Yet another UAV accident

[Jim Andrada]

Drone slams into seating area at U.S. Open - CNN.com

[Mark Williams]

This is not an accident. It is a criminal act.

[Jim Andrada]

Meant to say "Incident"

[Brian Drysdale]

Power down as well.

Drone crash causes Hollywood electricity blackout - BBC News

[Colin McDonald]

Particularly nasty accident reported on BBC News; Toddler's eyeball sliced in half by drone propeller - BBC News

An 18-month-old boy has lost an eye after being hit by a drone flown by a family friend.

Oscar Webb's eye was sliced in half by a propeller after the operator, Simon Evans, lost control of the drone.

The toddler, from Stourport-on-Severn, Worcestershire, will need several operations before he can have a prosthetic eye fitted.

It was the first drone injury Oscar's surgeon had seen, but she said it was "inevitable" there would be many more.

Mr Evans said: "It was up for about 60 seconds. As I brought it back down to land it just clipped the tree and span round.

"The next thing I know I've just heard my friend shriek and say 'Oh God no' and I turned around and just saw blood and his baby on the floor crying.

Oscar's mother, Amy Roberts, said she was in the ambulance taking Oscar to hospital in Birmingham when he opened his eye.

"What I saw, I can still see it now, and what I saw or what I thought I saw was the bottom half of his eye and it's the worst thing I've ever seen.

"I just hoped and prayed all the way there that what I saw wasn't true and wasn't real."

Before Oscar's accident seven weeks ago his family were unaware of the potential safety issues surrounding drones.

Faye Mellington, consultant in oculoplastics and orbital surgery at Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, said she and her team "knew straight away the outlook for Oscar's vision long term was extremely poor".

The little boy can still see out of his uninjured eye.
Guidance for safe drone flying

Before each flight, check drone for damage and make sure all components are working in accordance with the user manual
The drone must be within the operator's sight at all times
The operator is responsible for avoiding collisions with other people or objects
The drone must not be flown in any way which could endanger people or property
It is illegal to fly drones over congested areas such as streets, towns or cities
Stay well clear of airports and airfields
Do not fly drones within 50m of a person, vehicle, building or structure, or overhead groups of people at any height

Source: Civil Aviation Authority

[Andy Wilkinson]

This I think will be the pivotal moment here in the UK, regarding drones, that we all knew was coming...poor lad.

[Karl Walter Keirstead]

I hope the operator took out insurance before flying the UAV

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Karl Walter Keirstead

I hope the operator took out insurance before flying the UAV

That story has come out of a film report on the BBC "Watchdog" programme, which at the moment is still able to be seen online. (Maybe not outside the UK?)

It seems that the operator was a family friend who also got interviewed for the programme, and what he was flying was a fairly small drone and not for any commercial reward.

The programme had done a previous item about drone accidents, and I gather that this incident was then reported to them by the parents - the general tone being that even the small drones shouldn't be looked on as toys, and can cause very serious injury - as this family found out. Apparently the programme received quite a lot of other stories after the first item, and have passed them all on to the authorities.

[Brian Drysdale]

Certainty a near miss at the World Cup slalom..

Skier Marcel Hirscher almost hit by camera drone in World Cup slalom - BBC Sport

[David Heath]

More on that at: Skier Marcel Hirscher almost hit by camera drone in World Cup slalom - BBC Sport

The International Ski Federation (FIS) subsequently announced that it will ban camera drones from its World Cup races.

FIS men's race director Markus Waldner told The Associated Press that drones will be prohibited "because they are a bad thing for safety".

He added: "It was huge luck that Marcel was not hurt. I am very angry."

According to Waldner, FIS agreed the drone could be used but the pilot should not have flown the camera directly over the race course.

"He did not follow our instructions," said Waldner. "He had to fly outside of the race track and follow the racer from a 15-metre distance."

Worryingly it appears that the drone in question was being flown by the company responsible for the official coverage - it wasn't just some rogue interloper. So if that can go so badly wrong - in spite of firm instructions that it shouldn't have been anywhere near where it crashed - will other sports organisers follow the FIS and ban their use completely? Be interesting to hear what the inquiry findings into the accident are!

[Wendell Adkins]

There are two different mindsets that I often see from drone pilots. Less experienced pilots think "what could go wrong, this thing has always been perfect?" while veteran pilots think "I need to be extra cautious as I am way overdue for something unexpected to happen."

[Greg Boston]

I am of the opinion that any craft that is going to be used in situations like that should be more than quadrotor. Hex and octo can stay airborne with the loss of a motor whereas a quad will not.

Redundant battery power to avoid a complete power loss should also be a minimum requirement.

My concern also lies in the quality of components being used for the mass production models. A marginal component in a flight controller can lead to computer lock up and a failure to respond to pilot inputs, perhaps locking out the safety routines of auto return to home in the event of control link signal loss.

If enough QC and solid engineering is utilized, I have no doubt that we could safely operate above crowds, roads, etc. with a very minimal failure rate. Just depends on how much money one wants to throw at the problem.

Edit: Just saw this new multi rotor design expected in there coming year. An example of building reliability into the design.

YouTube (Short URL)

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

If enough QC and solid engineering is utilized, I have no doubt that we could safely operate above crowds, roads, etc. with a very minimal failure rate. Just depends on how much money one wants to throw at the problem.

It comes down to the basic principles of risk analysis - chance of failure, consequences if failure does occur, balanced against reward of activity. To which I'd add to whom is the risk? The issue here with drones is that the reward is to the operator..... the risk is to third parties. (You can argue that skiing itself is risky - but the big difference is that the risk and reward is to the same person.)

Should anyone in a crowd be subject to any additional risk due to a drone being flown above them? When all the reward goes to someone else?

In this case, it comes back to why the basic safety guidelines don't seem to have been followed:
("According to Waldner, FIS agreed the drone could be used but the pilot should not have flown the camera directly over the race course.

"He did not follow our instructions," said Waldner. "He had to fly outside of the race track and follow the racer from a 15-metre distance.")

If the drone had been flown according to guidelines, such a failure wouldn't have mattered.

[Otto Haring]

Originally Posted by Karl Walter Keirstead

I hope the operator took out insurance before flying the UAV

We all hope so....! :)

[Darren Levine]

Well, the post i made just the other day will only become more and more relevant...

Update on FAA, Drone registration, and recommendations for drone buyers - YouTube