If this had hit someone on the head, I think it could have been fatal.

Mikrokopter Drone Crashes into Skyscraper - YouTube

And some people talk about using those at weddings!!!!

The controllablity of these things might not be up to coping with the extreme gusts and eddies between tall buildings even if at groundlevel things seem calm. The lithium fire is not very encouraging. If the burning bits had lobbed in through a bus window, the public liabilty risk does not bear thinking about.

Ouch! Smoke and all.

We have a young lad in town who has one, and seems to flown it in, what I thought, were high risk places.

The footage of the beach at the begining was a test of the copter's homing ability. It saves a GPS location of the transmitter, and if it looses it control signal, it returns to that location. Youn Daniel says it got about three kilometers up the beach before he lost the video feed, (he has real time video link to the copter). At that point he turned off the transmitter, and it came back to him. Clever stuff.

Incidentally, he has some shocking flicker in his footage. The camera is the NEX-5 but I don't know what settings he used. Any thought on what the problem is?

Wyesguy Photography Hexacopter demo - YouTube

I was going to say that Larry, Curly, and Moe in the first video didn't seem to have it all together... there are risks to anything, but clearly those guys needed some flight time (and a belt!?) before flying/shooting in a urban setting.

I've played with "microcopters", some handle better than others, and it definitely takes TIME to get the feel for them, even just flying around indoors with no "environmental" issues. That video looked more to me like a rookie pilot who didn't know how to control the vehicle than anything else. Even after some computer R/C simulator time, flying an actual heli is "interesting"...

The last video shows how you go slow and control the aircraft, not hit the throttle and "go" - again, the difference between a "rookie" and a seasoned pilot/operator... and the natural instinct to "cut" the throttle would likely have dropped the thing straight out of the air long before it careened off with a mind of it's own... unless there was some other mechanical/electrical issue.

I almost wondered with the massive amount of "pyrotechnics/smoke" whether this was another "staged" viral video attempt? Do they have "Jacka$$" in NZ (the show, not the breed, as I know THOSE can be found anywhere...)?

I've seen local R/C flyers crater a traditional "stunt" heli (doing agressive maneuvers, doesn't take much to cause a crash, and it happens FAST!), at the local airshow - you wouldn't want to be right under it, but it sure didn't blow up or injure anyone... the "parts recovery" did elicit an approving cheer from the crowd <wink>... and stunt flying is far more violent than anything you'd expect from a video platform properly operated!

Well...I will say a few things about this highly illegal act...
(First video of course)
First...this is just the kind of crap that is going to get ALL R/C video and photography banned forever. And for those of us who follow the letter of the law knowing full well the risks of flying ANY machine, that will be a major bummer. This is a fresh topic with the FAA, AMA and several other organizations trying to figure out how to accommodate hobbyists and professionals. It's not settled yet!

Second...there are no pyrotechnics involved. The thick smoke is from a punctured lipo battery. I've seen this up close and it's scary as they explode violently in certain situations causing fires. It's a very common type of battery that is sealed in a foil pouch. Puncture that pouch in a crash and basic chemistry takes over. Lithium burns when coming in contact with air and can reach temps above 1400 deg. Oh and the smoke is toxic.

Cannot say how pissed off this video makes me!
Going to bed now!

I thought Dave was mixing up the posts for a moment there, as I had not noticed the crash video was in New Zealand, and the second video that I posted was also in NZ.

When I first moved to NZ from the UK I was more than surprised at the casual attitude to risk. At three different Motocross meetings I photographed, I was allowed to wander anywhere I wanted whenever I wanted. I think I could have stood in the middle of the track with the bikes racing past me, and no one would batted an eye lid!

I'd still like to hear opinions about what the likely cause of the flicker in the second video was caused by?

I didn't observe flicker as such but there is stutter in the playback of the clip at my end. That may be related to the upload and download to viewer path.

If there is flicker that I am not observing, it may be attributable to strobing in the image due to propellor blade shadows falling on the front element of the lens, or vibrations from the propellor airflow trembling the camera ever so slightly and inducing a very slight rolling shutter artifact.

This operator is very good, harmonising the crane ups/downs and the tilts to retain pleasing compostion, not an easy task I am sure.

Yeah, I noticed more than a few NZ "epic fail" style videos of stuff crashing and blowing up (sometimes deliberately!). Maybe I should consider a move! The first video IS a good example of poor practices, the second a good example of a operator that knows how to fly and protect against risks.

I have heard of the "risks" associated with Lithium batteries - and no doubt under certain conditions they can be a serious problem (recalling the loss of the UPS cargo plane because of a lithium battery fire in a large shipment of vell phone batteries IIRC, and the resulting bans on large or large quantities of LiOn batteries in aircraft/shipments).

Even an alkaline battery gets pretty hot if shorted - improper handling is one issue, but it appears that "catastrophic failure" is another, and it appears in that first video that the battery was ventilated by the severe impact... based on a number of "battery abuse videos" on YouToob. I'd speculate that better packaging and perhaps better airframe design could reduce any such risks...

I somehow suspect Larry Curly and Moe "homebuilt" their "chopper", and THAT might have contributed to the EPIC FAIL - while not a fan of regulation, some people simply don't properly evaluate risks (texting and driving being a prime example) and must be "induced" to do what their tiny little brains are otherwise unable to fathom... There is a reason for the saying "dumber than a bag of hammers"...




RE: Flashing

In the second video, I noticed what appeared to be a very slight "pulsing" in spots (wasn't overly bad), and without knowing the entire workflow, it's hard to know where that was introduced (original footage/ingested footage/edited footage/rendered footage/uploaded footage). I did see one severe instance of "flashing" in the bell tower, caused by moire/aliasing that is a well known "weakness" of large sensor cameras. That was because of what appeared to be a fine "mesh" grill over the bell tower openings, that pattern really messed up the ability of the camera to process the detail in the image!

Thanks for your comments re the flicker. It is _very_ apparent at my end, so I am surprised some of you are not seeing it. I've sent Daniel (the 'pilot' in the second video) a link to this thread, and told him he ought to sign up to DVInfo, so he just might happen along.

I guess the operator was not the owner. If you turn up the volume and listen carefully, you can hear the heli operator call the apparent owner and apologize. At 2:12 you can clearly hear him say "I do apologize".....then mentions the building at 2:18.

Looking at the footage again, I'm wondering what caused the crash:
1. A sudden gust of wind blew the aircraft out of control and into the building?
2. Radio interference, or multiple reflections caused a break in the link, causing loss of control?
3. Pilot error?
4. Equipment malfunction?

Crash was pure pilot error. Watch and you'll see it spinning as it gets higher and higher. There's no indication which is the front or back of the copter and once you lose orientation...game over! And the bounce off the building probably killed the radio or the pilot panicked and stopped trying to save it. Most of the guys flying these put a very bright piece on it to mark the front. We do the same with helis. They get visually small really quickly. There is zero room for error if you can't tell the orientation.

Once again...inexperienced dumbasses in the vid. Very lucky no one was injured or killed!

Well I can't hear the comments Warren mentions.

The guy standing on the right is wearing some heavy black goggles. Would they be some sort of gizmo that lets him see live video from copter camera? Daniel's Hexacopter needs two operators. Daniel, who owns and built it, was controlling the movement, and he had a buddy with him who carried what looked like a seven inch screen with a deep hood, and he looked to be controlling the camera. In the Auckland crash video, the guy with the big black goggles also appears to be carrying what could be a second RC unit.

Robert's comments about orientation vividly highlight the problems involved in controlling these unhelpfully symmetrical flying kaleidoscopes. The copter might be responding to a wind gust, confusing the operator into thinking he caused the movement, and reacting by moving the joystick 180° in the wrong direction. i.e. into the side of a building.

Don’t worry too much about injured Kiwis. Most NZ hospital Emergency Departments have a big jar of ‘Harden Up’ pills on the counter. So long as all your limbs are still attached, one or two of these pills fixes up a crook Kiwi.

Original video was deleted by author, here are new links to more crashes. First on the list "Mikrocopter Drone Crashes into Skyscraper" was the original video this thread referred to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=opZDKXybZGE&feature=endscreen
Mikrokopter - bad and dangerous crash on Vimeo
Mikrokopter - 200m d'altitude et crash on Vimeo
Mikrokopter Crash - YouTube
Mikrokopter aerial video "crash" - motor burns out! - YouTube
Quadcopter Crash and BURN yes BURN - YouTube
400ft Quadcopter Crash with GoPro - YouTube
FPV quadcopter crash - YouTube
Quadcopter Crash Compilation - Bloopers from FPV Aerial Video Shoot - XP2 XPro Heli - GoPro Hero2 - YouTube

In most of these crashes, you'll see that:
1. Loss of control occurred quickly and unexpectedly.
2. These should never be used in close proximity of people...the risk is far too great.

I loved the end of the 'Burn yes Burn' video. That was real panic! Not sure as I'd want to invest serious money in a rig if that shakey footage was typical though.

Seems to me that bad piloting may well be an indicator of bad airframe construction... These are "homebuilt" rigs to start with, and some sounded none too healthy on the audio. One looked like it experienced some sort of electrical/signal interference, either "internal" or external. Looked to me like mostly amateur pilots, and amateur cam operators as well, seemed like improper load/CG balance wasn't helping in some cases...

IOW there are so many possible "fail" points on these videos that it's hard to say what caused the wrecks (other than the fencepost... clearly a goof by a more experienced pilot).

These are "expensive toys", and just like the morons who crash Lamborghinis and Maseratis because they shouldn't be behind the wheel of a tricycle, some people don't have the slightest appreciation for the risks and take few or no precautions to avoid potential problems. Some people like to ride motorcycles without helmets...

I'm not sure that means that the copters themselves are inherently dangerous, just that if you put a loose nut behind any device/machine/contraption, it makes for "funny" video... now everyone has a camera, it's just more apparent how dumb things happen to "silly" people doing stupid things...

Wow. Crashed RC jet causes a major fire?
LiveLeak.com - RC Jet crashes into apartment complex in Taiwan (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d86_1215817993)

Too much heat causes fires, gravity causes things to fall out of the sky, uncontrolled momentum causes things to bash into other things... unexpected design flaws rear their ugly head...

All basic physics, AKA "doodie happens", or "things fall apart, it's scientific"...

Shouldn't be that surprising, or result in a bunch more rules against "stupidity" or "crazy"... if we passed a law every time anyone did anything stupid or crazy, EVERYONE would have a criminal record... and the politicians would have no time to pass a budget... oh wait, nevermind... Soon perhaps we'll all have to roll up in bubble wrap and wear a helmet to go outside, since we are too stupid to prevent harm coming to ourselves or others...

The other night someone had their live feed from a microcopter and GP camera on the "Holiday Lights" segment on the late evening news... no one was injured... the lights were pretty...

The small percentage of the time when things go "wrong" it makes the news, the rest of the time, we muddle through pretty well... After all, we just survived the end of the world, right?

"and one of the last two flying field was immediately closed by the government." A bit of a jackbooted but effective way of containing a problem.

Ah well, we shall have to get off our bronzes out here and promote a tourist package for all who want to fly RC out here in our wide open spaces. Jandakot Airport already hosts several flying schools for offshore airlines, China Southern being one of them, so a venue in a safe location for offshore radio flyers would not be such a bad thing.

The copter hitting the tall building clip made our national TV news a week or so back. Not sure how it suddenly became news so long after the event, but this is New Zealand, and you should see what makes the front pages of local newspapers!

It was the usual knee jerk, how about some control before someone gets hurt angle, but they have a point. When I lived in the UK I regularly used a footpath that ran along the Thames Estury, close to an RC Model Club's field at Liegh-on-Sea. I regularly got buzzed, and had one close call where an out of control crashed onto the footpath five yards in front of me! I guess you have to put things into perspective when you look at yet another gun tragedy in the States. :-(

Do NOT crash an RC helicopter on your head. *graphic*
Atlas of Ophthalmology: Helicopter blade ocular injury* by Dr. Adrian Koay (http://www.sarawakeyecare.com/Atlasofophthalmology/Oculoplastic/picture56helicopterbladeinjury.htm)

+1 _very_ graphic. Some up close images of some very nasty injuries, so please don't click on the link if you are even slightly squeamish!

Quadcopter hits groom on head. How long will it be before someone actually gets killed?
LiveLeak.com - Quadcopter hits groom (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=861_1376660918)

That's just wrong on so many levels however creating laws to prevent this sort of thing happening is futile.

I seriously doubt that anyone who is as stupid as this pilot [and to a lessor extent the bride and groom] can read or comprehend them anyway.

You just can't legislate stupidity and the people who continually try are simply demonstrating their own stupidity...

That's just wrong on so many levels however creating laws to prevent this sort of thing happening is futile.
Not necessarily - it means that if someone is still stupid enough to do it, it's much easier to take them to court either on criminal charges or to sue them. Without the laws, they can just say "whoops, accidents happen...." and it's far more difficult legally. That has a deterent effect as well as punishing the guilty.

Drink driving may be a good parallel. If someone in the past caused an accident whilst drunk, they may still have been prosecuted but without specific laws it's more difficult.

Trouble is, these laws penalise the responsible as well as the idiots, but there are now so many examples of problems with idiots with quadrocopters that laws are probably inevitable.

Chances are that was a wedding videographer that shot this, its already against the law and that didn't prevent it from happening.

Also chances are that the most the couple could hope for by taking this person to court would be a free wedding video from the guy that almost killed them. I doubt he has any significant assets.

Not sure how well the drunk driving laws prevent people from driving while intoxicated? They don't seem to work all that well even after someone is prosecuted for it which is kind of my point.

Statistically more people are killed with hammers, we must immediately outlaw hammers!! Only fuly licensed trained and insured people should own a hammer!!

<snarkastic mode off>

Really, this is a better example of "stupidity should be painful"... more laws don't do anything but criminalize otherwise responsible behavior and open the door to more (often frivolous) litigation. Not something anyone "needs"...

Outlawing stupidity simply makes EVERYONE a "criminal" sooner or later - anyone here that can say that they NEVER did something "stupid"??? ANYONE??? Ferris? Hello?? <crickets>...

Yep, people do stupid things, sometimes on purpose, sometimes from ignorance, sometimes due to "accident", mechanical failure or bad programming... sometimes it results in damage or injury. Laws won't stop it, and providing more empolyment opportunity for "counselors" will eventually mean we all have to walk around wrapped in bubble wrap or something! Promote common sense and personal responsibility instead

Also chances are that the most the couple could hope for by taking this person to court would be a free wedding video from the guy that almost killed them. I doubt he has any significant assets.
Two things. He should be insured for legal actions against him as a result of accidents during his work, and that should pay out.

Secondly, whatever any civil action, then the police may well wish to bring criminal charges. Even without specific law, this may well come under something like GBH without intent. (Basically, somebody is injured through recklessness or stupidity without any malicious intent.)

And whilst it wouldn't turn the clock back, stop that accident happening, the Prosecution Service may argue that it serves as a warning to others. Same as many other prosecutions brought - not simply to punish perpretrators, but warn everybody else.
Not sure how well the drunk driving laws prevent people from driving while intoxicated? They don't seem to work all that well even after someone is prosecuted for it which is kind of my point.
I think you need to look up statistics. The reason I chose drink driving is that it's an example where the results are fairly unequivocal, at least in the UK. Take a look at Drink Driving Statistics | Statistics On Drinking & Driving (http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_statistics_uk.php) for example.

I'm normally highly suspicious of statistics but these show for the thirty years between 1979 and 2008 a drop in both accidents and deaths attributable to illegal alcohol levels down to roughly a QUARTER of the 1979 levels. The conviction levels are also interesting - rising to a peak around the late 80's, then falling back, even though remaining high compared to 1979. Which seems to prove that whilst people are still being prosecuted, so obviously there's still a lot of driving with illegal levels, the legislation seems to have worked in terms of preventing deaths and casualties.

Since the ratio of deaths/accident is fairly constant, that takes a lot of factors out of the reckoning (cars being more intrinsically safe, seat belt wearing etc). It's difficult to think of any other reason for the huge alcohol related accident/death rate reductions than the drink drive legislation and it's enforcement.

Dave - in law the word "reasonable" gets used a lot, and generally a clear line is drawn between "being a bit unlucky" and "downright stupid or reckless". There's a lot of difference between careless and dangerous driving, for example. The former would normally be seen as result of a momentary lapse, the latter a more premeditated act, something happening over a period of time, or planned. I don't want to see anybody persecuted for a bit of carelessness, but that's no excuse to let off people whose behaviour may "reasonably" be considered dangerous or reckless.

THIS JUST IN! Someone in the crowd got hit in the face at Great Bull Run, Virginia. What caused this? Dropped command signal? Equipment malfunction?

Drone crash: | WTVR.com (http://wtvr.com/2013/08/24/watch-drone-crashes-into-crowd-at-great-bull-run/)

To be frank I would only fly one of these if I was VERY VERY confident at a wedding ...

I would defo use it for out door establishing shots and may be one or two posed shots with the bride / groom ... never would I fly it over guests etc. Simply too risky ... you don't know who's in that crowd and what they will do should you crash.

Why risk your business just to get a nice looking shot that a steadycam or slider can do just as well !

I think it crashed because the battery drained out.

The battery life of these drones are pretty poor. While flying one doesn't realise that the time is running out.

It was a DIRECT HIT, and no one was seriously injured or killed... hmm... guess it could have been worse, but still, relatively minor and in a fairly "worst case" scenario with a fairly large (aka not really "micro") copter.

More interesting is that the rig was "on lease" - no info about pilot training, experience or qualifications. was it equipment malfunction or someone leaning over to grab a beer (hitting the stick in the process)? Probably will never know, but at least no serious harm was done.

I'm not sure if you were trying to make a point with your "direct hit" comment or not. If so I would offer that it was incredibly lucky nobody was seriously hurt. What if it would have hit and killed an infant or small child?

These rigs have no place flying directly over large crowds, ever.

I think it crashed because the battery drained out.

The battery life of these drones are pretty poor. While flying one doesn't realise that the time is running out.

Any experienced pilot should know how long their battery is going to last, and should be using a timer to know when to land. Battery running out isn't an excuse for crashing in my opinion.

It was a DIRECT HIT, and no one was seriously injured or killed... hmm... guess it could have been worse, but still, relatively minor and in a fairly "worst case" scenario with a fairly large (aka not really "micro") copter.
Not seriously injured/killed in this case - but what if it hit a different part of the body? What if child or elderly person? What if the hit person had been on stairs etc and fallen as a result? I've now seen enough to know that if I went to an event, I would not want such as these being operated over my head.

Unfortunately, the end result is that all the devices, all the owners will now get tarred with the same brush. As I said before: - "Trouble is, these laws penalise the responsible as well as the idiots, but there are now so many examples of problems with idiots with quadrocopters that laws are probably inevitable. "

The danger is that if sensible laws aren't made for the commercial operation of these, the result will be a complete ban.
More interesting is that the rig was "on lease" - no info about pilot training, experience or qualifications. was it equipment malfunction or someone leaning over to grab a beer (hitting the stick in the process)? Probably will never know, but at least no serious harm was done.
By the sound of things, the owner hired it out to "someone involved with filming the event", and one comment on the TV report implies the reason for the crash was a failing battery. Maybe - but sounds like the operator was relatively inexperienced, maybe good enough for basic operation, but not enough to know battery limitations etc.

This was posted elsewhere, but someone has been killed. The only positive thing about this is that it wasn't an innocent bystander, but the pilot himself.

Still, it fuels the debate for taking RC helicopters seriously. With large blades they can be fatal. The much smaller props of multirotor helicopters aren't nearly as bad, although still very serious.

Regarding the multicopter that crashed into spectators, that particular controller has a reputation of simply running away on its own. There are systems that are much more reliable and are about the same price.

Any experienced pilot should know how long their battery is going to last, and should be using a timer to know when to land. Battery running out isn't an excuse for crashing in my opinion.

I was mentioning a probable cause that the battery could have run out.

What percentage of users are experienced pilots?

Couple of days back there was a report of a fatal accident due to one remote copter.

Oct 1 crash in East Manhattan, New York
EXCLUSIVE: Small helicopter drone crash lands on New York city street | 7online.com (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Finvestigators&id=9270668)

the stupidity can only escalate, there are now several ready to crash models available under $1000 for any moron to buy

Clearly this person had no control over the Phantom quadcopter, and shouldn't have been flying it anywhere except a large, uninhabited area.

That said, I'm surprised the first impact didn't take it down immediately.

Good thing he didn't get hit in the eye.

LiveLeak.com - Skater hits camera drone (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=abf_1383456637)

Any experienced pilot should know how long their battery is going to last, and should be using a timer to know when to land. Battery running out isn't an excuse for crashing in my opinion.

I got three original batteries from B&H for my partner who is a trained pilot. All those three gives erratic results and the copter is prone to crash. The phantom becomes perfectly stable when the original battery is used. I only fly to fulfill my childhood wish of flying. This technology is not mature. So one ought to be very careful.