No but i know of a person who fatally killed there drone literally lol

Aardvark Posted at 2017-7-9 06:30
Would that be this one ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2595245/First-UK-prosecution-dangerous-driving-DRONE-Man-fined-800-illegal-flying-unmanned-aircraft.html

That does appear to be the same one.  Story doesn't say how they brought it down, but that would probably be classified information?

Nuclear facilities do have serious defences, even the French ones appear to know how exactly many drones have flown over and when.

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-7-9 07:29
That does appear to be the same one.  Story doesn't say how they brought it down, but that would probably be classified information?

Nuclear facilities do have serious defences, even the French ones appear to know how exactly many drones have flown over and when.

reaaaaally? and how they do that? i never see a radar dish rotating over a powerplant. maybe the security guard see a drone once in a while and think: "hey look...another idiot with a toy" then he go on his walk around like nothing happen.
i can hardly imagine how a drone could do ANY damage to a nuclear plant. and i doubt that anybody would notice a mavic or spark flying 300-500 meter over a power plant, shooting some photos.
it would be more easy to charter a private plane for a round trip, toss the pilot out with a parachute and then fly that plane directly in the facility. but even then i am rather sure you would just kill yourself and make nothing more than a deep scratch on the massive concrete walls which protect these things from people with death wishes.

PandaFlyingcat Posted at 2017-7-9 19:18
reaaaaally? and how they do that? i never see a radar dish rotating over a powerplant. maybe the security guard see a drone once in a while and think: "hey look...another idiot with a toy" then he go on his walk around like nothing happen.
i can hardly imagine how a drone could do ANY damage to a nuclear plant. and i doubt that anybody would notice a mavic or spark flying 300-500 meter over a power plant, shooting some photos.
it would be more easy to charter a private plane for a round trip, toss the pilot out with a parachute and then fly that plane directly in the facility. but even then i am rather sure you would just kill yourself and make nothing more than a deep scratch on the massive concrete walls which protect these things from people with death wishes.

You don't' see radar dishes rotating over aeroplanes either, but lots of aeroplanes have radar!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array

lets imagine a moment they HAVE radar and see you flying around with your toy.

whats the point? you still cant kill anybody by flying over a nuclear reactor. even it sounds scary and nobody should ever get such stupid idea. so put a noflyzone around and fine.
but DJI want make my whole area a noflyzone. 200km around me. EVERYTHING will be locked. because somebody said: drones COULD MAYBE kill somebody.i agree with you. but that doesnt sound right...right??

SimplePanda Posted at 2017-7-7 09:29
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.

You get what I am saying!.. cracking :-) Thanks

From the replies on this thread (as I am trying to stay open minded about this) I feel the drone laws were created as a catch all for all domestic UAVs not regulated/licensed.
Most people here I think have a distinction between a 2.9kg model helicopter with 1.5m carbon fiber blades and a camera drone weighing half as much with plastic blades < 30cm.  Both are dangerous, however the model helicopter makes me think of a flying lawn mower, were as a phantom is more like a strimmer.

After starting this thread I decided to research the CAA (UK) laws more and discovered if you apply for a "General Exemption" and demonstrate ‘piloting competence’ there is a possibility you can do more with your drone.  Though it does not mention the PfCO (Permission for Comercial Operation), I am wondering if this is part of it?  I am intending to completed this in a few months, fingers crossed.
Does this show the Drone Code (UK) is in general a set of hyper safe rules intended for people buying off the shelf drones and then flying them without thought and due care and attention.  If you show ‘piloting competence’ you are permitted to do more.  This actually makes sense to me.. I wish the media would share this and not just "No flying 50m near anybody or property or 150m near congested areas".  Encourage drone users to learn more and be safe.

https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/ ... -for-drone-flights/

I think in all cases, as drone operators it is up to us to prove we considered all the risks to safety and minimised them.  The CAA states "A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.".  I believe flying over a property is not reckless (planes do it all the time), but it is up to us to prove it was done as safely as possible and any risks were thought about and avoided if possible.  (risks being people, electric pylons, metal structures, tall structures blocking signal, possible weather, wind)

For me, discovering more may be possible with this "General Exemption" encourages me to improve my skills, learn more and prove my ‘piloting competence’.

Maybe I'll come back and update this thread in 6 months time when I've learnt more.. :-)

Agree totally. Current drone laws everywhere are based on fear and ignorance. Especially in my own wide open country, Canada.

Geebax Posted at 2017-7-7 15:29
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.

I think part of the problem is the moniker: DRONE!  Uh, aren't drones the weapons that kill Al-kaida and ISIS in the middle east?  Firing rockets and dropping bombs?

My P4P+ is an autonomous flying HD camera!

FWIW

Dave

The issue is; rules, regulations and laws are for people who are willing follow them. 'Criminals' DO NOT follow rules or laws.  So, DJI has tried to force people by updating firmware to disable the device when in certain areas based on the gps location.  However, people are working everyday to hack into these devices and disable these attempts at regulation. I'm a rule follower, so I will follow the rules. However,  the ONLY safe thing to do is to outlaw all drones. Of course, I'm no fan of that nor am I suggesting it. In the US, (at least) we live in a 'free' country. Life, liberty and the pursuit of 'happiness'... so on and so forth.  As another person mentioned, why do people 'need' a dog that has a history of turning on their owner? Why do people 'need' a sports car that can easily go beyond the speed limit?  It's easy for us to decide what other people should  'need' or want, but when it comes to us....... well, we want what we want and IF we're not hurting anyone with it... why not?

Is there a possible risk with these consumer (toy) UAVs?  yes, there is a risk with EVERY activity. Just waking up each day, you're taking a risk that something bad 'could' happen. However, I believe the risks from flying these small UAVs to be very low. So low that the knee jerk reaction to try to  control it is unnecessary.  Especially when these devices can do so much good when in the hands of people who wish to do good.  However, if they're standing there looking at a locked device........... they can do nothing.

pritchiedotcom Posted at 2017-7-10 04:51
You get what I am saying!.. cracking :-) Thanks

From the replies on this thread (as I am trying to stay open minded about this) I feel the drone laws were created as a catch all for all domestic UAVs not regulated/licensed.

"Does this show the Drone Code (UK) is in general a set of hyper safe rules intended for people buying off the shelf drones and then flying them without thought and due care and attention."

The Drone Code is the equivalent of the Highway Code for the road, it gives a simplified overview of the law plus sensible guidelines.  It is not actually law.

Unless you are going to use a spotter and use the FPV rules you can't actually do much more than the Drone Code allows without obtaining specific permission and you wont succeed in that without a lot of work and good knowledge of how to go about it - you really need to be a professional, or very enthusiastic.

The Drone code isn't all that restrictive though, not until we get autonomous drones that we want to send off well beyond visual range but that will require new rules.

is a good question because new york city  treats drones like enemy no#1 the NYPD has a task team of helicopters on the look out for rogue drones  they reflecting on 911 more than 15 years ago just how many people has gotten kill or injure by drones? to justify such phobia?

When drones are outlawed, only outlaws will have drones.
The only laws man are required to obey are the Ten Commandments. All other laws enrich corporate oligarchs.

The question is not that if you know of anybody but if you would like to be the first operator involved in a fatal injury or get fatally injured by one.

Hundreds have been fatally injured by drones, in Afghanistan, Iraq, other places...  


Hobby drones, not so much...


RedHotPoker

RedHotPoker Posted at 2018-10-11 00:34
Hundreds have been fatally injured by drones, in Afghanistan, Iraq, other places...  

agreed !!

just don't drink and fly...

I am new to drones, but have some history in aviation and an engineering degree (so can't help myself not to comment).

I have seen what even a small bird can do to airplane wing. It is not about the mass but the energy (combination of mass and speed).
This isn't linear. Kinetic energy (amount of damage at impact) will grow exponentially when velocity grows.

In my eyes drones like DJI Phantom series are big enough to cause lethal injury if for some reason falls from the sky and hits a person to the head.
It is just a question that what will be the speed of the drone at impact.

Baseball off bat 120mph is about 200 joules (J).
Hockey puck 240 J and 9mm pistol projectile delivers 470 J.
http://wredlich.com/ny/2013/01/p ... rgy-stopping-power/

1388g drone (Phantom 4 Pro) free fall from 100m (328ft): 1360J.
This neglects air friction and surely this is not directly comparable with damage cause by much smaller bullet or puck, but you get the picture. It will be a lot of energy delivered to the head. You can check variations at:
https://www.angio.net/personal/climb/speed.html

Bumped also to interesting piece of info that state of the art in ballistic head protection is about 2000 J. That is equivalent of taking frontal head shot from AK-47 assault rifle. Or adding about 50m (164ft) more to the drop height of DJI4 Pro in the calculation.

With regards to collision with an airplane or helicopter.
DJI Phantom is much heavier than most birds and more importantly it is not elastic. You can see the difference bird vs. drone (Phantom 2 in fact) in this recent video:


Fly safe!

Of all the paranoia and "privacy invasion" propaganda I've heard, I've never once come across an actual account of someone being either seriously injured or killed by a drone, with the exception of the United States military's actions in the middle east.  For the most part, I see the majority of UAV operators very compliant with FAA and local flight regulations, and I think that's something to be proud of.  Living in an era of exaggerated news and agenda driven stories concocted to discredit the legit, since you bring up the question, I would have to say the UAV community has that much to be proud of such a safety record.