Jail Time
- Thread starter prathbun
- Start date
I hear you. Normally I don't consider myself to be a law-and-order bible-thumper; I push things pretty far at times, but this really ticked me off when it happened. Flying in a situation where a malfunction puts unknowing bystanders at risk (in my opinion) is way out of bounds and should warrant a good swift smack. He's a "professional," he should have known better.
Stepping off my soap-box...
Stepping off my soap-box...
Precisely, as a qualified operator you should be minimising risk at all times, and flying over a crowd of people is an absolute no unless multiple redundancies are built into your flight plan in order to reduce the risk to people to basically zero.
If for some reason these redundancies fail, then you stand up in court and say you did everything in your power to carry out the flight safely, you show proof of your plan and safety nets, and only then it can be shown to be a freak occurence and you possibly get away with no sentence.
If you just chuck a phantom up above a crowd with no regard to what happens in the event of a system failure, then you deserve what you get in my opinion. Especially as a qualified operator who should know better
FlushVision
Premium Pilot
In the U.K. we have the 50m rule for flying near to the public/small groups or individuals not under the PICs control (30m during take off and landing), and a 150m rule for flying near to a crowd with 1000 people or more present. Further, a hobbyist can't fly within 150m of a 'congested' area (50 m if you are on a commercial job with a commercial permission)
This, technically, means that one is legally able to fly over individuals or small groups of people not under the PICs control so long as you keep at least 50m separation from them in a bubble, so to speak. But please read my further comments...
Although in the U.K. one can fly directly over someone, albeit over 50m above them, I've got to say that it should be avoided wherever possible. If an accident were to occur, you could still be held liable if it were to be shown that you were flying recklessly. This would be the case if it were shown in court that you could have 'reasonably' avoided flying directly over the person involved. Since this would be the case in almost all circumstances that I can think of, it is my opinion that a remote pilot would be foolish to fly directly over a member of the public even above 50m and think that he is immune from prosecution...because he isn't!
Can someone explain what "multiple redundancies" can be built into a drone flight plan to ensure everyone's safety?
I'm new here and trying to learn as much as I can.
Thx,
--MM
I'm new here and trying to learn as much as I can.
Thx,
--MM
I'm not sure what 'multiple' redundancies would mean either, but certainly redundancy on every critical system that has a non-negligible chance of failing. Quads are out, as there is no motor redundancy. So I think a hex with dual batteries and a commercial quality flight controller (I don't think Yuneec's qualify here, as there are too many stories of fly-aways. Not sure how their commercial level controllers are.
One thing to remember is that a lot of small manned aircraft have no redundancy in their critical systems. No helicopter I know of has redundancy of its gear train or props. They are engineered to a bit higher standard than these consumer level uas.
One thing to remember is that a lot of small manned aircraft have no redundancy in their critical systems. No helicopter I know of has redundancy of its gear train or props. They are engineered to a bit higher standard than these consumer level uas.
PatR
Premium Pilot
The only way to be absolutely safe flying a drone is to not fly it at all. Once it leaves the ground total responsibility for safety is on the operator. The mind set of the operator defines all the possible safety parameters that can be employed from that point on. I think the jail time was appropriate. Someone with a lot of cash might pay the fine and not look back. 30 days in jail is something someone like that would remember and avoid repeating. Once the penalties for unsafe flying are painful enough we'll see a lot less irresponsible flying.
I would hope and think the guy feels pretty bad about the incident. I know i would and could expect many restless nights over the incident.That's a **** of it's own.
I think 30 days is a bit extreme. Perhaps 5 days would suffice.
Redundancies or safety features. I can think of a couple right off the bat.
You start with more than four motors in case one fails. The drone can maintain enough stability to at least land if not fly home.
That leads to the next thing... an autonomous feature to control the drone if there is a loss of signal or control disruption of some kind.
An Obstacle Avoidance system of some kind might be nice to have as well.
An interesting read at any rate...
Jmo thanks,
Jafo
I think 30 days is a bit extreme. Perhaps 5 days would suffice.
Redundancies or safety features. I can think of a couple right off the bat.
You start with more than four motors in case one fails. The drone can maintain enough stability to at least land if not fly home.
That leads to the next thing... an autonomous feature to control the drone if there is a loss of signal or control disruption of some kind.
An Obstacle Avoidance system of some kind might be nice to have as well.
An interesting read at any rate...
Jmo thanks,
Jafo
CraigCam
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2016
- Messages
- 1,520
- Reaction score
- 664
- Age
- 65
Hmm...where do I find one of those? Maybe it will have a camera and great gimbal and retractable landing gear
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 10
- Age
- 29
Some larger drones had, and may still have, emergency parachutes. It's not a bad idea considering the human factor may have been less severe if a chute could have helped. Putting aside for the moment the bad action of flying over people in the first place:
1.) Having the drone high enough above a vulnerable landscape for a chute to deploy meaningfully.
2.) Having an ability for a drone to sound a 'standardized' siren or shrill tone downwards if a chute is deployed, to warn those below.
1.) Having the drone high enough above a vulnerable landscape for a chute to deploy meaningfully.
2.) Having an ability for a drone to sound a 'standardized' siren or shrill tone downwards if a chute is deployed, to warn those below.
