Hi Folks,

Check this out:  http://gizmodo.com/firefighters- ... ecause-o-1718675039

Firefighters Can't Save People Burning In Cars Because of a Stupid Drone
My first flight instructor told me that safe flying is 10% flying ability and 90% judgment.


This news story indicates that the majority of people who buy and fly drones have very poor judgment.  They are ignorant of the rules regarding airspace.  Aircraft of any kind are not allowed to fly near forest fires.


There were five, did you hear me, five drones flying around this forest fire.  There were five ignorant, stupid people endangering others with their toys.


I am a professional who flies full scale aircraft, R/C aircraft, and camera carrying R/C aircraft for TV and movie productions.  I follow all of the rules and am qualified by long years of experience.


I now feel that no one should be able to buy a multi-rotor aircraft unless they are licensed.


There is going to be a very serious accident and then we are going to see very strong regulation of the whole scene.


Many of the posts on this forum indicate that this is a wide spread problem.  The posts indicate that many of the people on this forum don't understand the danger they are causing.

Don't fly over public places with inocent people below.  Don't fly above 400 ft.  Don't fly near airports.  Get permits from your aviation regulator before any operation.  Fly all test flights at fields regulated by model aircraft clubs.  Follow their safety rules.  If you cannot follow these simple rules, please, please find another hobby before you totally ruin this one!


Smarten up people!


Ray

My opinon ...
This debate is blown out of proportion.

Yes ... there are rules/regulations of what you may or may not do with your UAV.

But seriously ...
Why are they "grounding" rescue helicopters because there is UAVs in the area ?
The UAV isn´t operating on it´s own ... there is a pilot ... and the pilot will surely do his best to avoid a collision with a larger helicopter (same goes for any news helicopter pilots in the area).

Compared to the danger of putting your ass in a car and drive on roads where there are other cars ... just look what can happen ... !
And people are crying about UAVs ... !?

If I lost someone close to me in that fire I would like to have a word with the coward pilot of the rescue helicopter for letting som toy UAVs scare him from doing his job ... !!!

Seriously people !!!

w1der Posted at 2015-7-19 02:47
My opinon ...
This debate is blown out of proportion.

Seriously??  I respect your right to have an opinion but I ask you.  Are you a helicopter pilot?  How many fire fighting operations have you personally flown?

I have flown dozens of them over a 13 year period as a Police Helicopter pilot.  There is significant and constant co-ordination required between helicopters in the fire operation as they are cycling between the drop zone and re-fill locations.   Flying in poor visibility (less than 100 meters sometimes) and the nature of fire fighting close to the ground means your attention is more focussed on the ground and you don't have time to constantly scan for other flying machines to see and avoid them. (you communicate directly with other helicopters by radio constantly and are always aware of their location)  

Drones do represent a real threat as a collision with a helicopter rotor blade is capable of causing a fatal crash.

While I respect freedom of speech I do wonder why people who have no experience flying helicopters think they can make a valid argument.

Would you tell a brain surgeon how he should operate?

Calling the pilots cowards tells me you don't understand how these organisations work.  They have a duty of care to their own staff also.  Many times as a police pilot I was happy to attempt a rescue but was not permitted to do so due to our departmental policy.

w1der Posted at 2015-7-19 02:47
My opinon ...
This debate is blown out of proportion.

You defeated your own argument. Are not drivers of cars supposed to be trained and licensed as well as insured? Everybody understands that standard.

That standard does not apply to weekend UAV pilots. How would you as a rescue pilot know what the skill level of the UAV pilot is. That is throwing an unknown into an already very dangerous flight envelope for a rescue pilot.

Do you drive your car into an accident scene just so you can satisfy your own curiosity? Is that allowed? No it isn't. You would be arrested.

I can't say I would not be tempted to fly my UAV into that situation, but I can say, I wouldn't do it.

Please rethink your opinion and apply some logic to it.

It should be common sense but unfortunately many drone pilots don't have much.

remltr Posted at 2015-7-19 04:48
You defeated your own argument. Are not drivers of cars supposed to be trained and licensed as well ...

You are not listening to my arguments ...

How do you know all car drivers have a license?  ... you don´t!
Still you drive just a couple of feet away from them all the time as you are "sure" that they will try to avoid hitting YOUR car the same as you avoid hitting THEIRS!
(Still accidents happen.)

The same goes for any vehicle in the air ...
I assume that none of the UAVs actually where trying to take the rescue helicopter down ... and if they in fact where "chasing" it ... it was to take pictures of it ... not make it crash and burn!

If YOU keep this "whistle blowing" up we will soon all be grounded!

My point is ...
Cars are more dangerous then UAVs ... but people like cars ... so they "pretend" that they are not...
UAVs are also dangerous ... but if you want to keep flying them you have to "pretend" they are not!

I have reacted just like you up till now ... but I have been doing some thinking about it ... and found that we are digging our own graves if we keep this up!

I my self would not fly my UAV in "that zone" just to get some news footage ... that´s not my business or interest ... and I have better judgement!

But yes ... I think the helicopter pilot is a coward ... there is a fire going on and people are dying down there ... they meet far bigger dangers every day then a toy quad so MAN UP!

And please stop the "whistle blowing"!

News reporters today are bored of "old news" so they love it when they have new stuff to report about ... and they are doing a great job at "twisting the truth" ... Don´t give them more ammo to throw at us!

w1der Posted at 2015-7-19 16:14
You are not listening to my arguments ...

How do you know all car drivers have a license?  ... y ...

w1der: How can you compare a potential automotive crash to a potential aircraft crash. It doesn't compare. The risks are not the same. I sorta get your point, but not really. You're way off on this one, however I do agree with your last point.

jones5r Posted at 2015-7-19 17:00
w1der: How can you compare a potential automotive crash to a potential aircraft crash. It doesn't  ...

You are correct ...
There are a lot more risk in getting in to a car than "traveling by air" ...  my point exactly!

Just look at the statistics ... how many lethal injuries where caused by UAVs (none military) this year / how many died in traffic ... and lot´s of the casualties was not even in a car ... they where hit by one ... still ... cars are allowed to drive in cities ... extremely close to unprotected people on the side walks.
(I am not saying that UAVs should be allowed to fly freely ... I am just pointing at the illogical approach we have to the situation.)

In the air (except during landing or at take off ) you can avoid a collision by going up down, left or right ... and usually the air space isn´t to crowded so all these are possible directions.

In a car ... sometimes the only thing you can do is slam the brakes and pray to god ... steering left or right usually just means picking something else to crash in to.

As long as the UAVs are properly functional ... and flown by someone that had a good many hours of training in a simulator and on an open field ... the risk to injury is minimal!
But with this approach to the UAVs that we have now ... we are just waiting to se an accident as soon as we here the props start turning ... and we are assuming that the pilot is a complete idiot!

Most accidents we see is caused by male function (malfunction*) ... and not a lot of them seems to cause life threatening damages ... !?

And hey ... you know what ...
People die in wars ... still our governments keep sending more people in to war zones ...
We should bann all wars ... but let´s start with the toy UAVs because they are the real threat here!

Im sorry guys ... I might have woken up on the wrong side today ... but ... this world is messed up ...
Please ... don´t be the ones who makes it an even worse place to live in!
My Inspire and my family is the only things I truly appreciate in my life ... and I don´t want to be stuck with only my family ... cause to be honest ... they drive me crazy at times ... and thats when I need my bird!  

Also ... have a look around 28:15 ...

w1der Posted at 2015-7-19 02:47
My opinon ...
This debate is blown out of proportion.

W1der

One day you will realise that what these fools are doing by flying there uav's in the middle of a emergency zone with other aircraft in the area trying to protect life and property is plain dumb

Yes I agree that uav operators are probably doing their best to avoid a collision but that's not the point.  Its about eliminating unnecessary risks to the pilots and general public below, its a dangerous situation all ready for the pilots with most elements out of their control smoke wind etc.  

But what they can control is d##k heads flying in the middle of a emergency  zone casing unnecessary risk to ever body involved.  If you think there is never going to be a fly off, someone losing line of sight or some  type of malfunction or human error your dreaming.  There is no reason for them being in the area so f##k them off

Paulkerry thanks for those great facts and figures but the wtf you on about, doesn't matter how fast your going or how much you weigh, if you hit a pedestrian  and they fall its how they land what determines the extent of the injury's if they hit their head on the concrete curb  you could easily kill somebody

Its exactly  the same  when people get into fights on a Saturday night down at the local bar, one poor sod is killed after one punch, its not the punch that kills them but the impact from their fall when the head hits the pavement.

PaulKerry Posted at 2015-7-20 00:00
"aulkerry thanks for those great facts and figures but the wtf you on about, doesn't matter how fas ...

Paulkerry

Um I think you need to reread my post again its pretty straight forward but here let me help you in case you didn't understand it.

Point 1  why pose a threat or distraction to helicopter pilots trying to save lives or property by flying a uav in and emergency area .

Point 2 I was replying to this master piece

I weigh a touch over 60kg and my bike's race-weight was just a tad under 10kg. In average conditions on a flat road, I'd cruise along at around 20mph. In a pack, that figure can rise to 25mph quite easily and in race conditions (such as a sprint), that can quickly approach 40mph (again, in nominal conditions - flat, no wind).
In an Alpine descent (or any other similar twisting mountain descent), there is no road vehicle that can catch and stay with one of us once we're "tucked in". I've exceeded 60mph on several occasions on a tucked-in descent and that's not unusual at all.

Now comes the physics.
Force = Mass x Acceleration.

Mass of an Inspire = 3kg
Mass of me+bike = 70kg (ish)

Acceleration = change in velocity over time.
Let's take the velocity of our Inspire as being 20m/s and the velocity of our bike and rider as being 20mph
1609m in one mile = 1609 x 20 = 32180 metres per hour.
32180 / 3600 = metres per hour divided by seconds per hour
= 8.94m/s

Imagine that in each case, both the Inspire and the bike/rider combo dump their energy in an impact over 1/10th of a second.
In other words, it takes 1/10th of a second for all velocity to be dumped (in our hypothetical example).

Inspire:
Force = 3kg (mass) x 200m/s/s (Acceleration)
= 600 Newtons

Bike/Rider = 70kg x 8.94m/s/s
=588 Newtons

When was the last time someone was seriously injured or killed simply by being hit by a guy on a pushbike?
Even in mass pileups in races such as the Tour De France when someone smegs up a sprint (Djamolidine Abdoujaparov comes to mind as someone who has caused a number of such crashes), there are rarely (if ever) life-threatening injuries and most (if not all) get away with road-rash and a loss of dignity (lycra shorts disintegrate when rubbed along a road at 40mph and we don't usually wear anything underneath).


you can easily be injured when hit by a bike doesn't matter how fast your going or how heavy you are.
hope your able to understand that ?   you need to get away from the computer and get out more


where is this malefuction you talk off?  you really do need get out more lol

PaulKerry Posted at 2015-7-19 19:43
Let's put some of the scaremongering into perspective.

Firstly:

Hi Paul,

I like your thinking to use math to calculate expected damage on impact but F=MA is not the right formula for this.

Also I don't follow your numbers as you stated the drone was travelling at 20 m/s but in the calculation you used 200 m/s to achieve 600 Newtons?   (EDITED - I now understand that was due to decelration occuring in 1/10th of a second but that would mean you should use 89.4 in your calculation for the bike rider?   i.e. 10 x 8.94? instead of just 8.94 m/s?)

The formula for kinetic energy is KE = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. - but I will come back to this later.

Another factor is the surface area and hardness of the objects involved on impact.  

Let me explain using two examples and I am sure you will agree.

Example 1.

Take a plastic garbage bag and fill it with 60 Kilos of sand.   Now drop it from 3 meters onto a ceramic tile floor.  The result will be a thud and no damage to the floor.

Now take a 60 Kg solid stainless steel ball and drop it from the same height onto the same floor.   You will definitely crack at least one tile.   Same weight, same speed on impact, but a totally different outcome.  This is due to the way energy is dispersed on impact.

Example 2.

Again using your F=MA formula

A basketball weighs 600 grams - assume it hits you at 20 meters per second.  

600g x 20 m/s = 12,000

Now compare a 10 gram bullet (e.g., 357 magnum size) - this would have to be travelling at 1,200 meters per second (Supersonic)  to achieve the same numbers using the force equation. i.e. 10g x  1,200 m/s = 12,000

Take your pick, which one would you prefer to be hit by?   A slow moving basketball or a supersonic bullet?   Using your reasoning they will do the same damage?  Do we agree that won't be the case?

As I mentioned above, the formula for Kinetic Energy will give you a more accurate idea of energy dissipated on impact

Lets run our numbers again using the correct formula.

1.  

Bike rider impacting a person, 70 Kg @ 9 meters per second.

KE = 1/2 x 70 x 9 x 9   = 2,835

3 Kg drone impacting rotor blades travelling at 200 meters per second

KE = 1/2 x 3 x 200 x 200 = 60,000

The Drone impact has to dissipate TWENTY ONE times more kinetic energy (2100%)!  

2.
Now lets look at the ball and bullet.

Ball 600 g at 20 m/s

KE = 1/2 x 600 x 20 x 20 = 120,000

The 10 g bullet @ 1,200 m/s

KE = 1/2 x 10 x 1,200 x 1,200 = 7,200,000

The bullet has SIXTY times the kinetic energy which is why it does significantly more damage on impact.  

As mentioned earlier the hardness and size of the objects at the impact point play a large factor also.

PaulKerry Posted at 2015-7-20 00:00
"Paulkerry thanks for those great facts and figures but the wtf you on about, doesn't matter how fas ...

Paulkerry wrote…

Those facts and figures demonstrate the comparison in the amount of kinetic energy imparted by a guy on a bike hitting something and an Inspire doing the same.

No Paul they do not.   You are not using the correct formula for KE in your calculations.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/ ... on-1/Kinetic-Energy

Robocop.2160 Sy Posted at 2015-7-20 01:03
Hi Paul,

I like your thinking to use math to calculate expected damage on impact but F=MA is not  ...

Hi Robocop nice figures does your  mathematic calculations take into account if the pedestrian  was a young child or elderly person do they have pre existing weakness in there gait? if the ground was uneven or slippery? or  was the pedestrian hit from the front , on the side or from behind}?  I didn't think so,  anyway this is getting of topic now

So ... You guys seriously think that all UAVs should be banned ?
This is a sad day on this forum!

w1der Posted at 2015-7-20 02:08
So ... You guys seriously think that all UAVs should be banned ?
This is a sad day on this forum! ...

Which guys are you referring to?

I don't think anyone in this thread has stated that ALL UAVs should be banned.  

PaulKerry Posted at 2015-7-20 00:08
Hey W1der...

I think I finally figured out your typo... I was wondering what on Earth you meant by  ...

Yes ... Malfunction ... im just going with whatever words the spelling feature on my computer wont object to ...

The you tube clip is of vietnam helicopter pilots landing straight down in a bamboo forrest creating their own landing spot ... Cutting their way down through the bamboo inch by inch ... Doing what they have to do to save lives !

I like the way you are explaining this ... alot better than what I manage to do ... !
Happy that some one understands what I am trying to get through ...

w1der Posted at 2015-7-20 02:08
So ... You guys seriously think that all UAVs should be banned ?
This is a sad day on this forum! ...

W1der

Im not sure what you and Paulkerry are smoking but its messing with your heads
please show me where its stated that somebody wants uav's banned

Short version of both arguments - it's not a good idea to fly your UAV where military, police or fire protection aircraft are operating. And requiring a license to fly multi-rotor aircraft is overkill. Most if not all of us would agree with both of these statements. We're all talking about being reasonable and rational but then focus on the extreme ends of each argument. The extremes are not where "reasonable and rational" live.

mervo99@gmail.c Posted at 2015-7-19 23:04
W1der

One day you will realise that what these fools are doing by flying there uav's in the middl ...

I totally agree that this is stupid ... Thats not what I am arguing ...
My point is ... We all do stupid things ... putting our lives at risk every day just by doing what we usually do ... At home, at work, on the roads ... and most of us are not even thinking twice before we do it ...

But some how "all theese UAVs" has become the biggest threat in modern days!?!?!?!?

Just the other day they closed down an airport in Sweden because there was a suitcase that some one left in the parkinglot ... They called in the bomd squad just find out that ... Yes ... There was indeed a suitecase in the parkinglot ...
My god ... This needs to stop!

We all need to stop the "whistle blowing" and start educating the community arround us about these amazing "quads" that we have ...

Robocop.2160 Sy Posted at 2015-7-20 02:37
Which guys are you referring to?

I don't think anyone in this thread has stated that ALL UAVs sh ...

Oh sorry ...

The bann is only for the ones where there is some kind of risk involved with flying them ...
So ... As long as you can't reach any populated area ... You will be allowed to fly them ... Some where out in a remote desert!?

I know I am pushing my arguments to the limit ... But thats only to make a point!

PaulKerry Posted at 2015-7-20 03:17
Robocop.
I'll read your post in full very shortly, but I've already seen enough to comprehend that I ...

Still ... Not many people where killed by "quad toys" this year ...

In my original post I said, "The posts indicate that many of the people on this forum don't understand the danger they are causing."

I would like to thank those who replied to this thread and many other threads on this forum for proving my point.

I will leave you now to split hairs and debate the issue.

I would suggest that you strongly consider the following quote from a wise old sage from the last centrury.

Mark Twain said:

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Ray

PaulKerry Posted at 2015-7-20 03:17
Robocop.
I'll read your post in full very shortly, but I've already seen enough to comprehend that I ...

No problem Paul and to be honest I made a mistake in my post also.  After walking away from the computer I realised why you used 200 m/s  (i.e. due to the deceleration occurring within 1/10th of a second)

However that being the case, it should have applied to the calculation of the bike rider also.  i.e. 70 x 89.4 instead of 70 x 8.94.

That would give you 6,258 Newtons of force required to stop the rider in 1/10th of a second.

I had come back to correct my mistake and saw you had already responded.  Sorry for any confusion there.   

In the later part of my post for the calculations I assumed the drone impact occurred with the rotor blades travelling at 200 m/s.  

PaulKerry Posted at 2015-7-20 03:50
>  it should have applied to the calculation of the bike rider also.  i.e. 70 x 89.4 instead of 70 x ...

Not all bike riders weigh the same ...
Put me on the bike ... I weigh in at 120 kg

PaulKerry Posted at 2015-7-20 04:14
I was being as generous as I could be with those figures.
I am very light. It makes for a good powe ...

Hi Paul,

I like your thinking to use math to calculate expected damage on impact but F=MA is not the right formula for this.

Also I don't follow your numbers as you stated the drone was travelling at 20 m/s but in the calculation you used 200 m/s to achieve 600 Newtons?   (EDITED - I now understand that was due to decelration occuring in 1/10th of a second but that would mean you should use 89.4 in your calculation for the bike rider?   i.e. 10 x 8.94? instead of just 8.94 m/s?)

The formula for kinetic energy is KE = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. - but I will come back to this later.

Another factor is the surface area and hardness of the objects involved on impact.  

Let me explain using two examples and I am sure you will agree.

Paulkerry wrote…

Those facts and figures demonstrate the comparison in the amount of kinetic energy imparted by a guy on a bike hitting something and an Inspire doing the same.

No Paul they do not.   You are not using the correct formula for KE in your calculations.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/ ... on-1/Kinetic-Energy

Robocop.



I'll read your post in full very shortly, but I've already seen enough to comprehend that I have almost certainly messed up my formulae.
I stand corrected and what's more, I thank you for correcting me. This is what I meant when I stated that someone needs to make a rational argument or provide facts, not simply deliver emotionally-motivated rants

Robo, I've reviewed your figures and whilst I agree in the most part, I'd have to point out that your calculation uses the velocity of the blade (the tip, perhaps?) and the mass of the aircraft. Surely that is not correct. Would you review your calculations and amend, please, or help me to understand why using the mass of the aircraft in this calculation and not the mass of the props is the correct approach?

No problem Paul and to be honest I made a mistake in my post also.  After walking away from the computer I realised why you used 200 m/s  (i.e. due to the deceleration occurring within 1/10th of a second)


would it be fair in my assumption that both of you haven't a clue what your talking about
give it a rest dude lol

As for me ...I'm not sure about anything ...
I just like to fly my bird without people looking at me as if I am a potential terrorist or a peeping tom !

PaulKerry Posted at 2015-7-20 04:14
I was being as generous as I could be with those figures.
I am very light. It makes for a good powe ...

oh ... I don't even have a bike ... But I beleive I could be very fast downhill ...

w1der Posted at 2015-7-20 04:47
oh ... I don't even have a bike ... But I beleive I could be very fast downhill ...

Go and eat some more pie

PaulKerry Posted at 2015-7-20 03:32
W1lder,

>The you tube clip is of vietnam helicopter pilots landing straight down in a bamboo forres ...

Yes that's right, I was trying to make a realistic comparison.  I also agree if a 70 kilogram person strikes a rotor blade travelling at 200 m/s it would cause more damage than a 3 kg drone.

Similarly if we do compare apples to apples,  a 3 Kg drone travelling at 20 M/S impacting a stationary car vs a 70 Kg man travelling at 20 M/S impacting a stationary car, the latter will do more damage.  No argument there.   But the likelihood of a bicycle rider impacting a rotor blade is probably less than the likelihood of a drone doing so.  ;-)    I tried to use realistic values.

You raised a good question, why did I attribute the rotor speed to the 3Kg drone.   

When calculating damage caused by the impact of two objects the only frame of reference necessary is the relative speed between those objects.   Any external frame of reference can be excluded.

Taken to the extreme, we don't include the earth's rotation, the earths orbit around the sun or the sun's movement through the galaxy when calculating the KE of the drone or the rotor blades.   These frames of reference are irrelevant.

So it doesn't matter if the drone is moving at 200 M/S and the rotor blade is stationary or vice versa, the impact damage will be the same.   

Consider 3 examples of two identical spacecraft in free space. (Call them A and B)

1.  A is moving at 1000 Kph, B is stationary
2.  A and B are both moving at 500 Kph
3.  A is stationary and B is moving at 1000Kph

The resulting damage of an impact in each case is identical.

Hope that makes sense.

mervo99@gmail.c Posted at 2015-7-20 04:49
Go and eat some more pie

Nah ... I'd rather have some meat ... Or a protein shake ...