Parachute
- Thread starter ANT1132
- Start date
Sorry... this is definitely one of those times when “use the search feature” of this forum is applicable.
There has been many a discussion on the implementation of parachutes. Some even installed such a mechanism.
Have fun reading up on what has already been discussed many times.
No disrespect intended. Just echoing the sentiments of one @AH-1G with a suggestion as to how to find what you’re looking for.
[emoji41]
Jeff
There has been many a discussion on the implementation of parachutes. Some even installed such a mechanism.
Have fun reading up on what has already been discussed many times.
No disrespect intended. Just echoing the sentiments of one @AH-1G with a suggestion as to how to find what you’re looking for.
[emoji41]
Jeff
#3 for the negative... Using the following as a base to start with... plugging in the following heights into a free fall calculator at Free Fall Calculator:
400 ft → 4.986 seconds
300 ft → 4.318 seconds
200 ft → 3.526 seconds
100 ft → 2.493 seconds
Subtract the standard accepted delay in reaction 0.75 to 1 second between the time you recognize an emergency situation and hitting the deploy switch.
Also add in that any deployment will require some minimal time to slow the descent rate enough to actually provide a significant lessening of damage upon impact.
The above does not take into account the percentage of deployments that are not successful because a variety of factors. Have you ever gotten information from these dealers the percentage of deployments that failed? How many of these manufacturers guarantee the replacement cost of your equipment, if they fail?
400 ft → 4.986 seconds
300 ft → 4.318 seconds
200 ft → 3.526 seconds
100 ft → 2.493 seconds
Subtract the standard accepted delay in reaction 0.75 to 1 second between the time you recognize an emergency situation and hitting the deploy switch.
Also add in that any deployment will require some minimal time to slow the descent rate enough to actually provide a significant lessening of damage upon impact.
The above does not take into account the percentage of deployments that are not successful because a variety of factors. Have you ever gotten information from these dealers the percentage of deployments that failed? How many of these manufacturers guarantee the replacement cost of your equipment, if they fail?
You are assuming human reaction times. Microprocessors react in tens of microseconds. It is likely preferable and lower risk to have this automatically deploy when abnormal flight parameters are encountered than just have the unit plummet rock-like into the ground, crowd, lake or whatever when a motor fails.
PatR
Premium Pilot
Just because people can be sold on the apparent safety aspects of something does not mean they understand the physics involved with that something. Nor to people making use of drone parachutes often consider the impact the device has on aircraft performance.
They’ve been around a long time and their performance levels have left them wanting. As mentioned earlier, aircraft operating less than several hundred feet AGL receive little benefit in having them.
They’ve been around a long time and their performance levels have left them wanting. As mentioned earlier, aircraft operating less than several hundred feet AGL receive little benefit in having them.
Check.
I will continue to fly without one and continue to not fly over things easily damaged by falling objects.
Several designs I have seen incorporate having the operator trigger deployment. In a significant percentage of cases, gaining back just the simple reaction time will likely be moot.
And as far as the cause being a single motor fail, that actually brings up an interesting point... since several of Yuneec's models have that issue taken care of with a hex design, I suggest, that in the circumstances of entering 5 motor mode, that such a deployment could in fact be the cause of a crash, by potentially taking out an additional prop.
PatR
Premium Pilot
Actually, the least safe multirotor configurations are quads and tricopters, regardless of how much excess thrust they may have available. They are dangerous BECAUSE of their design. It is possible for extremely complex software to allow for a safe quad landing if a motor fails but no manufacturer incorporates it because of the expense and the computational power required.
Simply expanding those designs to double their motors in coaxial configuration increases the safety margin exponentially. Starting with a coaxial tricopter and extending the quad design to an X-8 renders the loss of a single motor on a coax tricopter, and up to two motors on an X-8, moot if adequate headroom was built into the design. Any hex can remain airborne and controllable should a single motor fail if headroom was allowed for.
When people start talking about flight safety revolving around the uncontrolled descent of a multirotor they should initiate those discussions with the basic design of the aircraft. Parachutes and airbags are a secondary safety measure at best. It is far better to eliminate a common cause of in flight failures than to attempt to mitigate them with accessory emergency descent systems.
Even more in flight failures could be prevented by initiating mandatory power reserves. As long as people have the ability to run batteries down to dangerous levels, thinking the aircraft will save itself if voltage becomes too low, they will continue to fall out of the sky. Limit battery use to a safe level of consumption that allows for a flight time reserve, and establish an auto land voltage that cannot be over ridden by the operator. The first time they have to go on a long walk to pick one up or sacrifice one to deep water they’ll learn a valuable lesson.
Simply expanding those designs to double their motors in coaxial configuration increases the safety margin exponentially. Starting with a coaxial tricopter and extending the quad design to an X-8 renders the loss of a single motor on a coax tricopter, and up to two motors on an X-8, moot if adequate headroom was built into the design. Any hex can remain airborne and controllable should a single motor fail if headroom was allowed for.
When people start talking about flight safety revolving around the uncontrolled descent of a multirotor they should initiate those discussions with the basic design of the aircraft. Parachutes and airbags are a secondary safety measure at best. It is far better to eliminate a common cause of in flight failures than to attempt to mitigate them with accessory emergency descent systems.
Even more in flight failures could be prevented by initiating mandatory power reserves. As long as people have the ability to run batteries down to dangerous levels, thinking the aircraft will save itself if voltage becomes too low, they will continue to fall out of the sky. Limit battery use to a safe level of consumption that allows for a flight time reserve, and establish an auto land voltage that cannot be over ridden by the operator. The first time they have to go on a long walk to pick one up or sacrifice one to deep water they’ll learn a valuable lesson.
Last edited:
Phaedrus
Premium Pilot
Most people fly about 25 to 75 above crowds, so this is useless.You ever wonder why they don't show what happens at those heights.
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DEPLOY IN TIME NOT TO INJURER PEOPLE!, in my humble opinion
Going to be interesting to see what various manufacturers do in order to comply with the coming FAA rules for flying over people.
I have a question: does anyone know how Google got past the FAA guidelines for their new drown delivery service? How will they stay below 400 feet agl, stay in sight of the drone, and not fly over houses and people to get the packages to the destination? Seems like different rules for different people.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2017
- Messages
- 3,001
- Reaction score
- 3,196
- Location
- Central Florida
- Website
- copperdawg.com
Another that thinks parachutes are not worthwhile for the majority of flyers.
In addition to all the reasons mentioned above, also keep in mind that even if you have a failure in flight with a successful deployment of a recovery chute, you're not out of the woods yet, literally. Imagine being in an area with trees and it lands in the top of the tree? If you haven't face a scenario where you've got an aircraft stuck; 100 foot up in a tree, I can tell you its a whole new set of problems. Also how many times are we flying over water? A soft landing in water is still; a landing in water and the drone is essentially done.
When you look at all the scenarios that could lead to the loss of an aircraft and think of all of the defenses such as parachutes or hull coverage or anything else; and if you really look at cost and probability of outcomes there is only one true piece of mind: Put aside an amount of money equal to the replacement cost. Then go Fly.
In addition to all the reasons mentioned above, also keep in mind that even if you have a failure in flight with a successful deployment of a recovery chute, you're not out of the woods yet, literally. Imagine being in an area with trees and it lands in the top of the tree? If you haven't face a scenario where you've got an aircraft stuck; 100 foot up in a tree, I can tell you its a whole new set of problems. Also how many times are we flying over water? A soft landing in water is still; a landing in water and the drone is essentially done.
When you look at all the scenarios that could lead to the loss of an aircraft and think of all of the defenses such as parachutes or hull coverage or anything else; and if you really look at cost and probability of outcomes there is only one true piece of mind: Put aside an amount of money equal to the replacement cost. Then go Fly.
I'm curious how they would implement a low-volt autoland that wouldn't land on top of people, though. After all, if someone's flying their batteries dangerously low, they might also be the type to fly right over people's heads.
They got a waiver and, like any airline, have full policies and procedures worked out and written down, including emergency procedures, etc. They've flown over 70,000 test flights of their drones, and they also made thousands of deliveries in Australia already and so were able to point at that program to show how they approach safety.
They also doubtless have very good insurance, or used some of their billions to self-insure.
You might interpret it as different rules for different people, but you could also interpret it as the rules allow you to do more things if you meet more requirements. I'm not allowed to hop in a 787 and fly it because I haven't met the necessary requirements, but that doesn't mean American Airlines is getting special treatment because they're allowed to fly them.
Well said, but how does the ordinary citizen sitting in their back yard know if it certified for low, over their back yard flight by Google or Amazon and a Yuneec Tornado on a recreational flight. Can this cause more confusion as more large companies get into the business and will more commercial drones in the air lead to curtailing more private drone flights as there is more of a chance of an in flight collision.
Imho this would the single biggest safety improvement manufacturers could make on consumer drones over 250g.
My guess is a controlled landing would preferable to a loss of power free-fall into the same crowd.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Messages
- 4,258
- Reaction score
- 2,025
Chances are extremely slim.
Depending of the size of there drone, they may be able to carry sensors that would detect other obstacles flying around.
I wouldn't be surprised if these drones had transponders.
@PatR most likely has better info/answer on this.
How do you know the guy flying a Cessna over your house has a pilot's license? You don't, but the public is used to seeing GA planes fly overhead and so they don't kick up a fuss about it.
"Drones" are relatively new, and idiots have done stupid things with them that have made the public mad. But planes were the same way in the very early days - plane crashes were much more common than they are now, and there weren't any rules governing them so people did dumb stuff with them and killed themselves and others as a result.
Then regulation happened, pilots started flying more safely, and people got used to the idea that the sky was filled with planes, and it's no big deal.
If anything, these delivery drones, as they become more widespread, will accomplish the same thing. People's fear of new things goes down through exposure. When someone sees an Amazon drone go by 20 times a day for 3 months, they'll get used to it, and then they probably won't freak out as much when we fly our Typhoons.
Right now my Nextdoor feed occasionally flares up about drones, because there's some moron in my area that keeps flying his up to people's houses and pointing the camera in the windows. Because it's drones, and people aren't used to them, the threads tend to skew toward "drones oughta be banned" rather than "find this fool and take his toy away."
If some old guy drives his car through a farmer's market, nobody says we have to ban all cars. We say we have to stop *that guy* from driving. At most we say elderly people should have to be retested before we let them keep driving.
I suspect the same thing'll happen with drones as their use and regulation becomes more widespread and the jerks start being outnumbered by those of us who aren't out to be idiots.
