I wonder what systems are affected by fireworks. The percussion of the explosives must effect the IMU and possibly the barometric altimeter, I'd be more interested in the telemetry log from this flight than the video lol.
Fireworks don't really explode per se, but the exact terminology gets euphemistic.
What would be bad is to get a direct collision on the craft from a rising shell.
Also you can see the glowing stars don't appear to affect the craft as they seem to be pinging it a lot.
Awesome video. I wonder about the details of the heli used. Quad, Hex, Octo? Camera gimbal system? FPV system? What kind of "avionics" was available? (Gyro, accel, GPS, barometric altimeter, etc...)
I suspect it would be hard to pilot the thing at those altitudes at night without FPV or GPS.
Although the video is fantastic, I wouldn't have taken the chance of flying over people and property that could be hit by a falling aircraft. (Maybe it didn't...)
Will the airspace around fireworks get crowded by RC aircraft now?...
Whatever the case, this technology seems to have come a long way and that part is really cool.
I purchased a 3-axis gimbal a little over a week ago in hopes of flying it yesterday (at a family reunion not into fireworks). Based on what I've learned so far, I'd say they used a 3-axis gimbal. There were yaw movements but it looked like the yaw as deliberate to point the camera at the action.
What kind of "avionics" was available? (Gyro, accel, GPS, barometric altimeter, etc...)
I suspect it would be hard to pilot the thing at those altitudes at night without FPV or GPS.
At least gyros and accelerometers. I think there were two camera systems. One for the pilot and one for the person controlling the camera. The camera made movements I don't see a pilot making.
I'd be surprised if they didn't have some sort of GPS system on it.
Although the video is fantastic, I wouldn't have taken the chance of flying over people and property that could be hit by a falling aircraft. (Maybe it didn't...)
As is usually the case, the fireworks looked like it took place over a body of water. I doubt they were flying over people or property that could be damaged from a falling aircraft. I'm not totally convinced it was safe, but it looked reasonably so.
Whatever the case, this technology seems to have come a long way and that part is really cool.
In the late 80's used to take photos with a radio controlled airplane. The camera (with 36 exposures 35mm of film) was pointed straight down. I had to shoot blind (just seeing the airplane not the view from the airplane). I could trigger the camera with the landing gear switch but that was the only control I had over the camera.
The airplane was made of spruce and balsa wood (99" wingspan).
I used this set up to take photos of bear habitat for Utah's Department of Wildlife Resources, the archaeology department of Idaho State University and an few real estate agents.
It's amazing how, now we have a live feed of the image as seen by the camera and the camera can easily be pointed independently from the direction of flight.
These are fun times for those wanting to take aerial photographs with radio controlled aircraft.
Considering that the odds of receiving damage were very high, this was exceedingly reckless. There were spectators within the "danger zone" of an out of control quad. Almost certainly the quad returned to where it started off, near people. It could easily have received minor damage that did not knock it out of the sky but made for difficult control upon landing.
Just one more example for lawmakers to use for increased regulation. *sigh*
It may seem reckless, but it is magnificent video from a very new point of view.
From what I have been led to believe, the fireworks are shot into a zone where they won't do any harm if they explode early or fly wrong. Since the drone is in that airspace, I don't see how there is much risk to people... if the drone gets hit, if falls into the water.
The drone operator would simply accept the loss and safely crash it.
I suspect it would be hard to pilot the thing at those altitudes at night without FPV or GPS.
I suspect that with some nice bright LEDs on you copter it's even easier to fly it at night. Not that I would expect this machine not to have FPV or GPS.
Loopy,
The drone operator would simply accept the loss and safely crash it.
When your machine is damaged and perhaps out of control there is no "safely crash it" option.
Fireworks don't really explode per se, but the exact terminology gets euphemistic.
What would be bad is to get a direct collision on the craft from a rising shell.
Also you can see the glowing stars don't appear to affect the craft as they seem to be pinging it a lot.
Yes they explode, but they may not detonate, they deflagrate. Brisance is the quality that separates a
detonation from a lesser explosion (gas explosions are usually deflagration, not detonation).
Deflagration, ie rapid burning, characterises black powder which is commonly used in fireworks.
A brisant detonation involves the shock wave triggering the chemical change, not the temperature,
so that the explosion front is a supersonic shock wave.
When your machine is damaged and perhaps out of control there is no "safely crash it" option.
I suppose you are right, but we do accept quite a few risks with driving autos, fling airplanes, drilling for oil, and so on.
If the amount of power that the drone was provided with was limited to an actual mission flight time, that might make it a bit safer. But this was NOT flying over a populated stadium, it was flying over water in a space set aside for the fireworks. The simple fact is that the odds are likely much higher that it would fall out of the sky than find any ability to go else where if damaged, unless there was some sort of autopilot. And even then, an autopilot could have an safety abort if operator communications failed for more than a certain period of time.
Bemoaning that this will bring FAA rulings against hobby flight is speculative. The reality is the FAA is deeply concerned with maintaining its authority and policing airspace from serious threats to people. But they can always accept on a case-by-case a flight plan for photographic work, survey, and so on. That would likely include a 'risk assessment'.
I am not a big fan of just having home-made drones fly anywhere and anytime an individual wants to. There are all sorts of abuses that may occur..... including peeping in bedroom windows and attacking people one dislikes. But it this case, I particularly enjoyed seeing fireworks from a birds-eye view.
I agree, this thing was flying in the midst of a fire work display. In most parts of the world these things are well regulated and people are kept out of harms way.
However there seems to be a lot of quad copter use going on that is akin to walking into the midst of a crowd and starting to throw rocks around.
For generations now, those that fly model planes and helicopters have not done that sort of reckless thing so much. Why the new wave of quad copter users behave in a different way is beyond me.
I suspect that with some nice bright LEDs on you copter it's even easier to fly it at night. Not that I would expect this machine not to have FPV or GPS.
When I fly at night the LED's look pretty cool and they do make it easier to see the orientation of the aircraft, but obstacles are much harder to see. Utility lines, tree branches, etc... I find depth perception to be a challenge when flying at a distance. Am I safely between that tree and that pole? This would be worse at night. Of course most of the flying was at altitude and surely away from any potential "ground based" obstacles. Could be an issue heading out or coming back from the target area.
I can see the problems. But then again I don't see how FPV helps with that much. Unless you have head lamps on your copter! I guess GPS might help if it is fast and accurate enough.
I've been thinking about this video a lot lately since I'm working on adding a camera gimbal to hexacopter.
I was trying to figure out how one might replicate these shots safely but as I think about it, I keep ending up agreeing with Rich. Even though most of the fight was likely over water, there really isn't a way to guarantee the quadcopter wouldn't end up in the crowd if something went wrong.
I've been thinking about this video a lot lately since I'm working on adding a camera gimbal to hexacopter.
I was trying to figure out how one might replicate these shots safely but as I think about it, I keep ending up agreeing with Rich. Even though most of the fight was likely over water, there really isn't a way to guarantee the quadcopter wouldn't end up in the crowd if something went wrong.
Self Destruct Pyro package when Gyro, Accel went out of bounds. At least there would not be flesh cutting blades.
Self Destruct Pyro package when Gyro, Accel went out of bounds. At least there would not be flesh cutting blades.
If you could have some sort of fail safe with cut power to the motors, then the quadcopter should pretty much fall straight down. Both airplanes and helicopters can glide a ways without power but a quadcopter doesn't "glide" very well. The trick is making the fail safe that could survive a direct hit from one of those fire works.
I'd think a fail safe of some sort might be possible. If the quad's controller board were knocked out, the motors should stop. If the quad's controller board were still intact, then it should be able to implement the fail safe.
RC receivers often have some sort of fail safe settings where the various channels will move to a predetermined position when a signal is lost. There are receivers for robots which automatically power down the throttle with a loss of signal. With this sort of system, as long as the quadcopter were keep a minimum distance from people, then it should be relatively safe.
You'd would want some sort of rule which increased the distance from people as the altitude increased since a quadcopter could obviously travel a great distance horizontally without power, when falling from a higher altitude.
The problem isn't a catastrophic event amidst the "exploding" shells. The problem is minor damage (much more likely) that compromises the controllability, but does not destroy it. He launched it near people. It is reasonable to assume that he will try to bring it back to the same place. There could be damage that is not apparent until it is close, given where it was flying damage was very probable.
Does anybody think it is okey-dokey to fly into fireworks then come back to land near humans, knowing that there is a high probability that the drone will have sustained some kind of damage?
Does anybody think it is okey-dokey to fly into fireworks then come back to land near humans, knowing that there is a high probability that the drone will have sustained some kind of damage?
Not me.
I am trying to figure out if there is a safe way to do something like this. I'm inclined to think there is.
IMO, the way to do it would be with the cooperation of the event organizer. I'd think they'd be thrilled to have this kind of video taken of their event if the flight could be done safely.
That's a good article. I especially like that he acknowledged that no new laws are necessary. That won't stop them from trying to make new ones though. Somebody breaks a law and gets lots of attention, then someone else decides a new law is needed - it's absurd, and all too often, successful.
I had to quit reading that article half way through, I was afraid i was going to die, or be killed, or be injured, or get arrested, or get a hefty fine, or worse...
The article kept "Droning" on...
Stunts like this, safe or not, laws broken or not, are probably going to cause these machines to end up highly regulated. It is no longer adequate to assume that all operators of these devices will act responsibly.
I expect something along the lines of a current pilot's license to be required to fly one in the near future. Hopefully a person flying one of these in a reckless manner, where people or property are endangered, will be subject to very large fines and a significant jail term.
I also would not be surprised if the small "toy" types were banned completely, with luck it will not require too many small children to lose their sight for this to happen.
This is what happens when idiots are allowed to run loose and ruin a hobby for the rest.
This is why we need airbags. Get 20 ft from terra firma and pow.... a semi-compliant, energy absorbing, ball of softness cushions any impact.
BTW - "drone" seems to have a real negative connotation. It can't be good when all the coverage refers to a "drone" rather than an R/C aircraft or helicopter or quad or....
In the USA, if you shoot an arrow into the air and where it lands you know not where... you are still liable. Same thing with dropping a rock from a balcony in a baseball stadium. Or flying a drone.
But I think that for the sake of sanity, having national parks, university campuses, and other venues declared 'no fly' is just reasonable and prudent. Can't we have pleasant ambiance in certain places?
Don M
Posts: 1,652
Comments
Great video. Thanks for sharing. Did not get hit by an exploding shell? What are the odds?
What would be bad is to get a direct collision on the craft from a rising shell.
Also you can see the glowing stars don't appear to affect the craft as they seem to be pinging it a lot.
I suspect it would be hard to pilot the thing at those altitudes at night without FPV or GPS.
Although the video is fantastic, I wouldn't have taken the chance of flying over people and property that could be hit by a falling aircraft. (Maybe it didn't...)
Will the airspace around fireworks get crowded by RC aircraft now?...
Whatever the case, this technology seems to have come a long way and that part is really cool.
-Russ
You get a couple of short glimpses of what looks like two motors. I'd bet on a quadcopter.
I purchased a 3-axis gimbal a little over a week ago in hopes of flying it yesterday (at a family reunion not into fireworks). Based on what I've learned so far, I'd say they used a 3-axis gimbal. There were yaw movements but it looked like the yaw as deliberate to point the camera at the action.
At least gyros and accelerometers. I think there were two camera systems. One for the pilot and one for the person controlling the camera. The camera made movements I don't see a pilot making.
I'd be surprised if they didn't have some sort of GPS system on it.
As is usually the case, the fireworks looked like it took place over a body of water. I doubt they were flying over people or property that could be damaged from a falling aircraft. I'm not totally convinced it was safe, but it looked reasonably so.
I'll be looking for a way to do this safely next year. If I really do fly in a fireworks display, I'd attempt to get the organizer's permission.
In the late 80's used to take photos with a radio controlled airplane. The camera (with 36 exposures 35mm of film) was pointed straight down. I had to shoot blind (just seeing the airplane not the view from the airplane). I could trigger the camera with the landing gear switch but that was the only control I had over the camera.
The airplane was made of spruce and balsa wood (99" wingspan).
I used this set up to take photos of bear habitat for Utah's Department of Wildlife Resources, the archaeology department of Idaho State University and an few real estate agents.
It's amazing how, now we have a live feed of the image as seen by the camera and the camera can easily be pointed independently from the direction of flight.
These are fun times for those wanting to take aerial photographs with radio controlled aircraft.
Just one more example for lawmakers to use for increased regulation. *sigh*
From what I have been led to believe, the fireworks are shot into a zone where they won't do any harm if they explode early or fly wrong. Since the drone is in that airspace, I don't see how there is much risk to people... if the drone gets hit, if falls into the water.
The drone operator would simply accept the loss and safely crash it.
I suspect that with some nice bright LEDs on you copter it's even easier to fly it at night. Not that I would expect this machine not to have FPV or GPS.
Loopy, When your machine is damaged and perhaps out of control there is no "safely crash it" option.
Yes they explode, but they may not detonate, they deflagrate. Brisance is the quality that separates a
detonation from a lesser explosion (gas explosions are usually deflagration, not detonation).
Deflagration, ie rapid burning, characterises black powder which is commonly used in fireworks.
A brisant detonation involves the shock wave triggering the chemical change, not the temperature,
so that the explosion front is a supersonic shock wave.
I suppose you are right, but we do accept quite a few risks with driving autos, fling airplanes, drilling for oil, and so on.
If the amount of power that the drone was provided with was limited to an actual mission flight time, that might make it a bit safer. But this was NOT flying over a populated stadium, it was flying over water in a space set aside for the fireworks. The simple fact is that the odds are likely much higher that it would fall out of the sky than find any ability to go else where if damaged, unless there was some sort of autopilot. And even then, an autopilot could have an safety abort if operator communications failed for more than a certain period of time.
Bemoaning that this will bring FAA rulings against hobby flight is speculative. The reality is the FAA is deeply concerned with maintaining its authority and policing airspace from serious threats to people. But they can always accept on a case-by-case a flight plan for photographic work, survey, and so on. That would likely include a 'risk assessment'.
I am not a big fan of just having home-made drones fly anywhere and anytime an individual wants to. There are all sorts of abuses that may occur..... including peeping in bedroom windows and attacking people one dislikes. But it this case, I particularly enjoyed seeing fireworks from a birds-eye view.
I agree, this thing was flying in the midst of a fire work display. In most parts of the world these things are well regulated and people are kept out of harms way.
However there seems to be a lot of quad copter use going on that is akin to walking into the midst of a crowd and starting to throw rocks around.
For generations now, those that fly model planes and helicopters have not done that sort of reckless thing so much. Why the new wave of quad copter users behave in a different way is beyond me.
When I fly at night the LED's look pretty cool and they do make it easier to see the orientation of the aircraft, but obstacles are much harder to see. Utility lines, tree branches, etc... I find depth perception to be a challenge when flying at a distance. Am I safely between that tree and that pole?
-Russ
I can see the problems. But then again I don't see how FPV helps with that much. Unless you have head lamps on your copter! I guess GPS might help if it is fast and accurate enough.
Let's face it flying at night is tricky.
I was trying to figure out how one might replicate these shots safely but as I think about it, I keep ending up agreeing with Rich. Even though most of the fight was likely over water, there really isn't a way to guarantee the quadcopter wouldn't end up in the crowd if something went wrong.
Self Destruct Pyro package when Gyro, Accel went out of bounds.
If you could have some sort of fail safe with cut power to the motors, then the quadcopter should pretty much fall straight down. Both airplanes and helicopters can glide a ways without power but a quadcopter doesn't "glide" very well. The trick is making the fail safe that could survive a direct hit from one of those fire works.
I'd think a fail safe of some sort might be possible. If the quad's controller board were knocked out, the motors should stop. If the quad's controller board were still intact, then it should be able to implement the fail safe.
RC receivers often have some sort of fail safe settings where the various channels will move to a predetermined position when a signal is lost. There are receivers for robots which automatically power down the throttle with a loss of signal. With this sort of system, as long as the quadcopter were keep a minimum distance from people, then it should be relatively safe.
You'd would want some sort of rule which increased the distance from people as the altitude increased since a quadcopter could obviously travel a great distance horizontally without power, when falling from a higher altitude.
Does anybody think it is okey-dokey to fly into fireworks then come back to land near humans, knowing that there is a high probability that the drone will have sustained some kind of damage?
Not me.
I am trying to figure out if there is a safe way to do something like this. I'm inclined to think there is.
IMO, the way to do it would be with the cooperation of the event organizer. I'd think they'd be thrilled to have this kind of video taken of their event if the flight could be done safely.
It details some of the laws broken and the location, etc.
The article kept "Droning" on...
I expect something along the lines of a current pilot's license to be required to fly one in the near future. Hopefully a person flying one of these in a reckless manner, where people or property are endangered, will be subject to very large fines and a significant jail term.
I also would not be surprised if the small "toy" types were banned completely, with luck it will not require too many small children to lose their sight for this to happen.
This is what happens when idiots are allowed to run loose and ruin a hobby for the rest.
BTW - "drone" seems to have a real negative connotation. It can't be good when all the coverage refers to a "drone" rather than an R/C aircraft or helicopter or quad or....
-Russ
There is a place where nobody cares if you fly - and that is where you fly.
But I think that for the sake of sanity, having national parks, university campuses, and other venues declared 'no fly' is just reasonable and prudent. Can't we have pleasant ambiance in certain places?