Drone recording video crashes into crowd.
jdolecki
Posts: 726
One person to mess it up for everyone
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/drone-tv-bull-run-crash_n_3816600.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/drone-tv-bull-run-crash_n_3816600.html
Comments
Even the NFL uses a tethered camera to do fly overs.
In a marginally related video, here's some beautiful aerial photography that went well: http://vimeo.com/70994185
Also, in a marginally related video, here's some beautiful aerial video that went well: http://vimeo.com/72574161
I have some serious concerns about bringing it to market. Insurance issues are a real consideration - proper product liability insurance is available but very expensive. We cannot control what our customers do with these products, as shown in this video. No amount of signed agreements about flying at AMA-sanctioned fields or liability releases will prevent somebody from having a battery failure or lapse of judgement.
Our Parallax flying habits have become more conservative as time has passed, too.
I do not think the size has anything to do with it. We had a couple of guys in the flying club in nashville that were flying these:
http://www.hobby-lobby.com/12_foot_telemaster_arf.htm
12 foot wingspan. But they were responsible. Everyone was safe at all times at the field.
Everyone flying an R/C has the responsibility to be safe, so I would not put it on the manufacturer to be liable for an unsafe R/C flight.
Just like the auto manufacturers are not liable for a driver driving unsafely, I do not see the liability to Parallax. Look at the thousands of R/C units
out there right now.
Jim
If you can catch it, you can keep it.
How many times have you been actively sued in the past due to an end-user assembling one or more of your components into a final product?
Selling a thousand large quadcopters weighing 10 lbs each would be more dangerous than selling a thousand 2 lb quadcopters. Adjust for the fact that people would use better judgement for something bigger, but a single wreck would be a larger disaster than a few small ELEV-8s.
While we may not ultimately be liable for accidents, lawyers follow the money. If a supplier is in China, they won't bother. In the USA we're a perfectly capable target for financial extraction. It's just this way - lawyers have no bounds when it comes to pursuing a client's interests, especially if we have business liability insurance. It's just a routine matter for them.
I'd also argue that a huge quadcopter accident would be more unpredictable than a 12-foot Telemaster. The airplane has a somewhat predictable trajectory, but not the case with a quadcopter.
By all rules of logic and morality, you are absolutely correct. We are talking about lawyers, though. Toyota was not at fault for some yahoo that pressed on the brake and throttle at the same time, but it cost them millions.
I once felt bad for a lawyer who seemed to have been duped into taking a hopeless lawsuit against me. Then I found that he took this case and this case. My lawyer was paid for by insurance, but it took 2 years of depositions, "discovery", and paperwork before the judge finally threw it out. In my case, they went after anyone with even modestly deep pockets (and/or insurance), even with a signed waiver.
Or perhaps there is no longer enough chlorine in the gene pool?
GAME OVER MAN!!! GAVE OVER!!! (Aliens reference - just kidding it's not over just fly safe
How hard would it be to put guards around the props? If you take that out of the equation the damage it could do would be a lot less.
Like Rich said, It was just a matter of time. As everyone knows some times it only takes 1 moron to spoil it for all. The way I see it, this was the fault of both the News station AND the event staff. This should have NEVER been allowed in the firt place and someone needs to held liable from that aspect.
Yes. put simple wire guards on (like those 1920's style fans). put stickers on saying do not operate without guards in place. perform a risk assessment, make sure to document the remaining risks in the manual. follow up with a destructive test. revise risk assessment, then sell.
Maybe if you changed all of the controllers to x-box format people would be more comfortable.
Also, it was not being operated by the TV station.
With bean-counter and lawyer thinking like that, sounds like he should have simply made the case roll over into the next years claims. Gets first claims on the new pot.
That means he was personally liable for any damages, and in theory, his toys, car or even his house could have been seized and sold to pay for his damages.
Back when I started flying RC Gliders, I was told that if my Carl Goldberg Gentle Lady ever got out of control and hit something or someone it would NOT be gentle. The nose of the model would have no problems destroying the front windshield of a car or cracking ribs of a grown man.
When toy walkie talkies using the 27MHz band started appearing took the decision to stop flying the plane.
(Not that I flied all that often, really)
I have a new transmitter and receiver set now, though...
(But not really the time... *Sigh* )
'Bout the most accurate way of putting it. I have no problems with lawyers. As long as people write and interpret laws and agreements lawyers will always be needed. Some (of each) will be hungrier than others. Besides what about the entertainment value? Without lawyers and "interesting" clients, where would we turn to replace Judge Judy and the peoples court? And all the great and not so great lawyer jokes???
@ Gadgetman: Your first line is an interesting observation. What a can of worms you kick over. Seems the friend had a pretty crappy lawyer. Should have gone after the pilot personally. Just like auto insurance whatever liability exceeds the limits of the policy, the policy holder would still be on the hook for the rest. Also, if the AMA is holding itself out as an INSURANCE, then it stands that they would still be liable to pay out whatever the claims against them would be w/o limits. Seems they should have had an underlying policy for times the claims exceeded the available funding. Like anything else, lawyers run the spectrum from great to Smile. a competent one would have had every source of fault locked down on a case like that one. (But then that is an outside observation w/o full knowledge of the details)
Frank
Yeah but then they twist this around saying you KNEW propellers were dangerous, you admitted that by putting on the guard, but chose to use propellers anyway.
C.W.
You can put wire guards and stickers on the device to avoid some payouts, but without wings to create a glide path or a ballistic-deployed parachute, it still becomes a 10 pound falliing rock.
A lot of people got rich making something dangerous (like the Flexible Flyer), but many stayed rich by quitting before the lawyers got busy.
I purchased and built an R/C electric for one of my students, but his parents are so fearful of liability from an accident that they refuse to let him go near it.
I should add that I seriously doubt a ballistic chute would've helped in the crash shown in the video because the aircaft was too low. It might have slowed it a bit.
Gliding or plummeting makes no odds. I have seen a quite small RC plane hit some one in the head. They were down for 15 minutes and finally taken way by ambulance.
A quad is a bit more of a problem as it generally has 4 times as many lawn mower blades on it than a plane.
Flying machinery like this in crowded public places is just a really bad idea.
My ancient Carl Goldberg Gentle Lady(2metre wingspan thermal glider. fuselage is a classic balsa box-shape.) is slow and easy to handle. Really deserves the name. Except if it hits someone... Nothing gentle about that
On a nearby mountain the local club has a spring meet with people coming from all over Norway. One part of the mountain is a sheer wall, 300 meters or more...
(The updrafts can be... spectacular... )
The most daring flyers usually head for that part after a while... It's not unusual for gliders to hit 150Km/h or more as they dive down, then climb up on the updraft again...
To get the highest speeds they need to fly as close to the cliff's edge as possible on the climb, sometimes passing with less than 2 meters distance.
And every year they have to yell at people to stay away from the edge before they get a facefull of screaming fibreglass banshee...
(Anyone who's not completely blind can see the gliders circling, diving, then shooting back up, so there's really no excuse to get too close.)
a. mass -- more mass, more risky
b. velocity -- more velocity, more risky
c. failure mode -- no glide path, no auto-gyration, falls -- whether more or less risk is hard to determine
Hang-gliders and small one seat airplanes do have manufacturers that make ballistic parachutes to prevent a serious injury from low altitude stalls.
But just the term 'ballistic' should be a red flag, the parachute is deployed by an explosive. So like air bags, they sometimes work well, and other times .... well, they hurt people.
If I were Parallax, I would work hard ts providing the board of first choice to makers of drones, but I would not go to a 10 pound product to make more money. If anything, I might consider not selling drone kits at all. Once the lawyers are on to these products, it is going to mean more and more litigation.
Buy product liabiltiy insurance may be a transitional tactic, but that is just about the one way I would consider the expense.
The product liability insurance company is in business for a profit, so they intend to pay out less money than they charge in premiums. Every time someone sues, they raise their premiums. Eventually, it all ends with less profit and more worries. If you can't afford to self-insure, maybe it is not realistic to produce.
http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/nature/post/bald-eagle-flies-off-course-into-window-falls-in-a-heap
"I'm free at last! Free at last! Thank Gggtt.ugggg........ (cue sound of unconscious bird beak scraping down the glass)..."
Heck, baseball fans sometimes catch it with their face, too.
Grrr...since when did model aircraft become "drones"?
A couple of problems:
It seems that if that was a regular model aeroplane instead the twit piloting it would probably think it's obviously top dangerous to fly it over a crowd of people. How come said twit seems to see the quad as being a safe option?
Had said twit been flying a regular model aeroplane over a crowd I'm sure it would not be long before somebody stopped him. How come everyone around also seems to think that the quad is a safe option?
I just bought a HUBSAN quad for giggles. The thing is about the sized of my hand but the instruction leaflet seems to have three pages of safety warning about flying near people. I guess that as we now have wall to wall stupid and obvious safety warnings on everything we buy nobody ever reads them.