Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 24, 2017, 01:43:10 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: Drone Operator gets 30 Days in jail for reckless endangerment in Seattle
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Drone Operator gets 30 Days in jail for reckless endangerment in Seattle  (Read 716 times)
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 347

« on: February 28, 2017, 12:00:46 PM »

http://www.bbc.com/news/39114691


A drone operator using his device for commercial purposes injured a bystander at the 2015 "Pride Parade" in Seattle.  The operator received a 30 day jail sentence.  It's not clear from the article whether the drone operator met FAA requirements for commercial operation of his equipment.  In any case, flying a drone at low level over a 'congested area' is prohibited without appropriate waivers from the FAA (and perhaps the local jurisdiction).
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,343

« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2017, 12:18:30 PM »

Interesting.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/man-convicted-in-drone-crash-that-injured-woman-during-seattles-pride-parade/

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/drone-operator-charged-with-knocking-out-woman-at-pride-parade/

Sounds more like the prosecution "making a statement", because as noted it certainly wasn't intentional.

I find it a little hard to believe that a 2lb chunk of mostly plastic would knock someone out and give them a concussion, especially considering
she didn't hit the ground, but it is Seattle.

There's no mention of it, but I wonder if there weren't aggravating or extenuating circumstances. 

Either way, as mentioned, read a heed.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,343

« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2017, 12:22:22 PM »

This article: http://www.geekwire.com/2017/man-convicted-after-out-of-control-drone-hits-building-knocks-woman-unconscious-during-2015-seattle-pride-parade/

Says it was a DJI Phantom III.  My fear with these is a nasty cut or an eye injury (It'll break the skin!), I would never have thought I could knock someone
out with it.

Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,974
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2017, 12:28:06 PM »

Might not be a good AE experiment, but try dropping a 2lb brick on a watermelon.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,343

« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2017, 01:03:28 PM »

Might not be a good AE experiment, but try dropping a 2lb brick on a watermelon.

Actually it's got a high ORM, but is an interesting experiment, because a brick is going to concentrate the force
in a small area with little to no aerodynamic drag, where the drone will have some aerodynamic drag because
it has a larger surface area.

Also the spinning knifey-thingies.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,974
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2017, 02:55:52 PM »

Might not be a good AE experiment, but try dropping a 2lb brick on a watermelon.

Actually it's got a high ORM, but is an interesting experiment, because a brick is going to concentrate the force
in a small area with little to no aerodynamic drag, where the drone will have some aerodynamic drag because
it has a larger surface area.

Also the spinning knifey-thingies.


Also factor in speed. Brick is just doing the whole "gravity theory" thing. The drone? Who knows how fast it was moving.
Logged
Starbux
Recruit

Posts: 42
Unit: SWR-NM-030

« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2017, 02:56:48 PM »

.

I find it a little hard to believe that a 2lb chunk of mostly plastic would knock someone out and give them a concussion, especially considering
she didn't hit the ground, but it is Seattle.

There's no mention of it, but I wonder if there weren't aggravating or extenuating circumstances. 

Either way, as mentioned, read a heed.

It really depends on how they fall.  I do this thing for a living along with some part time manned commercial flying.  I used to have this model for low budget work.  It seems like 2 pounds isn't much.  Its kind of condensed it depends on other factors.  He smacked a building which probably racked at least one of the motors.  When these lose a motor they tumble like a banshee.  I have an associate who did tests purposely crashing these systems for insurance data collection.  If I recall this model falling from 400 feet will accelerate to speeds near or over 200 mph.. So I would imagine getting smacked in the head with a two pound object even at 100 mph, will not be a good day.

Regardless this was extremely reckless.   The FAA is very clear whether you are flying under hobby rules called the Part 101 or the Commercial rules 107 you are not supposed to be flying over non-consenting unprotected persons. Even to fly over consenting you have to have a 107.39 waiver which outlines all sorts of risk mitigation steps.

It will be interesting to see if he gets schwacked by the FAA for this and flying commercially.  Back in 2015 you needed to be a current and qualified part 61 pilot flying under an exemption to part 91 rules called the 333.  He doesn't have one.  So yeah he is in trouble probably beyond the local prosecution. The FAA usually does not go after a non compliant flyer unless they have a mishap, then its "Game On!"
Logged
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 347

« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2017, 01:53:58 AM »

Interesting.

Sounds more like the prosecution "making a statement", because as noted it certainly wasn't intentional.

I find it a little hard to believe that a 2lb chunk of mostly plastic would knock someone out and give them a concussion, especially considering
she didn't hit the ground, but it is Seattle.

There's no mention of it, but I wonder if there weren't aggravating or extenuating circumstances. 

Either way, as mentioned, read a heed.

If reported prosecutions for auto accidents are germane, they indicate that 'intention to injure' is not necessary, only reckless and careless behavior, i.e. "negligence".

Here's an interesting article that discusses the KE of a drone strike on a person: https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/airworth/papers/human-injury-model-small-unmanned-aircraft-impacts.pdf  Other similar articles are easily located that have the look of legitimacy.  I think the bottom line is engaging in reckless behavior (and flying a drone over a crowd is definitely that!) can have uncomfortable consequences for the operator.   
Logged
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 822
Unit: GA-001/CV

« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2017, 12:43:15 PM »

.

I find it a little hard to believe that a 2lb chunk of mostly plastic would knock someone out and give them a concussion, especially considering
she didn't hit the ground, but it is Seattle.

There's no mention of it, but I wonder if there weren't aggravating or extenuating circumstances. 

Either way, as mentioned, read a heed.

It really depends on how they fall.  I do this thing for a living along with some part time manned commercial flying.  I used to have this model for low budget work.  It seems like 2 pounds isn't much.  Its kind of condensed it depends on other factors.  He smacked a building which probably racked at least one of the motors.  When these lose a motor they tumble like a banshee.  I have an associate who did tests purposely crashing these systems for insurance data collection.  If I recall this model falling from 400 feet will accelerate to speeds near or over 200 mph.. So I would imagine getting smacked in the head with a two pound object even at 100 mph, will not be a good day.

Regardless this was extremely reckless.   The FAA is very clear whether you are flying under hobby rules called the Part 101 or the Commercial rules 107 you are not supposed to be flying over non-consenting unprotected persons. Even to fly over consenting you have to have a 107.39 waiver which outlines all sorts of risk mitigation steps.

It will be interesting to see if he gets schwacked by the FAA for this and flying commercially.  Back in 2015 you needed to be a current and qualified part 61 pilot flying under an exemption to part 91 rules called the 333.  He doesn't have one.  So yeah he is in trouble probably beyond the local prosecution. The FAA usually does not go after a non compliant flyer unless they have a mishap, then its "Game On!"

I think the numbers might be a little less than 200 mph, but still significant from only 400 feet up. Assuming no initial vertical velocity (i.e. it was hovering and bumped the building and lost all controlled flight), and also assuming that the airframe hadn't reached any terminal velocity inherent to the drag from its airfoil/shape, then then Vy = Sqrt(2g(-Yo)), which is Sqrt(2(-9.8m/sec2)(-122m), that gives 48.89 m/sec, or just over 109 mph impact velocity on someone on the street.

Ouch.

V/r
Spam

PS, If anyone remembers the thread a year or two ago following the drone intrusion onto the White House grounds, the defense community has been spending significant attention since then to some of the drone EW countermeasures that we discussed there...



Logged
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 347

« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2017, 01:38:57 PM »


I think the numbers might be a little less than 200 mph, but still significant from only 400 feet up. Assuming no initial vertical velocity (i.e. it was hovering and bumped the building and lost all controlled flight), and also assuming that the airframe hadn't reached any terminal velocity inherent to the drag from its airfoil/shape, then then Vy = Sqrt(2g(-Yo)), which is Sqrt(2(-9.8m/sec2)(-122m), that gives 48.89 m/sec, or just over 109 mph impact velocity on someone on the street.

Ouch.

V/r
Spam

PS, If anyone remembers the thread a year or two ago following the drone intrusion onto the White House grounds, the defense community has been spending significant attention since then to some of the drone EW countermeasures that we discussed there...

Imagine if the drone in this video had struck Chancellor Merkel. It was low energy (not moving very fast... but...)   Ain't no surprise that the people responsible for security are "spending significant attention" to drones at the Whitehouse, and that these aircraft are finally on the radar (pun!) of local public safety agencies and prosecuting attorneys.  FWIW, there's a little bit of additional information in this AvWeb story:  http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Jail-Time-For-Drone-Pilot-228574-1.html  According to the linked article the penalties could have been a lot stiffer. 


« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 02:14:38 PM by Live2Learn » Logged
Starbux
Recruit

Posts: 42
Unit: SWR-NM-030

« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2017, 10:28:36 PM »

.

I find it a little hard to believe that a 2lb chunk of mostly plastic would knock someone out and give them a concussion, especially considering
she didn't hit the ground, but it is Seattle.

There's no mention of it, but I wonder if there weren't aggravating or extenuating circumstances. 

Either way, as mentioned, read a heed.

It really depends on how they fall.  I do this thing for a living along with some part time manned commercial flying.  I used to have this model for low budget work.  It seems like 2 pounds isn't much.  Its kind of condensed it depends on other factors.  He smacked a building which probably racked at least one of the motors.  When these lose a motor they tumble like a banshee.  I have an associate who did tests purposely crashing these systems for insurance data collection.  If I recall this model falling from 400 feet will accelerate to speeds near or over 200 mph.. So I would imagine getting smacked in the head with a two pound object even at 100 mph, will not be a good day.

Regardless this was extremely reckless.   The FAA is very clear whether you are flying under hobby rules called the Part 101 or the Commercial rules 107 you are not supposed to be flying over non-consenting unprotected persons. Even to fly over consenting you have to have a 107.39 waiver which outlines all sorts of risk mitigation steps.

It will be interesting to see if he gets schwacked by the FAA for this and flying commercially.  Back in 2015 you needed to be a current and qualified part 61 pilot flying under an exemption to part 91 rules called the 333.  He doesn't have one.  So yeah he is in trouble probably beyond the local prosecution. The FAA usually does not go after a non compliant flyer unless they have a mishap, then its "Game On!"

I think the numbers might be a little less than 200 mph, but still significant from only 400 feet up. Assuming no initial vertical velocity (i.e. it was hovering and bumped the building and lost all controlled flight), and also assuming that the airframe hadn't reached any terminal velocity inherent to the drag from its airfoil/shape, then then Vy = Sqrt(2g(-Yo)), which is Sqrt(2(-9.8m/sec2)(-122m), that gives 48.89 m/sec, or just over 109 mph impact velocity on someone on the street.

Ouch.

V/r
Spam


I re-looked at the guys data it was close to 100 at 500ft drop pressure altitude of 6700 at 36C.  There is a little form drag going on since at 500ft no drag its 121mph. 

I am not sure why I had it in my head 200.  Yup I know the freshman physics equations x=xo +vot+1/2at2 and v=vo+at  ;)
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 10:41:16 PM by Starbux » Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,391

« Reply #11 on: March 02, 2017, 03:26:01 AM »

As if getting hit by an object at 100 will make a big difference as if being hit at 200... Will the bump in the head be smaller, maybe you will get one less stitch...

The bottom line is you will still get hurt.
Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 591
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2017, 08:02:59 AM »

Interesting.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/man-convicted-in-drone-crash-that-injured-woman-during-seattles-pride-parade/

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/drone-operator-charged-with-knocking-out-woman-at-pride-parade/

Sounds more like the prosecution "making a statement", because as noted it certainly wasn't intentional.

I find it a little hard to believe that a 2lb chunk of mostly plastic would knock someone out and give them a concussion, especially considering
she didn't hit the ground, but it is Seattle.

There's no mention of it, but I wonder if there weren't aggravating or extenuating circumstances. 

Either way, as mentioned, read a heed.

It's "reckless endangerment." Doesnt require specific intent.
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
coudano
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,099

« Reply #13 on: March 02, 2017, 08:34:22 AM »

A baseball weighs about a half a pound.  Let's throw one of those at your nugget, cool?
How about 4 of them...

oh and let's also make them have sharp things spinning around them really fast that can also smash into you as well
Logged
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,443
Unit: of issue

« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2017, 09:12:13 AM »

As a relatively new drone pilot who is pursuing a 107 cert, this is just "play stupid games, win stupid prizes." 

Nobody in their right mind should be flying a drone in an obstructed area (and considering the drone hit a building, it was obstructed) around people without risk mitigation.

The FAA (and the local authorities) take a dim view of me trying to dead center my parachute in a "congested area" or over an "open-air assembly of persons" without appropriate risk controls (and authorization!)

They step in and say "If you're going to do this, we have these rules for someone at your qualification level. If you're qualified to a higher level, those rules change a little, but there are still rules.." etc.  So I can't do things like exit directly over the crowd, nor am I allowed to fly over the crowd at anything less than 250, nor land closer to the crowd than something like 50 or 100 feet.  All built-in rules to provide a modicum of risk mitigation. Not for me, but the spectating public.

It boggles my mind watching people with like 4 1/2 minutes of drone flying experience start trying to do things close to objects, at a high speed, without a spotter, etc. Then, their drone hits a wire, a house, a tree and they act like "Whoa, I had no idea this thing would fall out of the sky like that!"  Hello? Aerospace Education!

Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
Starbux
Recruit

Posts: 42
Unit: SWR-NM-030

« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2017, 06:56:50 PM »

A big problem I have noticed is that people an unqualified understanding on how this stuff works.  They hear things like, "it has collision avoidance on it, or it automatically flies itself home if I lose sight of it."  My favorite is when their first flight with a Phantom is in their 300 sq/ft backyard under a bunch of trees and crunch.  They are wondering what happened.  Most of these idiots don't even really read the manuals that all of these sensors to keep a perfect ground track have some severe limitations to do them if you don't fly in the right environments.  None of these people have any understanding of the Bernoulli effects around buildings that produce undesirable air currents around structures. They think they will never have a battery failure

I have flown in between an ally way between buildings on a close production set.  You have to know how to fly without the GPS.  So many people have no idea how to fly in the non GPS modes.  Flying in between buildings is challenging.   Your not in the aircraft so you cant feel the effects of wind shifts.  You have to be able to anticipate and react to it so just letting it rip will most likely result in a crash.

The problem is that companies like DJI are trying to engineer the stupid out of people, yet people still manage to crash the latest and greatest of these systems.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: Drone Operator gets 30 Days in jail for reckless endangerment in Seattle
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.148 seconds with 20 queries.