Hi
Off topic, but if you can point me to where I can post this I will..  I couldn't find a General topic, however I believe quit a few members of this forum will find my research today of interest (I hope).  I've no wish to get banned, so if I've done wrong, just delete it DJI.

Down to business....
Does anyone know of anybody being fatally injured from a drone?  Any news story of anyone who has been fatally injured due to a drone being flown by a member of the public?
The media and some members of the public are slightly anti drones (fear of injury, damage and loss of privacy) and we are frequently hearing scare stories on the news.  Some being valid concerns due to drones being flown by people who should not be flying them.  I am interested to know if anyone has actually been seriously hurt or killed by a drone being flown by a member of the public (who is not actually intending to kill someone).
Some interesting stats on other causes of fatalities..
- 3'287 people on average each day die due to a road traffic inccident (world wide estimate).
- over 2.5 people on average each day die due to an aircraft inccident (world wide estimate).
- just under 2 people are fataly hurt by trains (not as passenger) in the USA each day!

I hear some you saying "yes but we need to travel and transport goods, we don't need drones taking stunning video.. " (well that is an argument in itself, cos I do)
Ok, what about alcohol?  Stats for the UK alone;
- Alcohol-related crime in the UK is estimated to cost between £8bn and £13bn per year
(I don't think drones have caused that much damage even in war in one year.. I maybe wrong.)
- 8,270 casualties of drink driving accidents in the UK in 2013, including  240 fatalities and 1,100 people who suffered serious injury

and finally, that old favourite (and I am pro freedom to bear arms)
on average, roughly 25 people die each day in gun related inccidents in the USA.

Now, knowing all that.. can I please just fly my really safe drone in peace?

Thank you.

If there had been any drone fatalities, you would have heard and remember.
You wouldn't have to ask.

If there were, you'd never hear the end of it. The case would be cited in every new restriction imposed.   I don't even know of any close calls.  There have been drone 'sightings', but no one has been hurt by one (that I know of).... but the mantra always is...... "yes, but they COULD be."   Well, using that logic, no one should ever get into a car - or do anything for that matter, because something bad COULD always happen.  

Flying Wolf_NOL Posted at 2017-7-7 07:44
... but no one has been hurt by one (that I know of).... ...

Off topic but there was this which is the worst I know of.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/healt ... d-eyeball-half.html

Zero fatalities is really good, I think we should keep it that way.

There was a story in the news (BBC so reasonably credible) fairly recently if I remember correctly about a young boy who sadly lost sight in one eye.

The governments shouldn't, and sometimes don't, wait for the disaster to happen before regulating things.

The governments introduce laws to try and curtail the damage being done by the other items you mentioned, which have gotten stricter over time (Certainly in UK). On that note I suppose it could be argued that the Drone Laws must be working, but probably too small a number in use at present to be meaningful.

Close, a helicopter - http://nypost.com/2013/09/05/man ... led-toy-helicopter/

microlinux Posted at 2017-7-7 07:58
Close, a helicopter - http://nypost.com/2013/09/05/man-decapitated-by-remote-controlled-toy-helicopter/

I remember seeing the aftermath pics of that. Very gory!

soooo... still no drone deaths.
back to topic. i doubt that any small plastic drone from mavic up to phantom could cause serious injuries and thats why we never hear about deaths. every fat duck is more deadly when you hit it with your car going 150km/h. i dont think a mavic would even go throught the windshield

PandaFlyingcat Posted at 2017-7-7 09:06
... i doubt that any small plastic drone from mavic up to phantom could cause serious injuries ...

Losing an eye is not a serious injury?  

I think if a Phantom fell from 400' onto somebody's head, it could cause a fatal injury.  I think if a Phantom went through the windshield of a Cessna while in flight, it could cause a fatal injury.  

Mark The Droner Posted at 2017-7-7 09:16
Losing an eye is not a serious injury?  

I think if a Phantom fell from 400' onto somebody's head, it could cause a fatal injury.  I think if a Phantom went through the windshield of a Cessna while in flight, it could cause a fatal injury.

So would a bird hitting a Cessna window. Or a piece of a building falling onto someones head because of repair or code compliance issues.

Both of which have happened in recent memory, resulting in terribly injury or death. At this point, in terms of things in the sky that pose dangers, both have proven substantially more lethal.

Strange, as a society we're not culling all birds and keeping all buildings under 1 story to prevent these terrors of skies from injuring us, yet we have drone regulations appearing from here to kingdom come.

This is what happens when frightened old men are allowed to make rules that impact everyone, I suppose.

soon DJI will imply noflyzones for pesti little birdy over city...

2 pandas against you. give it up

Mark The Droner Posted at 2017-7-7 07:49
Off topic but there was this which is the worst I know of.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/healt ... d-eyeball-half.html

Well, that is bad. Terrible in fact.  Still, while not trying to minimize that event at all, that's one.  There have been millions of drones sold to the public (probably several million worldwide). Yet, the actual of events that caused injury of death are almost non-existent.   If we govern by taking into account all of the possible "ifs" that "might" or "could" happen. There's very little that we do that is safe.

The problem for the FAA and governing bodies is the popularity explosion of drones.  The FAA openly admits that they are facing a difficult situation, and that stern rules need to be put into place.  Some of the rules have (like Geofences in no-fly zones) come from experience (i.e. a drone pilot flying over the White House).  Other rules are simply smart thinking, like banning drones within five miles of an airport and restricting altitudes so manned aircraft and unmanned drones are not sharing the same space.  But sometimes the FAA just needs to make restrictions about what COULD be hazardous, and we all (generally) benefit from those restrictions.  The amount of public paranoia about drones is shocking, I feel it every time I fly.  I obviously encounter people who are interested and want to talk drones, but the percentage of people who are skeptical and bothered is somewhat surprisingly high.  So having the FAA enforce rules, even if the rules start out a bit too strict, is good for us all.  It is only going to take one or two tragedies instigated by drone operators to screw all of us in legal terms and in public perception terms.

Speaking of legal issues, we should all be aware.  There is enforcement of the FAA rules starting to be implemented.  There will be "examples" made of reckless drone operators in the courts.  The standard of enforcement will most certainly be set soon.

Personally, (I'm gonna get some hate about this), I think the 400' AGL ceiling should be permanent, unlocked only if you have taken the time to get your Part 107 commercial license (or maybe unlocked after you have flown a particular number of miles or hours.)  

Why do I say that?  
1) Unless you plan on doing commercial work, this drone is a toy that you can fly a mile up.  The thought that by this time next year there could be a million more people flying their drones into shared air space is bone chilling.  A disaster waiting to happen.  

2) Because in going through the process to get my commercial license, I have learned SO MUCH more about what I am sending up into the air, as well as gaining a better understanding of just what a danger we are if we don't understand how to be good citizens in the aviation world.  Keep in mind, in legal terms, you are not a drone pilot, you are a RPIC (Remote Pilot In Command).  As an RPIC, you are legally responsible for just about anything that can go wrong with your drone in terms of public liability.  You can seriously injure, you can kill, you can be sued, you can be fined, you can go to jail.

3) Because even though I considered myself to be a safe and considerate pilot, I now have a much better understanding of just how reckless I've been (again, because of my study for the Part 107).  I got lucky more than a few times, because I didn't consider the bigger picture of my actions.

Anyway, enough prattling.
Matt

Mabou2 Posted at 2017-7-7 11:05
The problem for the FAA and governing bodies is the popularity explosion of drones.  The FAA openly admits that they are facing a difficult situation, and that stern rules need to be put into place.  Some of the rules have (like Geofences in no-fly zones) come from experience (i.e. a drone pilot flying over the White House).  Other rules are simply smart thinking, like banning drones within five miles of an airport and restricting altitudes so manned aircraft and unmanned drones are not sharing the same space.  But sometimes the FAA just needs to make restrictions about what COULD be hazardous, and we all (generally) benefit from those restrictions.  The amount of public paranoia about drones is shocking, I feel it every time I fly.  I obviously encounter people who are interested and want to talk drones, but the percentage of people who are skeptical and bothered is somewhat surprisingly high.  So having the FAA enforce rules, even if the rules start out a bit too strict, is good for us all.  It is only going to take one or two tragedies instigated by drone operators to screw all of us in legal terms and in public perception terms.

Speaking of legal issues, we should all be aware.  There is enforcement of the FAA rules starting to be implemented.  There will be "examples" made of reckless drone operators in the courts.  The standard of enforcement will most certainly be set soon.

I would like to add my voice to this too. I have been working towards my PfCO here in the UK, and I too have found I have learned so much, most especially about the 400 ' limit. Many craft come and use the airspace I fly in, often illegallly, from model aircraft (who have nearly hit me not my drone), through powered hang gliders and military craft as well, all flying at or below 400'. All potential accidents.
Yes there have been no fatalities , yet,. The growing number of drones, and the growing numbers of people willing to flout the rules or guidance, more or less guarantee that a fatality will occur at some point. When that happens, the industry as a whole needs to be able to say to anyone who will listen, that we did the best we could to prevent it, and we should also pray that we were not the pilot that caused the death, because we acted within the rules.

Aloha pritchie,

     So, I guess we are not talking about all those Al-Qaeda, IS and other terrorists getting ofted by pilots flying drones from Las Vegas?

Aloha and Drone On!

There would have been if I had caught the guy that stole mine out of my FJ Cruiser

PandaFlyingcat Posted at 2017-7-7 09:06
soooo... still no drone deaths.
back to topic. i doubt that any small plastic drone from mavic up to phantom could cause serious injuries and thats why we never hear about deaths. every fat duck is more deadly when you hit it with your car going 150km/h. i dont think a mavic would even go throught the windshield

Stick your head through the propellers, then come back and let us know how it went.

microlinux Posted at 2017-7-7 07:58
Close, a helicopter - http://nypost.com/2013/09/05/man-decapitated-by-remote-controlled-toy-helicopter/

Goes to show, a pro, can also dumb thumb the RC sticks. That was a horrible tragedy, particularly that his dad was standing right near when it happened.  Flying a larger scale RC helicopter like the TRex 700E is a skill level far beyond what most drone pilots can even comprehend, or will ever achieve...


RedHotPoker

Around here there is a big wildfire and some drone pilot thought it would not be a problem to fly over it and take some pictures. Long story short, he caused all the fire fighting aircraft to be grounded, and the people around here screaming bloody murder and how he risked the lives of all the firefighters (at one point there were over 1000 boots on the ground), and also how he caused property loss because the fire could not be fought from the air while the aircraft were grounded.

Luckily, no firefighters were injured or killed, otherwise these neighbors of mine would be having a field day.

Also I should mention, I do not know if this guy (who was apprehended because he posted drone pics of the fire online) was flying a DJI drone or not.

There is (and was) indeed a TFR in effect in the fire zone. I DO see the no-fly zone in the DJI system. I know we can have a lengthy debate about temporary flight restrictions (TFRs), and how wise (or not) it is for DJI to be able to track the fools who willingly fly into a TFR zone (and require the login that everyone here hates). We can also berate this drone pilot for being an idiot. But all that's beside the point.  The fact that a person can severely disrupt emergency services with a drone and (at least to some people's view) endanger so many lives and so much property, then the damage to drones as a whole is already done, even if it's an overreaction.

Here's a related news story if you guys care to read it: https://www.dcourier.com/news/20 ... dium=&utm_campaign=

This guy's getting the heavy hand of the authorities, and everyone around here is in full support of that. The police to tracked him down already got their medals. It's more of a gray area for me, since I personally don't think the guy knew what he was doing.  But the damage to drones is already done.

So to address the original point of whether or not someone's been killed by a drone, my answer is that it does not matter: People's perceptions are changing to the negative anyway, and perception matters more than facts, at least in the USA these times.

After reading these posts I'm a play it safe and wear eye gear now while flying

The main problem we face is that the lying press are not interested in good stories about 'drones'. They have already decided to demonise them, and they are like a bunch of sheep, faithfully following each other all over the globe. When one publishes a good 'bad drone' story, all the rest follow suit. They are not interested in facts either, so a story about a plastic shopping bag floating around over the approach to Gatwick Airport has no news value whatsoever, much better to get some idiot to claim it is a drone and voila, there you have a story.

We are probably sensitive to these stories, but if you look carefully, all news media tell the same lies, or distort facts and in many cases, simply invent the stories. There are no ethics in news gathering, never have been. When I worked in broadcast television, no-one would have anything do do with the news section, they were universally regarded as lying sacks of sh*t.

Mark The Droner Posted at 2017-7-7 07:49
Off topic but there was this which is the worst I know of.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/healt ... d-eyeball-half.html

I think he later died of his injuries

Mark The Droner Posted at 2017-7-7 07:49
Off topic but there was this which is the worst I know of.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/healt ... d-eyeball-half.html

Thanks for this.  Very interesting.. The closest incident I found to a drone related death had in fact very little to do with the drone, other than the person used the drone in (I am assuming) a possible illegal activity and then I believe died from a resulting car accident after the police followed her.
http://www.independent.co.uk/new ... afety-a7180576.html
"The incident may be the first fatality linked to the non-military use of drones."... Really?? I used to respect the Independent as a source of news, however after reading this nonsense I've changed my views.
The drone is about as much linked to her death as any object being transported in a car involved in a RTA.
It's a bit like having a story titled.
"London woman dies in possibly the first  teddy bear related accidental death"
With the line, "The incident may be the first fatality linked to teddy bear", after someone was suspected of shop lifting one from a toy store and died in a resulting police chase...
No, if that really happened it would be "Woman dies in car crash after police followed her"

The media are using the possible apprehensive feelings people have for drones as a way of selling their stories and making the situation worse.  Your story is valid, drones are not toys, they are dangerous in the wrong hands and people should be aware of it, however there are other activities out there that are far worst which society just accepts these days.
I am not saying drones are totally safe, only that there needs to be some real world perspective.

Anyway thanks for the link, it is appreciated.  It will help in my research.

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-7-7 07:49
Zero fatalities is really good, I think we should keep it that way.

I totally agree..

Aardvark Posted at 2017-7-7 07:56
There was a story in the news (BBC so reasonably credible) fairly recently if I remember correctly about a young boy who sadly lost sight in one eye.

The governments shouldn't, and sometimes don't, wait for the disaster to happen before regulating things.

I understand this, however it is also what is deemed acceptable by the public who votes for them in a democratic society.  Otherwise we would all be driving our cars in 20mph or 10mph speed limits.
I am not just discussing drone safety/dangers as an activity, but it as an activity when compared to other activities people do and accept or ignore are more dangerous.

microlinux Posted at 2017-7-7 07:58
Close, a helicopter - http://nypost.com/2013/09/05/man-decapitated-by-remote-controlled-toy-helicopter/

Wow..
Thanks for this.  A very sad story.  He looked very talented too "a real professional".
There are drones of all size (like nano drones) and there are model helicopters.  I suppose at the moment drone laws need to cover all aspects as that thing does look dangerous.  I would not like to be 10m near that when it is working.
Ok, thanks for this.. very enlightening.

Mark The Droner Posted at 2017-7-7 09:16
Losing an eye is not a serious injury?  

I think if a Phantom fell from 400' onto somebody's head, it could cause a fatal injury.  I think if a Phantom went through the windshield of a Cessna while in flight, it could cause a fatal injury.

Yes I would agree.
At 120m a phantom would reach a terminal velocity of roughly 110 mph if it is just dropped and take under 5s to get there (roughly).
I like to know these things so I can plan, like the fact a modern car can stop in under 103ft at 70mph (or my head roughly 30m).
This means if I need to cross a road with my drone I'll drone to 50m and wait for an appropriate gap in traffic.
I also know if a bird went through the windshield of a Cessna while in flight, it could cause a fatal injury.  Just flying the Cessna could cause a fatal injury.  I wonder how many people have been killed on the ground from light aircraft crashing?
Again I am not saying drones are not dangerous, most things in life are, just where is the perspective?

I am finding this is very interesting folks.. Thanks for your replies.  Some are really thought provoking for me so keep them up.  No trolling, no bad attitudes too please..  Let us keep this as a sharing of opinions, facts, and information.
I'll read the other replies later...  It is great hearing from you all and I like the fact we don't all share the same views.
I hope we all agree to be safe as pragmatically possible and to be considerate to others.
Many Thanks.

Several months ago, I had a terrifying near miss with my drone vs a manned airplane...  This story is a GREAT example of why we should be forced to learn the rules and pass a test before we are allowed to fly.  

I was flying in a safe, non-restricted air space.  There was low cloud cover, but otherwise clear flight with no wind or turbulence.  I was shooting a retail location for a client.  I had been shooting at various heights for an hour, and decided to send the bird up to about 600' to get a wider shot of the area.  Suddenly, there was an explosion of sound as a Hawker private jet appeared out of nowhere at low altitude, and on an intersecting path with my drone.  After a second of trying to figure out what to do, I decided my best action was to freeze the drone in place.  I had no idea if my drone and the plane were at the same altitude, I couldn't tell in that split second whether the Hawker was ascending, descending... I just knew that it was heading in the vicinity of my drone.  My knee jerk reaction was to let go of the controls, to keep the drone in one place (making it as small a footprint as possible, and to increase the chance that the pilot might see the drone if it is in his path (rather than accidentally dropping into his path at the last second).  In those two or three seconds, I was terrified and at the last second I realized that the Hawker was on a direct intercept with my drone....  IT FLEW DIRECTLY UNDER MY DRONE, blocking my view of the drone for a split second as it passed by.

Horrifying, absolutely horrifying.

I immediately landed and didn't fly again for days and days, I was so shaken up by what had happened.

Since I have been taking my Part 107, I have a much better understanding of why that occurred, and it relates directly to the ceiling of cloud cover.

Are you aware that you are required to research what the elevation of cloud cover is before you fly?  Are you aware that you are not allowed to fly within 500' vertically of that cloud cover?  Are you aware that you are not allowed to fly within  2000' horizontally of that cloud cover?

So on the day of the near accident, the cloud cover was low, probably about 800 feet or so.  This meant that the public air space that I was legally able to fly would be reduced to 300' maximum, since the 500' beneath the clouds is now reserved for manned aircraft.  SO, legally speaking, since the cloud cover was low, as soon as I went above 300', I was flying in space strictly reserved for manned airplanes.  

I took a chance by flying higher than 400' for a few minutes, but I had been flying for an hour without a single sighting or sound of manned aircraft.  I was well outside of any 5 mile radius of any airport.  But I didn't know about the rules for flight in the presence of low cloud cover.  So suddenly a random event occurred where a jet appeared low in the sky, staying under the clouds himself.

This is only ONE example of why we, as a community, need to learn what the heck we are doing.  I could have brought down a 40 million dollar jet with at least one person on board, because I didn't know the rules and etiquette of flying in a low cloud situation.  And since I didn't own (or even know I should own) and ATC radio, I got no advance warning at all about an approaching jet.

Matt

This  has been  an interesting subject very good, I would like to add to what Gabriel Magana posted, drones can be a hindrance to fire fighting efforts but they can be an asset too, I am an active member of the local volunteer bushfire brigade and have been for more than 5 years, last season I used my drone with the captains authority to monitor prescribed burns and pinpoint fires with a great deal of accuracy, on the ground it can take time to locate a fire and time can make all the difference in containing a fire, also from above you can determine the rate of spread, flame height, properties and structures in the path of the fire and access tracks. We have government spotter aircraft that attend if they are not busy somewhere else, they can take along time to reach us time is critical in containing a wildfire, we know in advance when the aircraft are attending by radio communications so the drone can be on the ground way before they arrive. So yes, idiots with drones can be and are a problem and us responsible droners get branded by their actions

Regards
Eric

microlinux Posted at 2017-7-7 12:35
Stick your head through the propellers, then come back and let us know how it went.

sticked my head into propellers. the props are undamaged and my head+eyes not shredded to pieces. i guess thats because they are made from very soft plastic to NOT hurt anybody seriously.
ok mission done - now its your turn.

please stick your head into oncoming traffic on a busy street, get hit by a car/truck and tell us how it went. if you seriously injured or dead i promise to do my best and bann cars on all streets where people COULD walk by.  ;-)

Mabou2 Posted at 2017-7-8 06:39

Are you aware ...

Yeah but that's 107, not 101.  

People don't need to keep dangerous  dogs but they do. Why they  need to do it I don't know, perhaps they are lacking in the trouser department or something. Every year in the U.K. there are cases of dogs turning on kids and either killing them or tearing them to shreds. But yet you still see these muppets walking the same sort of dogs in every corner of the U.K. I don't need to tell you what would happen if a drone killed a kid though. One of the problems is that the cheaper these things become then the more of a problem they are going to be.

There is a huge gulf between facts and perception.

many people are afraid of flying but they have no problem driving in a car. The fact that air travel is far safer than driving a car does not matter.

There are huge resources devoted to enforcing drug laws but the two most dangerous recreational drugs are the legal ones.

Flyers Beware!

Under all circumstances "Never" use carbon fiber props on your drones. In the unlikely event the machine should hit someone the carbon is so strong it will lacerate flesh to the bone. Flying with carbon blades is no different then flying with steel props. I've been at this for a long time and have seen absolute carnage and there is even a recorded death from Carbon fiber blades on RC helicopters.   

Fly Safe Guys!

Mike

Totally agree with pritchiedotcom   .

If I was in charge of "saving human life", I would have a look at this kind of information.
or this one. Or some more accurate informations.
And I would put all my efforts  on what would really save/protect lives.

Drones would NOT be my priority  for sure.
There is a kind of paranoïa concerning drones safety.

Of course, common sense should be the rule with our drones.
No one should fly a drone near an airport.
But how many people killed by birds (up to 5 -10 kg) hitting a plane ? Everyday, some birds around the world hit planes. A Phantom or a Mavic is less heavy than a goose ! This is a beginning of answer to my question.
Fortunately, we dont kill all birds because they share the same air space as our planes and we cannot forbid a bird to fly.

Using a drilling machine at home or by friends to give a help is far more dangerous than flying a drone : just search google how many people severely injured by drilling machines.
I could multiply examples. As pritchiedotcom wrote, everything is dangerous, and we should not "sur règlementer" our activity.

The french laws about drones do not mention :
Don't fly a drone if you are drunk or under drugs effects. Strange, because as I wrote, common sense is a good practice.

If someone wants to attack with a drone ( a terrorist), of course no law will slow down this person : he will use it.
In france, we are not allowed to fly over nuclear power plants. Do you really think a terrorist with apply our law ?

Yes again some laws are necessary,  mais sachons garder la tête froide.
More than 13 people killed today in france (13 is our average) because of cars ( la route des vacances). Happy holidays to everybody ? the horror for the 13 concerned families.
But in france, we prefer to speak almost everyday about terrorism.

Why should I put my head or hands under the propellers of my Phantom ? Do I put my hand under the pin of my drilling machine when I use it just to see what will happen ? Do I put my hair beside the flame of a candle ? Yes, it will hurt in all cases. But again, compare the number of people injured by category with statistics.

I agree with pritchiedotcom : we should stop the drone paranoïa !
I simply regret my english is not good enough to explain more precisely my point of view.

rdsb Posted at 2017-7-9 04:48
Totally agree with pritchiedotcom   .

If I was in charge of "saving human life", I would have a look at this kind of information.

"In france, we are not allowed to fly over nuclear power plants. Do you really think a terrorist with apply our law ?"
I would expect that any drone flying over a nuclear power plant would be destroyed soon after it entered the restricted area, the law is therefore required for your drone's safety, not because the law will prevent terrorists from trying!

@ Nigel_
Unfortunately :
More than 25 drones recently.
It's not that easy, multiple reasons : is this a drone or a bird, then Ok but order to destroy the drone ... takes time.
And in less than 1 minute, the drone has flown through the nuclear plant and landed !
Hope you can read french (my above link)

rdsb Posted at 2017-7-9 05:11
@ Nigel_
Unfortunately :
More than 25 drones recently.

Interesting that the French don't have any defences at their nuclear power plants, it is actually quite quick to take a drone down - a shotgun is very effective and they can be distinguished from birds by both radar and sound. Also detectable and identifiable by their radio transmissions.

In the UK the pilot would probably also be taken down, a few years ago someone did get an £800 fine for getting too close.

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-7-9 06:06
Interesting that the French don't have any defences at their nuclear power plants, it is actually quite quick to take a drone down - a shotgun is very effective and they can be distinguished from birds by both radar and sound. Also detectable and identifiable by their radio transmissions.

In the UK the pilot would probably also be taken down, a few years ago someone did get an £800 fine for getting too close.

Would that be this one ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/scien ... anned-aircraft.html

I'm not sure what defences they would have in place, but I imagine it would be difficult to spot a drone.