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.
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but since most fixed-wing R/C engine failures don't even result in a crash, let alone a crash into spectators, I'd suggest that gliding under control is not necessarily as bad as plummeting like a rock. It certainly can be, but it depends on the circumstances and the pilot.
Loopy's warning about the "ballistic" aspect is well-taken, and to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that even a ballistic chute would make them safe to fly over a crowd. As I thought was clear in my previous post, IMO it isn't possible to make them safe to fly over a crowd. It might, however, provide some general advantage by stabilizing the quad and reducing the rate of descent. Clearly there's a downside to having explosive devices on a quad, especially when it's being flown by someone with poor judgement, but like batteries that can start fires, props that can chop meat, etc. you weigh the advantages against the potential problems. If anything potentially dangerous is off-limits, nothing will be flying. It would take some creativity in the use of interlocks, however, and I certainly wouldn't want to put some part of my body in the line of deployment, nor would I want to pay the liability insurance premiums for a company that produces them.
...gliding under control is not necessarily as bad as plummeting like a rock
Yes, gliding under control may be safer. What about the full power out of control issues, due to hardware or pilot failure, which seem just as likely to me?
who has since scrubbed his site of aerial video services references.Droidoworx frame, T-Motors, Xoar props and DJI flight control.By the looks of it it had the appearance of the old Wookong Flip of Death that the S800s experienced in droves last summer.That's one helluva large machine to be falling into a crowd. FAA needs to make a big time example from these wreckless idiots.
some one need to Gibbs-smack those wreckless flyers .... just you wait .... they WILL RUIN IT FOR ALL OF US!
i wish these things Were not so cheap ... Ahem . back in my day , RC aircraft were not so cheap! .... I had to learn on a cox .049 and a control line !
It is exactly this kind of issue that is currently under consideration in regards to the ELEV-8 Super.
I have some serious concerns about bringing it to market...
If it were up to me I would say to keep the Super as a demo platform and step up your safety protocols when demonstrating it (which I think you have done). I would rather see you go smaller rather than larger. If you make the ELEV-8 Super a product, there will be accidents - and those accidents will be more severe than with an ELEV-8 (which can already cause serious injury). Parallax does not depend upon the sale of RC vehicles for its success, the negative publicity and possible legal problems are not worth it in my opinion.
However, I fully support the idea of building and flying large RC vehicles, I think it would be better for Parallax to sponsor such creations rather than to market them.
..we went to the sand dunes to test our flying machines!!
On a serious note,
What if Parallax provides controllers, software, electrical components, even running gear for various quad models...most/all of the things you need to make them. How much liability is there in that compared to complete kits? What if "application notes" provide some plans and ideas...much like is provided for electrical parts....how much liability exposure is there in that? How much liability exposure do companies have when the provide reference designs in their application notes?
How much liability exposure does anyone releasing an open source design face? (I can see lawyers starting to salivate now!)
"But your honor, you can see how the open source controller board designed by Johnny Smith as part of his Science Fair project was instrumental in the construction of the prototype MegaCorp construction robots that destroyed the <insert favorite landmark here>! Without his controller which they based several initial prototypes on, MegaCorp NEVER would have been able to build their robots. They are just additional victims in this tragedy all started by little Johny's design! "
I'd just like to say that I like quads, and I really want to see Parallax prosper.
On the other hand, I strongly distrust the expansion of insurance industries from about 2% to 7.5% of the USA GDP over recent decades. Products such as product liability insurance may be useful in some cases. But if you have a real product with a real long-term business plan, your product liability can and should be more profitable to handle in house. If it isn't, there may be a real flaw in your product and your business plan.
In other words, every insurance agent will tell you that you can't have too much insurance. But when it comes to filling a claim.. out comes the fine print and the letter of notification that you are either canceled or your premiums have increased substantially. (Insurance companies have their own business plan .. right?)
We have all seen the ads that say, "You are in good hands with All-State". But just one fender bender regardless of whose fault and you are dumped. They only insure people that have zero accidents on their record.
If you sell components with only exemplar programing code, it is up to the hobbyist to assure the feasiblity of the end product. This is how the ultralight airplane market, the hang-gliding market, and many other products are sold. You liablity is for the failure of your product; not for enabling an idiot to do something foolish.
On the other hand, if you provide the whole kit there is some implicit warranty that the use is relatively safe if the buyer follows your directions.
I have flown different dones : Elev8, Dji Phantom, Ardupilot and crashed suddenly 2 times (one motor failure in each case) and have my lot of other crashes.
In cases of sudden crash you can do nothing : it falls like a stone.
So it seems that it is irresponsable to fly over a crowd.
And it will be a better idea to improve the Elev8 : code, safety .... rather than to create a Super Elev8.
I would never condone flying over crowds, but I have a possible million dollar idea. BRS, the manufacturer of the ballistic 'chutes used on many airplanes, from ultralights to the top of the line Cirrus, uses an explosive topropel the 'chute out of its container. It has been proven safe and foolproof enough to gain acceptance by the FAA in certified airplanes. However, for very small aircraft like multi-rotors, I think a pneumatically propelled ‘chute would work fine. Use a small c02 cartridge to blow the package out of the tube. I would think something like this could be made very light and would work for virtually all “drones” from the ELEV-8 up. And, with the power of the Propeller, one could use sensors to detect motor failure, out of control, and so forth to fire the ‘chute automatically. It would also cut the power to stop the rotors.
News coverage of the Bull Run event with video: http://wtvr.com/2013/08/26/great-bull-run-crash-victims The victims had finished their run with the bulls and were spectators relaxing afterward when the quad incident occurred.
Hokay, so they're brilliant enough to run with the bulls and help remove themselves from the gene pool, thank you very much... but surely they are also bright enough to understand, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that because they did not achieve the results they were looking for with the animals, then surely this automated flying machine served as the next best thing.
I rest my case.
I would never condone flying over crowds, but I have a possible million dollar idea. BRS, the manufacturer of the ballistic 'chutes used on many airplanes, from ultralights to the top of the line Cirrus, uses an explosive topropel the 'chute out of its container. It has been proven safe and foolproof enough to gain acceptance by the FAA in certified airplanes. However, for very small aircraft like multi-rotors, I think a pneumatically propelled chute would work fine. Use a small c02 cartridge to blow the package out of the tube. I would think something like this could be made very light and would work for virtually all drones from the ELEV-8 up. And, with the power of the Propeller, one could use sensors to detect motor failure, out of control, and so forth to fire the chute automatically. It would also cut the power to stop the rotors.
I would never condone flying over crowds, but I have a possible million dollar idea. BRS, the manufacturer of the ballistic 'chutes used on many airplanes, from ultralights to the top of the line Cirrus, uses an explosive topropel the 'chute out of its container. It has been proven safe and foolproof enough to gain acceptance by the FAA in certified airplanes. However, for very small aircraft like multi-rotors, I think a pneumatically propelled ‘chute would work fine. Use a small c02 cartridge to blow the package out of the tube. I would think something like this could be made very light and would work for virtually all “drones” from the ELEV-8 up. And, with the power of the Propeller, one could use sensors to detect motor failure, out of control, and so forth to fire the ‘chute automatically. It would also cut the power to stop the rotors.
Because of the low altitude, a ballistic chute might not be a good idea. Seems the the vehicle was almost inverter, meaning a ballistic charge was aimed at the audience.
Hang glider pilots carry reserve parachutes, sometimes two. Light aircraft and Ultralights often have BRS chutes. None of these are effective at low altitudes.
The solution is to not fly over groups of people. When video over people is required there are cable cams. booms, blimps or zoom lenses.
Having an elaborate safety system may actually be more dangerous. It would encourage pilots to fly low over people in more hazardous situations.
Since high quality video cameras continue to shrink in size I think there will be a good market for a very small and light vehicle with well shielded propellers that could be tossed into a crowd. Something akin to this:
While in China this week we exhibited with our distributor RobotC China at the Xi'an Technology Exposition. My main purpose in being there is to help the distributor by training their staff so they can put Parallax educational products (ActivityBots) into the universities. As part of this exposition I was requested to do many things with an ELEV-8 Super.
One of the demonstrations consisted of an ELEV-8 Super loaded with four ActivityBots (I think it can carry about eight of them). The ELEV-8 Super flies around, lands, and the robots roll off to play music and avoid one another. A complete round of this demo includes three pickups/dropoffs to bring 12 robots to the stage. A picture of a loaded ELEV-8 Super is shown below.
There's another demonstration in which ELEV-8 carries an American and Chinese flag. This demo launched the beginning of the robot ceremonies. Would you like to see that too?
Many precautions were taken to make the demonstration safe. People were set back about 35 feet, flight level was low, no overhead flight, and the craft was hand-built by me and under my control the entire time (you won't see any substandard wiring on my stuff). Even though I took these precautions I wouldn't do this same demonstration again. Just not worth the risk, especially after seeing the topic of this thread. In fact, we will not be building any commercially-available ELEV-8 Supers because of unknown uses by our customers and I'd hate to think that people were injured with our products. We have too much to lose and an opportunity cost, especially with productive growth in Propeller 1 & 2 and our new educational program. Having customers sign away liability isn't enough when there's an American supplier - lawyers will just follow the money to an insurance policy anyway. Therefore 2 lbs is our limit.
I'm really curious how the smaller "drone" [hate the name, it's every bit of an R/C aircraft as a plane with an FMA co-pilot auto-level device] manufacturers are insured.
There's another demonstration in which ELEV-8 carries an American and Chinese flag. This demo launched the beginning of the robot ceremonies. Would you like to see that too?
Comments
Loopy's warning about the "ballistic" aspect is well-taken, and to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that even a ballistic chute would make them safe to fly over a crowd. As I thought was clear in my previous post, IMO it isn't possible to make them safe to fly over a crowd. It might, however, provide some general advantage by stabilizing the quad and reducing the rate of descent. Clearly there's a downside to having explosive devices on a quad, especially when it's being flown by someone with poor judgement, but like batteries that can start fires, props that can chop meat, etc. you weigh the advantages against the potential problems. If anything potentially dangerous is off-limits, nothing will be flying. It would take some creativity in the use of interlocks, however, and I certainly wouldn't want to put some part of my body in the line of deployment, nor would I want to pay the liability insurance premiums for a company that produces them.
Yes, gliding under control may be safer. What about the full power out of control issues, due to hardware or pilot failure, which seem just as likely to me?
i wish these things Were not so cheap ... Ahem . back in my day , RC aircraft were not so cheap! .... I had to learn on a cox .049 and a control line !
If it were up to me I would say to keep the Super as a demo platform and step up your safety protocols when demonstrating it (which I think you have done). I would rather see you go smaller rather than larger. If you make the ELEV-8 Super a product, there will be accidents - and those accidents will be more severe than with an ELEV-8 (which can already cause serious injury). Parallax does not depend upon the sale of RC vehicles for its success, the negative publicity and possible legal problems are not worth it in my opinion.
However, I fully support the idea of building and flying large RC vehicles, I think it would be better for Parallax to sponsor such creations rather than to market them.
..we went to the sand dunes to test our flying machines!!
On a serious note,
What if Parallax provides controllers, software, electrical components, even running gear for various quad models...most/all of the things you need to make them. How much liability is there in that compared to complete kits? What if "application notes" provide some plans and ideas...much like is provided for electrical parts....how much liability exposure is there in that? How much liability exposure do companies have when the provide reference designs in their application notes?
How much liability exposure does anyone releasing an open source design face? (I can see lawyers starting to salivate now!)
"But your honor, you can see how the open source controller board designed by Johnny Smith as part of his Science Fair project was instrumental in the construction of the prototype MegaCorp construction robots that destroyed the <insert favorite landmark here>! Without his controller which they based several initial prototypes on, MegaCorp NEVER would have been able to build their robots. They are just additional victims in this tragedy all started by little Johny's design! "
On the other hand, I strongly distrust the expansion of insurance industries from about 2% to 7.5% of the USA GDP over recent decades. Products such as product liability insurance may be useful in some cases. But if you have a real product with a real long-term business plan, your product liability can and should be more profitable to handle in house. If it isn't, there may be a real flaw in your product and your business plan.
In other words, every insurance agent will tell you that you can't have too much insurance. But when it comes to filling a claim.. out comes the fine print and the letter of notification that you are either canceled or your premiums have increased substantially. (Insurance companies have their own business plan .. right?)
We have all seen the ads that say, "You are in good hands with All-State". But just one fender bender regardless of whose fault and you are dumped. They only insure people that have zero accidents on their record.
If you sell components with only exemplar programing code, it is up to the hobbyist to assure the feasiblity of the end product. This is how the ultralight airplane market, the hang-gliding market, and many other products are sold. You liablity is for the failure of your product; not for enabling an idiot to do something foolish.
On the other hand, if you provide the whole kit there is some implicit warranty that the use is relatively safe if the buyer follows your directions.
In cases of sudden crash you can do nothing : it falls like a stone.
So it seems that it is irresponsable to fly over a crowd.
And it will be a better idea to improve the Elev8 : code, safety .... rather than to create a Super Elev8.
Bigger drones (over 2 lbs) are too dangerous .
Jean Paul
BRS, the manufacturer of the ballistic 'chutes used on many airplanes, from ultralights to the top of the line Cirrus, uses an explosive topropel the 'chute out of its container. It has been proven safe and foolproof enough to gain acceptance by the FAA in certified airplanes.
However, for very small aircraft like multi-rotors, I think a pneumatically propelled ‘chute would work fine. Use a small c02 cartridge to blow the package out of the tube. I would think something like this could be made very light and would work for virtually all “drones” from the ELEV-8 up.
And, with the power of the Propeller, one could use sensors to detect motor failure, out of control, and so forth to fire the ‘chute automatically. It would also cut the power to stop the rotors.
The event organizer refunded their money.
Hokay, so they're brilliant enough to run with the bulls and help remove themselves from the gene pool, thank you very much... but surely they are also bright enough to understand, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that because they did not achieve the results they were looking for with the animals, then surely this automated flying machine served as the next best thing.
I rest my case.
Why not use an airbag?
Because of the low altitude, a ballistic chute might not be a good idea. Seems the the vehicle was almost inverter, meaning a ballistic charge was aimed at the audience.
The solution is to not fly over groups of people. When video over people is required there are cable cams. booms, blimps or zoom lenses.
Having an elaborate safety system may actually be more dangerous. It would encourage pilots to fly low over people in more hazardous situations.
Since high quality video cameras continue to shrink in size I think there will be a good market for a very small and light vehicle with well shielded propellers that could be tossed into a crowd. Something akin to this:
One of the demonstrations consisted of an ELEV-8 Super loaded with four ActivityBots (I think it can carry about eight of them). The ELEV-8 Super flies around, lands, and the robots roll off to play music and avoid one another. A complete round of this demo includes three pickups/dropoffs to bring 12 robots to the stage. A picture of a loaded ELEV-8 Super is shown below.
There's another demonstration in which ELEV-8 carries an American and Chinese flag. This demo launched the beginning of the robot ceremonies. Would you like to see that too?
Many precautions were taken to make the demonstration safe. People were set back about 35 feet, flight level was low, no overhead flight, and the craft was hand-built by me and under my control the entire time (you won't see any substandard wiring on my stuff). Even though I took these precautions I wouldn't do this same demonstration again. Just not worth the risk, especially after seeing the topic of this thread. In fact, we will not be building any commercially-available ELEV-8 Supers because of unknown uses by our customers and I'd hate to think that people were injured with our products. We have too much to lose and an opportunity cost, especially with productive growth in Propeller 1 & 2 and our new educational program. Having customers sign away liability isn't enough when there's an American supplier - lawyers will just follow the money to an insurance policy anyway. Therefore 2 lbs is our limit.
I'm really curious how the smaller "drone" [hate the name, it's every bit of an R/C aircraft as a plane with an FMA co-pilot auto-level device] manufacturers are insured.
Yes!
Are there videos???
The flags were lowered by RobotC China staff, including one of our former employees Brian who has moved to China to help launch this company.
That look effortless for the Quad. Great presentation!
Good choice on Yanni soundtrack. I'm a big fan.
Do not worry. All you need is this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU