Two Hurt In Remote Control Helicopter Accident In Haverhill Massachusetts

"Scott Proposki, the owner of Camera in the Sky, was testing out one of his aerial photography helicopters with his co-worker John Perry Tuesday afternoon when something went wrong.


For some reason it took off, only three feet off the ground. It hit John. Immediately I reacted, went in there and reached for it and took it off John”


Views: 1749

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This whole news article is incredible stupid.

Is it news every time somebody cuts themselves with a kitchen knife?  No.  But since this is a drone...

They called 911 for that?  Then people wonder why healthcare costs so much in the United States.

Secondly, did what Obama signed really do anything for hobby rc or drones or even commercial use.  I never knew there was a law against flying personal or commercial RC/drones in the United States.  I thought what Obama signed was to allow the infringement on the rights of citizens through the use of military drones by state and local law enforcement?  Drone seems to be a loosely used word today.

I did your search.  I found one where a trooper came to the aid of a worker who cut an artery while cutting a tarp.  I would posit that if a trooper had not been involved, the story would not have been reported.  The other "cut with knife" stories were of criminal acts with a knife.  I didn't find any where Joe or Jane Doe chef was cut with a knife that just flew off the cutting board.

Besides calling 911, the part I find stupid is "For some reason it took off,"  Most likely, it took off because it was armed and the throttle was pushed.  "It just took off" reminds me of this

Yes, we all need to know about danger but just about everything we do in life has an element of danger.  Do you want a "news" article every time someone falls down the stairs or trips over a garden hose?

Pics or it didn't happen!

I won't beat the dead horse either but you said to search for knife cuts and I did.  Only found one and it wasn't really relevant. 

With regards to pedantic, I could rehash most of your posts but I won't.  I was being pedantic on purpose.  The story was pointless.  If they would have included some advice on how to avoid what happened or even any safety advice at all I might find a point to it.  Otherwise it's just wasted bits.  Even the gratuitous "When you see someone that’s in dire straits of help, I honestly did not think twice, about just going in there and solving this. You just react and you do the right thing.” was not believable."  Especially since he put the guy in harms way in the first place.

Like Jake says below, pics or it didn't happen.  A guy shot himself in the penis and testicle a few days ago.  He tried to blame in on a passing stranger.  Guy flies multi-rotor at his friend,  hilarity insues.  Guy then brings out the "it just took off" card.

No, I think you completely misunderstand my thoughts on safety.

First of all, I never said the user was stupid.  I don't know what happened.  But, maybe it will stop him from flying around children next time...

BTW, if you're interested, I have it on video that last time I was flying in my back yard.  I noticed my neighbours came out to watch.  I landed, told them I'm sorry I can't fly if they're outside.  They didn't see a problem with it, but I told them I don't like it.  I then invited them over to have a closer look after I disconnected the battery.  I also declined to fly at the Montreal Maker Faire because it was not a safe place.

THAT is my thoughts on safety.  

My wife cut herself badly with a kitchen knife last week.  It did not make the news.  It didn't even make the local news.

The point of my comment is simply this:

Person gets cut with common object: Not news.

Person gets cut by drone: News!  Drones are not common, drones are bad!  Be afraid, be very afraid!

Also the journalist is stupid for not fact checking.  Nothing recently signed into law makes running an AP business in the US "legal".

See this is the thing...  I'm very pro-safety.  Where we differ is that I am less likely to blame the system for an incident, and more likely to blame the user who is not using proper safety precautions.

Should a FC just randomly make the motors start and cut people up?  No, of course not.  But I don't think users should expect that the FC is going to be *perfect*.  It never will be.  And they shouldn't treat it as such.  

Last night, I changed my opinion about this.  I'm sort of glad it happened.... no, I don't want anybody to get hurt.  But I'm glad that when this happened, it only hurt the operators, and not some innocent people.  *That* would have been bad!  Hopefully they, and anybody else using these systems gains a little more respect for them.

My problem with this article is why is it in the news in the first place?The only answer I can think of is that they wanted the press which is mind boggling in light of the fact that they are obviously operating a commercial concern in violation of FAA regulations. Is this an attempt to pressure the supplier? Irresponsible on all fronts...the next thing will be the FAA will take notice and these guys will get a cease and desist letter.

I honestly wonder if the FAA really cares that much.  I see more and more of these companies operating, and it seems as long as the boom operators union in LA doesn't get involved, nobody seems to care.  You can even buy proper insurance for these businesses!

Speaking of safety, check this out:

That's a 600 helicopter, and the pilot was standing right where the heli headed to.  Luckily he was able to fall back into a doorway or he would have taken a direct hit.


That's why I treat these things with respect.

Oh, and the cause of the failure?  Not a flight controller.  It was a servo failure!  Good old servos.  The rear swash servo went hard down.

This demonstrates the folly of relying on a failsafe switch.  Think you could hit it in time?  Think it would actually stop what was happening?  Nope.  The blades take about 30 seconds to stop.

The only way to be safe, is to operate safely.

The problem is we do not know what actually happened even to make any kind of suggestion. Was the unit actually "shut down" with the props stationary or was it on the ground with the motors running? I personally would not have another person holding the tx when I am near any of my equipment unless I have specifically asked them to do something and I know they know what they are doing. For all we know this guy powered off the tx and this triggered a fail-safe with a "come home" command. In my MK based system the fail safe setup is set to turn off the altitude lock climb to 30 meters and come I know what would happen if I had landed but had not shutdown the motors and then killed the tx...I suspect something along the lines of what happened with these guys..

Rory, I think that's a good hypothesis about what happened.

This is why I developed CopterLEDs.  It allows you to know quickly, and positively, exactly when the motors are or are not armed.  The code is fairly robust in that, if it's disarmed, nothing you can do will cause them to spin up.  Not that I am aware of anyway.

I strongly suggest everybody use it.

If you are disarmed, and you switch off the Tx, nothing happens.  

Something else I've done, is I had my wife sew up some loops of fabric which I can slip over the props and arms.  They physically prevent the props from turning.  At least, they should.  I haven't tested them yet.  For me this approach makes more sense than "remove props before..." because removing and reinstalling props brings with it another opportunity for error.  It also takes a while, and I bet most people don't do it when they should.  I know I don't. 

Reply to Discussion


© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service