We acknowledge that Popular Mechanics had a better title when they published What Happens When a Drone Crashes into Your Face? on this same study. But since our audience is commercial drone stakehold
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).
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.
We acknowledge that Popular Mechanics had a better title when they published What Happens When a Drone Crashes into Your Face? on this same study. But since our audience is commercial drone stakehold
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
dronelife.com
