RCU Forums - View Single Post - AMA - Just 250 words in FAA Report on Drone Safety
Old 05-25-2017, 11:56 AM
  #11  
S_Ellzey
Senior Member
 
S_Ellzey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Waco, Texas
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Yesterday the FAA announced and published the results of that big study they funded on drones, the one looking at safety etc. that will inform the rule making process. Links are provided below. If you look at the report, which is extensive, well researched, and highly scientific, the AMA's "data" received just 250 words (counting the paragraph title) in 195 pages of dense writing.

In an email to EVP Gary Fitch about two years ago, I commented that AMA would face increasing pressure over the next few years and would find itself needing the ability to prove it's members were as safe as they say. I recommended that they start keeping much better mishap and near miss data so they would be ready for it. He pointed out that they were "pretty smart" people and didn't see the need. Now they're staring down a report mentions AMA "data" only in passing. Why? Because this is a serious scientific study and they know AMA's "data" is garbage. If data is good, you don't mention it just once in a report and never refer to it again.

This report also discusses science based risk to life from crashing "drones." They've pulled from ample sources that show about 150 ft-lbs of force to the head / torso of a standing person produces a 90% Probability of Fatality (POF). Putting that in perspective, a 30lb 200 mph "toy" represents about 80,000 ft-lbs of force. Speaking of turbine flying by AMA members, in the July EC meeting they were discussing lack of compliance / self enforcement of safety rules by turbine community. By their own admission, AMA "knows there is a problem" but that they "need to address it without driving away members." Pretty sad commentary that AMA is willing to balance membership with safety. But they are.

For a couple years I've been trying to get the AMA EVP (Gary again) to take decisive action to address the danger presented by heavy and fast models being flown by a group that has a loose sense of compliance and apparently little willingness to hold each other accountable. Now the rule making body has ample science to call for and get new rules. AMA had a chance to clean their own house, they chose the slow approach to save members at a time when time was not a luxury they had. Now the report is out and the risks are clear. It's only a matter of time until FAA can justify more restrictions.

FAA Announcement: https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=87950
Assure Reports / PPTs: FAA and ASSURE Announce Results of Ground Collision Study ? PR
You calculated the energy for a 30 lbs Jet at 200 mph wrong. It is more like 40,000 ft-lbs (one half times mass times velocity squared)

But it only takes a 5 pound object going 30 mph to get 150 Ft-lbs of kinetic energy. (1/2 * 5/32.2 * (30*5280/3600)^2) That is a .60 sized Ugly Stick at half throttle. So there is a whole bunch of models out there that can kill you if you get hit by one. Same can be said of automobiles.

The big difference between the Jet and the Ugly Stick is:

The Jet is required to have a failsafe setting, the Ugly Stick is not. (the jet community went to the AMA with that regulation by the way) The Ugly Stick can fly off and do damage at long ranges, the Jet will come down in a definable area.

The Jet is flown by someone who had to prove he could fly it, the Ugly Stick is not.

The Jet has requirements on its fuel system, the Ugly Stick does not.

The Jet has requirements for a brake system, the Ugly Stick does not.

The Jet has a defined speed limit, the Ugly Stick does not.

These are facts, not speculation, unlike your comments about a group that has a loose sense of compliance.

We can hang together or hang separately, you seem to be advocating separately.