Some interesting tests and reading.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/f ... -dummies-for-safety

Yup, gotta find a safe way of keeping people away from our drones.

About time they did real world tests, i'm pretty sure it'll prove that there is limited damage.

pretty sure you can do more damage to someone or someones property when you crash a pushbike and the world hasnt gone mad about them ... yet :p

Danny-B- Posted at 2017-3-9 16:53
About time they did real world tests, i'm pretty sure it'll prove that there is limited damage.

pretty sure you can do more damage to someone or someones property when you crash a pushbike and the world hasnt gone mad about them ... yet :p

Hopefully, you're right, but if that's the case it likely won't be widely reported on. "Research Shows Drone Collisions Mostly Harmless" just wouldn't generate as many clicks as "Experts Say Skies Becoming Crowded With Killer Drones".

The people who write about this stuff typically are little better than the carnival barkers from the old days who sold tickets to the "freak show" -- in fact, they're often less honest and more sensationalist than the barkers were. At least the barkers never denied they did it to make money.

Yeah liberals. If they had their way we would all be eating with plastic sporks and no knives. They're in constant crisis mode, so your doing a study slamming a drone into someone's face? Yeah that's gonna leave a mark, we don't need a study for that. Swear think some of them dropped as babies.

I tried real hard to keep an open mind about this test / study. I cannot find the true reason for this at all (other than wasting a bunch of money on drones). I see that crashing a drone into someone's head would be awful and the impact would be the least of your worries. The cuts or laceration's would be the first thing to be concerned with.

It would seem to me that another approach would have been better......

Rich

thehippoz Posted at 2017-3-9 17:12
Yeah liberals. If they had their way we would all be eating with plastic sporks and no knives. They're in constant crisis mode, so your doing a study slamming a drone into someone's face? Yeah that's gonna leave a mark, we don't need a study for that. Swear think some of them dropped as babies.

OK.  As you know from having read the article, it's primarily about testing medium to large delivery drones. Since you're already in full agreement that crashing one of those into someone could easily cause an injury, I take it you're in favor of going ahead and writing regulations now without further study?

If you're NOT in favor of just going ahead and writing up a bunch of regulations based largely on supposition and imagination, then what's the problem with doing some actual research?

If what you're opposed to is having any regulations at all governing delivery drones, then I have to ask how you think that's actually going to work out with potentially hundreds of businesses flying drones remotely carrying all sorts of cargo?

RichJ53 Posted at 2017-3-9 17:41
I tried real hard to keep an open mind about this test / study. I cannot find the true reason for this at all (other than wasting a bunch of money on drones). I see that crashing a drone into someone's head would be awful and the impact would be the least of your worries. The cuts or laceration's would be the first thing to be concerned with.

It would seem to me that another approach would have been better......

I think it's always important to know beforehand where possible, what would be the outcome of an accident at high speed with a SUA, I think they did mention that shards of propellers were stuck in the dummies head, and I'm sure they won't have overlooked the danger of high speed propellers crashing into someone's face.
I think as accidents rack up we may see prop guards becoming compulsory something like the new cage guards the have for Mavic .
I think for medium and large quads we will see more and more redundancy features, maybe something like parachutes to stop AC falling out of the sky on people's heads.

There are countless rules and regulations for all types of transport, they didn't have all the rules on day one, but rather overtime with increased usage of different types of transport we have seen many more rules as well as safety measures introduced.
This will be no different with drones, that old saying better to be safe than sorry is very apt...

What bloody nonsense !   if they want statistics, look at the real world for gods sake!  how many people in the whole world have died or received life changing damage from a drone?  answer -  VERY few compared to the thousands who have died ,  walking,  jogging, pushing a pram, playing a game of cards, preparing diner in a kitchen, falling over in your drive, childrens toys,  womens make up,  using a vacuum cleaner,  using a mobile phone,  or even sitting watching TV,  watching a game,   people using wheelchairs,  etc etc  we need to get a grip !  this is pure sensationalism as said by OP further up this thread,  some people just hate seeing someone else having fun, and will make up any excuse to prevent it,   remember the statistical analysis people dont have a job unless they are testing something !  this week they chose drones!  and as for regulation advice and laws to control it,  lets see how they can regulate chewing gum,  or playing with your kids in the garden,  it makes my blood boil,  yes life is dangerous,  but it is also for every species that lives on our pretty planet,      the basic rule is NEVER use your drone  to intentionally endanger someone !  and i whole heartedly agree,  if you have, expect to go to jail and rightly so,  rant over!  sorry guys.  

MikeQView Posted at 2017-3-10 03:57
What bloody nonsense !   if they want statistics, look at the real world for gods sake!  how many people in the whole world have died or received life changing damage from a drone?  answer -  VERY few compared to the thousands who have died ,  walking,  jogging, pushing a pram, playing a game of cards, preparing diner in a kitchen, falling over in your drive, childrens toys,  womens make up,  using a vacuum cleaner,  using a mobile phone,  or even sitting watching TV,  watching a game,   people using wheelchairs,  etc etc  we need to get a grip !  this is pure sensationalism as said by OP further up this thread,  some people just hate seeing someone else having fun, and will make up any excuse to prevent it,   remember the statistical analysis people dont have a job unless they are testing something !  this week they chose drones!  and as for regulation advice and laws to control it,  lets see how they can regulate chewing gum,  or playing with your kids in the garden,  it makes my blood boil,  yes life is dangerous,  but it is also for every species that lives on our pretty planet,      the basic rule is NEVER use your drone  to intentionally endanger someone !  and i whole heartedly agree,  if you have, expect to go to jail and rightly so,  rant over!  sorry guys.

Hi MikeQView, I think many of the reasons for causing death come with rules and regulations, a simple product you mention like women's make up will have come through strict testing before it reaches the market, you can't just push a child in a Pram out into the middle of the road, because there are rules an regulations . Children's toys are governed by some of the most strictest regulations and constant testing.

Ok so flying a quad into the back of a 14 stone man might not kill him, but it will almost certainly kill a two year old child.

Rules and regulations will almost certainly be introduced on an ongoing basis for SUA's , but I like , and am in favour of what the airline pilots have requested regarding rules and laws for using SUA's. For me this will be the best and most practical way to introduce new rules and laws..

(Quote)
The Air Line Pilots Association, a union representing crews in North America, is urging the FAA to take a “slow and methodical” approach, said the group’s safety .

Wow some of these comments are ridiculous. This not a liberalism versus conservatism. We are currently a burgeoning and largely unregulated hobby. As soon as businesses are given the green light to start using uavs that will interact with the public, there will be accidents. This study is just attempting to get in front of that.

I'm.shocked at the kneejerk, "don't tread on me" reactions

Jeo Posted at 2017-3-10 07:46
Wow some of these comments are ridiculous. This not a liberalism versus conservatism. We are currently a burgeoning and largely unregulated hobby. As soon as businesses are given the green light to start using uavs that will interact with the public, there will be accidents. This study is just attempting to get in front of that.

I'm.shocked at the kneejerk, "don't tread on me" reactions

It's a bit mind boggling, that some think there will be no need for some sort of regulation, maybe we should just switch off all traffic lights. Lol

The biggest problem is that legislators (in any country) are a bunch of mindless apes. The have no technical skills (if they did they wouldn't be politicians) and can't be trusted to safely eat with even plastic knife and fork (if they could they wouldn't be politicians) and they are afraid of everything which they don't understand - which covers pretty much everything (if they knew something, they wouldn't be politicians). So... good luck with that. As one commentary above mentioned - life is dangerous as such and should be taken sensibly above all else. Rules and regulations that are crap are still crap - doesn't matter who puts them out - Trump administration, the pope or god - crap is crap. Now let's see if we can make an effort and get the apes to play more to our tune than their's.

rnrnrn Posted at 2017-3-10 11:19
The biggest problem is that legislators (in any country) are a bunch of mindless apes. The have no technical skills (if they did they wouldn't be politicians) and can't be trusted to safely eat with even plastic knife and fork (if they could they wouldn't be politicians) and they are afraid of everything which they don't understand - which covers pretty much everything (if they knew something, they wouldn't be politicians). So... good luck with that. As one commentary above mentioned - life is dangerous as such and should be taken sensibly above all else. Rules and regulations that are crap are still crap - doesn't matter who puts them out - Trump administration, the pope or god - crap is crap. Now let's see if we can make an effort and get the apes to play more to our tune than their's.

You are directly responsible for putting the apes in place, I think the FAA, CAA, IAA, and all other aviation bodies will have a say in what happens, and we must remember air transport is the safest transport in the world, I don't think they are going to stand idly by in letting that change in any way.

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-3-10 11:27
You are directly responsible for putting the apes in place, I think the FAA, CAA, IAA, and all other aviation bodies will have a say in what happens, and we must remember air transport is the safest transport in the world, I don't think they are going to stand idly by in letting that change in any way.

Well... yes and no - no because I voted for the less "apey" sort and yes because I didn't shoot the rest ;-) I'm quite a bit afraid of the actions of the legislators due to the lack of relation to reality. Obviously you need strict drone laws - look out the window - thousands flying back and forth... every day people in Boeings and Airbuses get knocked down out of the sky, thousands dead... need to do something asap. That's exactly what they see, reality notwithstanding. Oh well....