradict' the restriction of UAV's and to support more wider use of them - even as it shows 'over people'. Look at who makes up ASSURE group ...

I do not agree with many restrictions that are proposed by some authorities, but because of some users not using in safe and responsible manner - we are subject to rules and proposed more rules.
 
Last edited:

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
136,126
Messages
1,407,881
Members
99,052
Latest member
Wimpiri