So this thread here: http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/new-orleans-cancels-plans-for-super-bowl-drone-after-press-inquir?xg_source=activity
Or I should say the comments in it, got me to thinking. So this may be a stupid idea, or maybe it's sheer genius. You tell me.
First off, as I stood in my living room I could hear my dryer faithfully running, it occurred to me that my clothes dryer runs and runs and runs. I looked up at the ceiling fan over my head wizzing along. Both these items run for hours on end, week after week, year after year. So why is it that every single flippin' video, photo, news article and so on that gets posted is descended upon by a pack of rabid crack head safety monkeys screaming about motor failures?
Are our motors really THAT unreliable? After flying a KK board to start with and the one-crash-per-minute flying characteristic that a non-leveling KK FC induces on a beginner, I managed to ruin the bearing on one motor after months and months of abuse. And even that one still ran, I swapped it out because it sounded different, not because it failed even after being full of sand. Once I change the bearings it'll fly again. I have yet to bend an axle. I can't imagine how you could possibly do that considering what I've seen my motors go through.
So with all that in mind, are we asking to little from our motors? Are they not as robust as a ceiling fan? Why not? Why is there an expectation of failure? Why is it that my moms Kirby vacuum cleaner is still running after 50 years, but (if you believe the Chicken Little's) multi-rotor motors fail every 15 minutes?
Ok, so hold that thought for few minutes.
I read up on Ultralights the other day. And here's how it works. It's a self regulating industry. And I quote: "FAA does not require ultralights to have any proof of airworthiness. It is the responsibility of the owner to make sure the ultralight is safe to fly." and "...it should be emphasized that the individual ultralight operator's support and compliance with national self-regulation programs is essential to the FAA's continued policy of allowing industry self-regulation in these areas.".
These quotes come from here: http://www.usua.org/Rules/ruleandregs.htm
So with these two thoughts in mind, it occurred to me, why don't we have a drone certification. And yes, American members of AMA will say that this should fall under the AMA to do. But I'm thinking bigger than that. Lets face it. It's 2012 now and at least as far as this community goes, it's a global community. Parts and people come from around the world now a days, and waiting for 120 different governing bodies to come up with 120 different sets of rules for drones all in conflict and chaos is not the way to go. Further more, it can be argued that drones are not models and should not be governed by a model association. For example, I foresee Police Departments everywhere eventually using drones for traffic control and so on. What does this have to do with the modeling hobby? Nothing. It's a new paradigm all together. There are many World Organizations that are similar in scope today. The one that comes to mind immediately is WADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency.
Here's what they do:
International Standards
The World Anti-Doping Code (Code) works in conjunction with five International Standards aimed at bringing harmonization among anti-doping organizations in various technical areas, namely, the Prohibited List, testing, laboratories, Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs), and protection of privacy and personal information.
These Standards have been the subject of lengthy consultation among WADA’s stakeholders and are mandatory for all signatories of the Code.
So here's what I propose.
That there be a World Autonomous Verification Entity (WAVE). Or maybe we can come up with a better acronym. lol
Anyways, the idea would be that a Drone could become "Certified" by complying with a set of standards. For example, concerning motors. Motors could be certified to an MTBF standard, and a certified Drone would have to replace it's motors at 50% of their MTBF. Motors would be connected in a certified manner, be it heat shrinked bullet connectors or what ever method is determined to be the WAVE standard. Only WAVE certified ESC's, FC's and Radios could be used on a WAVE certified Drone. There would be a mission checklist and pre-flight checklist, then finally a flight log, to track flight times on the ESC's, Motors and such.
Drone Manufacturers could submit a Drone for certification and sell their Drone as WAVE certified. Insurance companies could insure a flight or business with confidence knowing that a set of standards and practices were in place to guarantee safety. A crash would de-certify a drone until it were re-inspected and certified to be air-worthy again and a RCA (Root Cause Analysis) were conducted and results submitted for trend analysis.
This in no way impedes hobbyist. People are free to do what people always do. BUT when the day comes that you want to take your hobby beyond being just a hobby, there would be a path, and best of all, you could say to Chicken Little: "STFU, it's WAVE certified". (Or a better acronym of your choice).
Replies
Hi Bill /Luke
I see your plan and it has its merits, the problem of cost is a biggy , no one wants to pay more for certification. Now try getting international suppliers and countries to agree on a standard, well good luck with that one.
I design amusement rides and I am the safety and certification director for a canadian company selling all over the world.
Even the certification and testing houses dont agree on the interpertation of the SAME regulations for a correctly designed and proven design.
Now add to that a new drone that (with respect ) probably an amateur has built and possibly designed from scratch, probably has NO Rc skills and zero quality assurance and product liability. Now you have a problem. No certification house will touch this with a proverbial 12 foot barge pole.
I see a way forward by using the skills within DIY drones, I already work with my local Police force so I can fly with their blessing and help them when needed, ....how? ....by documenting my drone well, photos, drawings , safety instructions , contact details, RC certificate etc. so they dont have to waste time looking for me when my drone drops out of the sky!! My documentaion is on file at the local police station.
It may be possible to identify SKILLED drone fliers who would be willing to assit newbies, to check drones and witness test flights etc in the same way that the average RC club certifies new flyers of RC models. The people could be contacted through DIY Drones as part of a safety program.
Lets not forget that the biggest problem to solve with any certification process is finding someone to certity the certifiers. Drones flyers tend to be a long way from each other.
The expertise is right here in DIY Drones. we need to lead from the front and support the safe operation of drones worldwide. I will be very happy to be a part of that process.
Dwgsparky
Motors are only one part of the equation for reliability. Lots of other things can fail like the flight controller, ESC, receiver, etc. I think people use motors as an example because it's low hanging fruit and the concept is easy to explain.
In my opinion certification would help nothing and only raise costs. The comparisons to other things like a ceiling fan are not relevant. A ceiling fan is weak, heavy, and hardly precise. Try running a ceiling fan or a clothes dryer at 30,000 RPM and see how reliable it is.
Most of the hobby brushless motors can convert hundreds (or thousands) of watts of power into thrust, most ceiling fans are around a hundred watts or less and many times the size so the stresses and considerations are completely different. For what the little brushless motors are and as cheap as they are I'd say they're doing pretty good.
Instead of certifications to get better reliability I think designs of entire systems could be improved. For example a hexacopter or octocopter can lose one more motors (or ESC or whatever) and still fly so just don't use anything less, or receivers can be used in redundant pairs in case one fails or the signal loss failsafe can be setup for RTL. Clever design can affect reliability huge, this is what Google and other companies have done with their datacenters (commodity hardware instead of specialized hardware but redundancy through clever software).
Knowing a little about standards and certification, a motor that costs $15 now would cost $100 and might not actually be any more reliable. these motors are made mostlry by Chinese workers using low costcomponents and cheap bearings. that's why they sell spare bearings.
Now before anyone goes defensive on me, this is a hobby and an expensive one at that. If we start looking for Mil Spec components and MTBF data, we'll have to let the US military start buying these things.