That said, flying objects are inherently dangerous. I was at a bike race and a guy was following the pack with a DJI drone. One motor suddenly failed and the thing plummeted to the ground from 40ft and broke into a bunch of pieces. Luckily, it didn't hit anyone but it would have been a major incident if it had.
There's a lot of excitement about the cool, flashy features of these drones (following, waterproof, nice camera) but no assurance that it won't suddenly break and kill someone.
I want 99.9999% reliability and strong safety guarantees as a feature.
As someone who has flown RC drones and heli for the better part of 5+ years now I generally find that there are 3 camps: 1) people who have never flown and assume the worst and often want unrealistic "guarantees" (see above), 2) those who fly, fly often and fly as safe as can be "guaranteed", 3) those who fly in an unsafe manner due to inexperience or just general carelessness.
I've always tried to fly responsibly at all times. I am cognizant of weather, people/pets, surroundings and right-of-way in the sky. Nothing in life is guaranteed 99.9999% of the time. Is it OK for me to levy a 99.9999% guarantee on you, that you drive perfect and responsible (no radio, no food, no phone, no talking, no distractions - period)? No. That's not life in general - we don't live in a bubble. Well at least the general population doesn't.
I am fine with sane safety measures put forth... Certifications, registrations, etc. But this is a hobby like many others. People own many kinds of recreational hobby gear that can endanger the operator or surrounding people - yet, they're accepted because people think they understand them. Most don't, however, understand simple engine operation - yet drive cars.
All mechanical vehicles have the guarantee to fail at some point or another and, yes, someone is 100% guaranteed to get hurt at some point in time. But, please don't ruin my hobby because you choose not to understand it.
I've been flying RC for ~16 years, on and off, and the rules for operating an RC aircraft safely have always been the same.
DO NOT FLY NEAR PEOPLE.
It's that simple. No functioning machine can ever be inherently safe, safety is the result of continuous exercise of good judgement. When operating a large nitro powered helicopter, featuring 700mm long carbon fibre knives that spin at 2000rpm, controlled by an imperfect operator, through an imperfect electronics system, powered by an unreliable motor I am aware that it is an intrinsically dangerous object, and I only fly it in controlled areas, without bystanders who could get hurt.
And it annoys me to no end when I see some idiot crashing his DJI into a building (no flying within 400m of a built-up area - don't fly near people), or a new guy with a t-rex or raptor helicopter flying near people in a park in the middle of town (Don't fly near people!) Or someone who should know better like a model aero club member flying over the pits or the viewing area or the carpark (don't fly near/over people!)
I actually want something like the machine described in the article, because I want to be able to film myself skiing, without the horribly cliched helmet cam, but unless I can get something small enough that it CANT hurt someone in a collision, or something with very robust collision avoidance, I can't use it.
Ideally both, because even with perfect collision avoidance, something else could still break.
I fall into camp 3. I have a DJI Phantom that I crashed into my neighbor's yard due to my own incompetence and inexperience.
I'm not arguing for draconian policy measures. I just want manufacturers to focus on and market reliability and safety features. It's a win-win for users and manufacturers.
Manufacturers are clearly aiming for these drones to be everywhere and for everyone to own one. With many, many people flying for the first time everyday there are going to be accidents. If manufacturers can reduce the harm caused by these accidents then they'll have a much easier path for FAA regulations and public acceptance.
For users, they get the ease of mind that crashes won't be catastrophic for their drone and a reduced chance that they'll inadvertently hurt someone.
A strawman might hurt someone if it gets knocked over easily, but we don't see the government stepping in to stop people building them up all the time!
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the point you are trying to make. The problem I have with it is, it seems by your own admission, you're somewhat hypocritical. You'd like for someone else, a la the manufacturer, to provide a guarantee that you can be lazy and not take precautions so that you don't have to worry about a $1300 radio controlled vehicle that flies doesn't hurt someone else?
I only mention the general cost because - there's not that much margin in these things to achieve what you want. Nobody will spend $2300 on a Phantom if that additional $1000 is for upgrades to safety and ignorance factors.
There are many things that didn't start out with any guarantees of implied safety - and many things that are assumed safe, when not operated safely, are inherently very risky / unsafe.
Finally, there are easily many tens of thousands of hobby grade drones out there - flying daily, operating (for the most part) safely (again partially dependent on operator). How many deaths have occurred to date?
Something that really bothers me is that when I first started flying the general reaction I had was of excitement - although I was generally no less cautious. The RC craft I flew drew interest and excitement from bystanders and it was generally a good experience. Now, I am overly cautious when flying anywhere near public areas. I've received comments about how I should "go somewhere else", even when I was flying in an area where there were no people, but someone decided to seek me out since they saw the craft from remote. And I've generally just tried to stay out of places I know would be potential hazards if there was a malfunction where I lost control.
Do I still fly in "tight" locations? Yes - I do. I've flown my neighborhood to assess storm damage for my neighbors knowing that there are people - but in those situations I always fly with prop guards and try to fly over houses, not over sidewalks or roads. And then there's the artistic side - I like taking shots of architecture and some of those situations require thoughtful planning or waiting for an area to clear.
I can't help other people's ignorance and I will say that you flying untethered with no experience is not something DJI or I should have to worry about - that's your choice and risk to weigh. If I was your neighbor I'd have a frank conversation with you about your actual skills and ability to ascertain risk.
In my opinion golf is far more risky than flying "drones" (I prefer RC quad-copter, but to each their own). I play golf, I love it. I'm not going to stop playing because you hit golf balls off your deck into your neighbors yard and then expect Titleist and Callaway to fix your bad decision.
>I only mention the general cost because - there's not that much margin in these things to achieve what you want. Nobody will spend $2300 on a Phantom if that additional $1000 is for upgrades to safety and ignorance factors.
Well, not that I agree with the need for what he says, but what you describe is easily solved:
People WOULD pay $2300 on a Phantom if the "upgrades to safety and ignorance factors" were compulsory and so every drone on the market had to bear that extra $1000 in its cost.
Some people would, but many others would simply be priced out of the market (and/or build their own from individual components which have none of the required safety upgrades)
I hope that most people flying these things show the same level of care and consideration that you do -- but as the barrier for entry lowers, I doubt that will be the case. I am concerned that as the number of careless casual users increases, the public outrage will be directed at the technology itself rather than the inexperienced pilots.
Is the 'hands-off' recovery not good on the DJI platform? I've always used OpenPilot FCs so have no idea how well the DJI FC works, but the OP hardware will fully recover from stupidity if you let go of the controls (while not in acro mode).
Fail safe works reliably in my experience - but it doesn't save from risky flight in the first place. I think YMMV, but I've yet to have an in-flight failure that resulted in crashing or losing control. That being said I'm overly cautious about inspection and maintenance of the craft I own.
I'm not disillusioned though - it will happen, I'll lose an ESC mid-flight and I'll have to deal with trying to guide an uncontrollable aircraft that I may not have line of sight on. Pretty much next to impossible to guarantee anything in that situation.
But you do require a license to drive around a car, while this "hobby" does not require anything of that sort. Which is why it is questioned a lot. I belong to camp 2 as well, but i can understand why it might be a cause of concern for many.
I won't dispute that, but there are many dangerous hobbies that require no license. I'm also not against the thought of some level of certification or licensing. The problem is that would fall, again, on vendors until the government formulated a universal standard. And while it would be good to help provide better understanding of flight and operation it would likely not do much for failure scenarios.
There are the two similar, but very different scenarios: 1) controller crashes RC aircraft into person because of negligent flying, or 2) loss of control due to hardware failure crashes RC aircraft into person
Both are real scenarios with cars and scenario 2 isn't accounted for during license testing. What people need to understand is that these devices shouldn't be outright banned because of impending accidents. Yes, those will be unfortunate - but the hobby has good recreational and business use cases in my opinion.
I have a drivers license. I can drive a car. However, even I know I'm not the best driver in the world. In fact, I'm probably below average. I just drive so little.
I'll take a drone that flies itself over one controlled by a human any day. Humans suck at this stuff. It should be possible to make it very safe if it's automated.
Driving my car to work seems inherently much more dangerous than operating this drone, and we've found reasonable ways to insure against those accidents.
Life is inherently dangerous, and almost every technical innovation is first met with objections with how it will cause loss of life. The danger of accidental personal injury from drone is probably an order of magnitude lower than the danger of accidental personal injury from discarded banana peels.
> I want 99.9999% reliability and strong safety guarantees as a feature.
Then you want the technology not to exist, which I think is a terrible shame. It's like crying "fire hazard" around a Tesla. If you want a hobby device to rant against, try scooters, those things are much more deadly and rightly deserve to be taxed and regulated. [1]
The Lily drone if it actually performs anything like that video, is pure awesome, and absolutely the future. If it can be made quiet enough and compact enough it replaces everything from the cinematographer at your wedding, to the selfie.
It also probably looks good in black with a nice white pin-stripe, with the letters N-Y-P-D, floating around Times Square, and running no-knock warrants. 10 - 15 generations along actually, this thing is quite terrifying, for completely different reasons than 'OMG it will fall on me'.
Maybe drones need to start to incorporate parachutes to slow down the fall in case of problems like these, or maybe even airbags to ease the crash. Not that it would make it 99.9999% reliable, but it should be better than nothing. And also won't completely thrash your drone when it crashes.
edit seems nine_k already commented with a similar idea
Recent research has had controlled landing on 2 motors in real robots (and one motor in simulation only). The main trick is to spin the whole vehicle around the z axis (up-down) very fast, and modulate the speed of the remaining rotors to apply forces at different places around the centre of gravity. IIRC the one-rotor version didn't work on a real robot due to limits on the frequency response of the real-world motor controller.
Spinning the drone so fast that the modulation is usable doesn't itself sound very safe to me.
It's an upgrade from "expensive rock with sharp blades falling out of the sky" to "expensive rock with sharp blades falling out of the sky spinning at X0 RPM, and the sharp blades are also spinning at X00 RPM"
I thought autorotation was only useful if you're moving ahead very fast (high ground speed) while also falling. Is that right? Most drones are essentially hovering much of the time.
Drones of this size are cheap enough that the extra weight and cost of engineering of safety devices generally isn't worth it. It's easier to fix or replace parts.
Are you factoring in your personal liability for killing someone in that equation?
The comment that mentioned parachutes was talking about how a drone crashed at an event and almost injured people. My personal homeowners liability policy covers things like hitting someone with a shopping cart in the grocery store and hurting them, it probably would also cover a drone, but if you don't have insurance it could expensive real quick.
Notice I said "drones of this size". While the propellers could still cause some damage, these kind of things aren't going to kill anybody, so let's not be overdramatic. As for potential dangers to other people, the solution to that is not a technical one, it is simply to not fly over or near to people. Just like we don't drive our cars on the sidewalk.
The cool thing about sidewalks is that they are elevated and it takes some effort to hop on to one and run over pedestrians (especially when there is a protective lane of parked cars). Drones, on the other hand, are poised to fall on people, with no barriers.
I've taken a propeller to the face from a motor similar in strength to the consumer "drones", and it was spinning full throttle. I really don't recommend this. I got lucky it didn't hit my eye (came close). End result was some 4 scratches across the cheek on the left side but no permanent scarring.
In my case it didn't occur when I was flying the quadcopter but rather when I was bench testing the ESCs (yes, I knew abstractly I should remove the props before doing this but I got lazy after a while of testing and eventually it bit me).
Having said all of this I mostly agree with the grandparent post (though I do recognize that a 2 lbs drone could, theoretically, kill someone) in that the solution to this as a safety issue is primarily just don't fly a quadcopter over anything you wouldn't feel comfortable crashing it into (basically don't fly over people or valuable property it could potentially damage). As long as you stick by this rule of not flying over anything you're not afraid to crash it into you already have a good (if not inexpensive) failsafe, which is just cut the throttle completely.
Of course not, where did you get that idea? I don't think drones should ever be operated in close vicinity to people, especially if those people are bystanders uninvolved in the operation of said drone. Well yes, but the slight elevation of the sidewalk isn't the sole reason drivers don't run over pedestrians. The barriers are hopefully in the discipline of the pilot.
You don't think a device that weighs over 2lbs falling from 40' could kill someone?
And that seems like it's being pretty generous. In most "quadcopter crash" videos I've seen on YouTube the drone was much higher. Sometimes even hundreds of meters.
Cars kill 40k people per year in the US. Yes a falling drone "could kill someone" however falling coconuts actually kill a lot of people each year. [1] If you want 100% safety in life, build a bunker and never go outside.
Even if it's possible, it's incredibly unlikely compared to an automobile accident.
If there were as many drones (of that size & rotor size) overhead as there are vehicles on the road, I'd still expect to have zero to single-digit fatalities from drones every single year--at least from "falling out of the sky onto people's bodies."
Perhaps there are more likely cases where the drone is the indirect cause, like breaking someone's windshield and causing a fatal car accident.
We live in a society with motor vehicles. They are here to stay. It doesn't matter what their safety record may be or under which parameters they are operated. Drones are an entirely separate issue. We do not live in a society with drones. Period. Now if we would like to introduce them into our society it doesn't matter what laws or regulations are established for their safe operation without on-board fail safes their introduction is unlikely. How do I know? I'll just pose this question: Are you OK with any drone dropping out of the sky and landing on top of your new born infants soft little squishy skull? Find me a person that will say yes to that question.
Not even apples and oranges. I know that they can still fly safely with only two motors if they are opposing. They may be so safe that it won't be for years to come but eventually after enough mad mothers are up in arms about somebody losing an eye or it getting sucked into an airliner jet that they're going to start heaping on the restrictions. One of the concerns with using them for deliveries at least in a city like Los Angeles is that people will try and shoot them down.
Already been introduced(bad term)? So 1 in 3 households have a drone in the U.S.? OK 1 in 4? You can always count on this statistic- 1 in 10? Nah? Surely 5% of Americans own or use the services of a drone then right? Yeah then they haven't been introduced yet
Really? I didn't know that. That flight out of New York where "Captain Sully"? made the first successful water ditch of a commercial airliner in the history of aviation had a flame out from geese, but that was an entire flock.
They're so small I doubt they'd have much of an impact on light aircraft either.
It's very unlikely to kill someone, or even seriously injure them. You should be at least as worried about playing baseball or riding a bicycle around people.
Probably on the order of 120 MPH or 55.8 meters per second. The drone weighs 1.2 Kilograms. The kinetic energy on impact would be 1800 Joules give or take. A 357 Magnum generates about 873 Joules.
The energy we are talking about is not insignificant. I'm actually in favor of allowing people to fly drones with as little restriction as possible but let's not pretend there aren't some risks.
How do you figure 120mph? It's ~1kg and I would guess has a higher surface area relative to mass than a person whose terminal velocity is about 120mph.
In any event, it takes a person 8s to get close to terminal velocity — that's a drop of 300m or so.
The energy involved is certainly non trivial but energy is not the whole story. The densest, heaviest pieces will be the battery and motors.
depends where you fly. A 2-5+ kg drone, even if the props aren't spinning is gonna do serious damage if it drops from the sky and hits someone on the head. With spinning CF props you can easily slice someone up pretty bad
But a drone with a parachute falling into a pack of racing bicyclists sounds like a really bad idea as well, doesn't it? The larger issue seems to be the possibility of drones crashing into people who are involved in an activity that requires 100% concentration.
In order to make flying aerial drones safer, DJI, maker of popular quadcopters like the Phantom 2, is currently developing a parachute system called DropSafe, which can be deployed instantly in a case of emergeny
The problem is these drones often have prop guards that would make them a lot safer to fly, but you almost never see the prop guards on a drone do you? Any other safety gear would be stripped by operators just like that. It hurts their flight time and performance after all.
Cars and bikes are directly controlled by humans, and in the case of an emergency, then can perform necessary maneuvers to reduce the damages. Not saying that always happens, but for the most part it does.
A drone that loses an engine falls out of the sky and lands on top of anything that is below it, and as of right now, there are no evasive maneuvers that can be executed. Especially for drones that are being used to record large public gatherings, things like multiple engines or parachutes should be absolutely mandatory, at least by the organizers of the event.
Needless to say, I'd bet it'll take one or two insurance claims until they are.
The front fork on your bike is almost certainly not six-nines reliable. If it breaks, you're not doing any evasive maneuvers. Ditto for car electronics. I'd wager that cars fail at a rate higher than 1:million, potentially leaving the driver effectively with no control (literally no control if drive-by-wire, no effective control for many people if power steering and breaking cut out).
Well, also look closely at the most common failure modes for a front fork: (1) the handle bars wiggle out of alignment, which still allows you to brake and stop safely; (2) the axle nuts are loose, in which case you probably won't even notice unless you hit a bump, as the dropouts for removing the front wheel point toward the ground; (3) the steering locks in a particular direction, in which case you still can brake safely and stop. Catastrophic failure of the welds or metal itself is extremely rare, without some advance warning like wobbling or creaking.
To my knowledge, no commonly sold cars are exclusively drive-by-wire for the braking system. If you lose all control in a car, you can turn off the ignition and forceful application of the brakes allows you to stop, even if you lose the power assistance.
By contrast, the most common failure mode for a drone in the air is... it falls out of the sky. That's pretty much the long and the short of it. There is good reason that flying objects should be held to a higher standard of safety.
I even suppose that parachutes or stability with 1-2 engines lost might not be "mandatory". The cost of insurance of unequipped craft flying on a major event would be so high that nobody would even try that.
I was walking down Hollywood Blvd one day when they suddenly shut the street down for about 5 minutes to do a fly-by RC helicopter shot. This was a few years before lightweight drones and cameras were on the market and this helicopter reminded me of a flying lawnmower! As it whizzed by me and thousands of other people, I was pretty sure it could easily have taken off a limb.
I have a fairly cheap drone with a built-in camera and, no doubt, it could cause a scratch or bruise if it hit you at full speed, but luckily it's nothing like they used to be.
I believe NYT carried an article last year about an RC chopper flyer who got beheaded by his own chopper's main rotor. It happened in the Central Park. It was a large RC Chopper and something went wrong and he ended up get killed. He apparently liked to do some dangerous stunts apparently...
However I would think these drones' propellers are shorter thus less dangerous? Any ideas?
These little quads use much smaller propellers and they run on smallish batteries. I've got a cheap quad and it's so light you can chuck it at someone as hard as you can and would only hurt them if it hit them in the eye. When I'm flying it anywhere that has even a chance of other people being around, I use the prop guards on it (at the expense of weight/flight time) so nobody would get smacked by a spinning rotor if it somehow ended up near them.
For the most part, these little ones can probably hurt you as much as being hit with a rogue frisbee in the park. No decapitations. The bigger ones (Phantoms and the like) are more autonomous and better at avoiding crashes. Still, it's always a possibility and if you think you have any business flying one, you will know not to do so in a manner that makes it likely to hit anyone.
I think of it like riding a bike or a motorcycle. When you ride a bike you are supposed to stay on the road but a lot of people (especially kids with smaller bikes) will sometimes ride on the sidewalk or through the park anyway. This isn't usually a big deal because they won't do any major damage in the unlikely event of a crash.
But an adult on a large bike or a motorbike will get a ticket for riding on the sidewalk because you can do a lot more damage and you're probably moving a lot faster. As an adult on a big bicycle or motorcycle, you're obligated to only ride it in such a way that you don't put people at unnecessary risk.
I think of the little toy quads as the equivalent of kids' bikes and the Phantoms and larger video-centric copters like motorcycles. Sure, fly the toy in the house or in the park but if you're carrying cameras and gimbals and big battery packs and larger rotors, you really need to plan your shoots and locations to avoid the greater risk (IMO). It's a fair tradeoff for a fun hobby.
He was flying a Trex 700-class stunt helicopter, with a large 1.6m diameter single rotor. He was using it for complex aerobatics - high accelerations, very high turn rates, very little respect for the gravity vector.
You can't do these sorts of things at all with human-sized helicopters - they're not maneuverable enough. In fact, the increase in maneuverability as high-powered single-rotor helicopters scale down is actually a problem for human reaction time. Model helicopters conventionally used a mechanical flybar in order to make the helicopter less responsive to inputs and more controllable. More recent innovations in flybarless electronics have enabled fly-by-wire control to substantially speed up responsiveness while still permitting stable flight when desired.
A single-rotor stunt helicopter is very different from a camera multirotor. A 1.6m carbon fiber blade vs a (usually plastic) 0.1-0.4m blade. A high-powered two-stroke engine vs a battery and motors.
And very importantly, the purpose of the two aircraft is entirely different. This type of helicopter uses collective and cyclic pitch oscillations, and a rudder. That's a completely different control scheme than a normal multirotor, which uses differential thrust. It lends itself to storing energy in the angular momentum of the blades at low collective pitches (running the rotor progressively faster while hovering), and then releasing it all in a maneuver by setting the pitch higher. That means the flat, strong carbon fiber rotor blades can be travelling at a tip speed of 400mph or higher. Even a very large camera-toting quadrotor is likely to have a (plastic, thin, bendy) rotor tip speed in the 100-150mph range - they're optimized for hovering battery life, and differential throttle has limited maneuverability, and the slower & larger the better. Being so much ligher per (disposable, easy to break) prop means that even at similar tip speeds the angular momentum is much diminished.
"Video footage has emerged of Mr Pirozek, who was a world-recognised aerobatic flyer, putting his Trex 700 helicopter through a series of remarkable tricks, including one that involves dropping the $1,500 model out of the sky by turning off the engines and restarting them just before the model chopper hits his head."
Lastly, "beheaded" seems to be a linkbait overstatement, and is considered dubiously by the medically inclined - even with all the power behind those blades, the skull is a very strong thing. The eyewitness comment was that there were wounds to his scalp, which tabloids turned into "cut off the top of his head" and then into "cut off his head". There were wounds to his scalp, but the ones to his throat are likely the ones that killed him. You don't need to sever the spinal column to slit a throat with a sharp blade.
So: Basically, he was doing something tantamount to juggling axes as a hobby, completely unlike FPV quadrotors. Deft skill he may display for a while, but nobody should be particularly shocked when conscious risk-taking like that ends in tragedy.
No need. A Canada Goose[1] can take out an engine; a flock can take out an airliner.[2] There are many drones larger than the geese, so I would expect this to be a distinct possibility.
I'm fairly confident it would destroy the jet engine. The shrapnel from the drone is likely to blow the very tight tolerances between the compressor blades and the body of the jet engine, causing jams.
This is a big, big worry of mine. I'm considering doing commercial work with drones, and the major thing holding me back is the risk of injuring others with these things. The DJI Phantom, and Inspire, could kill someone if they fell from high enough. And I can tell you from personal experience, the software is simply not even CLOSE to bug-free enough for me to be worry free.
The more I think about it, the more I think, the risk of flying these things in populated places just isn't worth it.
I wonder if a heavier-than-air airship design would be safer. A balloon with helium or even hydrogen would let such a device fall slowly with engines off, and motors would let it fly up and maneuver around swiftly enough.
Why, it can still be multi-rotor, and even capable of bigger payload with the same battery.
The air drag from the balloon will be an issue. OTOH the motors could be run at low power when cruising and at high power when speedy maneuvers are required.
The size will definitely be bigger. But if we talk about professional-grade drones (for video reporting, etc), they are large and expensive as they are. Improved safety and thus easier time getting allowed in to a worthy event might be more important than a lean package.
Could the airship configuration be a recovery mechanism? IE, instead of having a parachute or airbag to soften the landing, have compressed helium release into an airship and then continue powered flight with whichever motors remain?
HyperBlimps are a lot safer, silent and mellower photography platforms than drones. Not quite as portable, and you need a tank of helium, of course. But equipped with solar panels they can stay up indefinitely, and built with transparent plastic they can be almost invisible in the sky.
>Hyperblimps, like traditional planes, can handle winds according to the speed of the ship. Our top speed as of July 10, 2010, is 40 mph, enabling a skilled operator to fly in winds of about 15 mph. We hope to be surpassing that speed soon. As for crosswinds, the ship is simply “crabbed,” just as a traditional plane is.
Can't really find this on the site but does it have any sort of collision avoidance? What if I am running on a sidewalk and it runs into a tree branch above?
Y6 is barely controllable if one of the rotor fails but still able to land without much hassle. Hexa in normal configuration handles motor failure better. If you want real redundancy go for X8 or normal octo - 16 rotor copters would be even better but these are pretty rare.
Yes, a critical failure of the flight controller or power system can still cause it to fall from the sky. I've never had that happen personally and I've logged a lot of hours on custom built quads.
If you are using alpha/beta FC firmware or your settings are still being tweaked you shouldn't anywhere near people anyway.
I've lost engines that resulted in nasty crashes. As I fly quads almost exclusively they are always nasty. As such, I never fly over or near people (other than myself).
I've read of full power loss, but never personally experienced it.
In any case I think I'd be more afraid of bad FC firmware that resulted in a fly-away event. Those are super dangerous as the machine just takes off into the air and away from you. That has the potential to be MUCH worse as the altitude they eventually fall from is significant. If you've never seen a full-power ascent of a multicopter then you're in for a surprise at the speed at which they can disappear while going straight up.
Once you have redundancy in the powertrain, getting redundancy from a flight computer is relatively straight forward. At that point 3 rotors on one side of the craft or multiple computers have to all fail simultaneously to cause a real loss of control, and even then algorithmic changes can be made to the flight computer to allow semi-controlled landings with multiple prop failures.
I would think a multi-FC voting system, like what the shuttle used, would be the way to go for FC redundancy.
Mix that with a dual power system and 6 or 8 motors and I think you get MUCH better redundancy and fault tolerance.
And while you are at it perhaps a disconnected drogue chute that deploys if a watchdog signal is lost. Not something that is large, just enough to slow the decent to non-dangerous speeds.
A consumer follow-me quad with a youtube camera launched via kickstarter? Probably not. A future DJI aerial photography product with a 4000-8000 price tag? Absolutely. If Amazon ever intends to deploy these for actual package delivery instead of just PR they'll need redundant computers with a voting system, fault tolerant flight control algorithms with some kind of fault case detection and some kind of failsafe parachute / alarm system to slow down descent and alert anyone on the ground of an incoming object with 16+ razor sharp carbon fiber blades.
To say nothing of things like active sonar/lidar avoidance and a secondary navigation system of some sort for when GPS is unavailable.
Absolutely, for the higher end. What scares me is these consumer drones with inexperienced pilots/autonomous tech without proper failsafes. I'm pretty sure they will be banned from ski slopes etc pretty quick.
Optical flow can hold pretty stable when GPS is unavailable, other types of CV like SLAM even better.
"What scares me is these consumer drones with inexperienced pilots/autonomous tech without proper failsafes."
For people who are into building and flying multirotors in a hobbyist capacity-- this is the nightmare we live everyday since DJI showed up.
Optical flow can hold position pretty well-- but will they be able to figure out how to navigate by it!?
If the whole drone fleet can be made safer than the percentage of cars that drones replace (e.g. by making deliveries), than a case can be made for drones on safety grounds alone, giving zero weight to convenience and economics.
Cars kill 40k people per year in the US. Lets not forget "drones" have been around for 50+ years they were previously called "RC Helicopters" and "RC Airplanes" and have a pretty darn good safety record.
I'd agree with you in that drones are pretty dangerous in cities.
But for the case of filming extreme sports, like bike races or skiing, the sport is likely inherently MUCH more dangerous than whatever could happen because of the drone, especially if the drone isn't directly above the athletes. Your bike/skiis/etc. aren't anywhere close to 99.9999% safe.
I wonder if it could it be possible to have a canister of compressed hydrogen that will inflate a balloon large enough to slow down the fall, if the acceleration goes beyond a certain threshold, like .5g or something?
Nobody is happy because these things mean nothing, honestly. Who cares about the credit card(s)?
There are people starving to death on the one side of the planet while there are others who don't know what to do with their money on the other. I'm not saying everyone should be driving Ferrari's but in 2015 there shouldn't be people without shelter, food or basic medical safety lying around. If we as a society solve THIS problem then, everybody will much more happy than it is today.
That said, flying objects are inherently dangerous. I was at a bike race and a guy was following the pack with a DJI drone. One motor suddenly failed and the thing plummeted to the ground from 40ft and broke into a bunch of pieces. Luckily, it didn't hit anyone but it would have been a major incident if it had.
There's a lot of excitement about the cool, flashy features of these drones (following, waterproof, nice camera) but no assurance that it won't suddenly break and kill someone.
I want 99.9999% reliability and strong safety guarantees as a feature.