Mythbusters, please help! (Open Letter)

(Image: Wikipedia)

Dear Jamie, Adam, Tori, Kari, Grant and production crew,

I'm a huge fan and watch your show since the first episode!

I'm sure you have by now noticed the dire situation in which not only us "drone"-hobbyists but in fact all R/C-hobbyists are in!

Fearmongers and your US FAA are painting horrible pictures of airliners going down in flames after colliding with a 2kg foam R/C plane or a comparable multicopter almost on a daily basis.

My dad having been CFO of a major German airline and thus me having run around in maintenance halls a lot when I was little, I believe that is a myth and many of us hobbyists believe it's propaganda.

There is no doubt that we hobbyists have an obligation to be safe at all times and nobody is advising unsafe behavior! But there is a difference between advising safety in a reasonable way and fearmongering!

Therefore, I would like to ask you to do a "drone dangers" episode! You already have shot chickens, frozen and not, into aircraft windows. Please now shoot R/C airplanes and multicopters into aircraft and aircraft engines, so everybody knows once and for all, what is going to happen and what isn't.

Please bust the drone myths!

-Stefan

First order of business may be to just get opinions from the folks at Rolls Royce or GE. They could at least offer a best guess.

But I have little doubt that a 2kg lipo could do some great harm to an aircraft. It wouldn't be too hard to work out the physics of it for those who are so inclined. I had a stone which weighed about 3 oz (guess) hit my car windshield at less than 60mph and it busted the windshield.

Those who downplay the danger are not thinking straight.

Mythbusters was not even able to totally bust the theory that a bullet (tiny amt of mass) fired up into the air could not injure or kill upon falling.

No myth to be busted here. People should not be flying these things anywhere there is a chance of collision with aircraft or fast moving vehicles....or even where they are very likely to hit people when falling. It's only a matter of time before we have the first hobbyist-caused deaths. One or two may be bad luck, but when more start happening, government will be forced to respond.

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Comments

Steven G May 11, 2014 at 12:45pm

Roger that!!!
Craig Issod May 11, 2014 at 12:09pm

First order of business may be to just get opinions from the folks at Rolls Royce or GE. They could at least offer a best guess.

But I have little doubt that a 2kg lipo could do some great harm to an aircraft. It wouldn't be too hard to work out the physics of it for those who are so inclined. I had a stone which weighed about 3 oz (guess) hit my car windshield at less than 60mph and it busted the windshield.

Those who downplay the danger are not thinking straight.

Mythbusters was not even able to totally bust the theory that a bullet (tiny amt of mass) fired up into the air could not injure or kill upon falling.

No myth to be busted here. People should not be flying these things anywhere there is a chance of collision with aircraft or fast moving vehicles....or even where they are very likely to hit people when falling. It's only a matter of time before we have the first hobbyist-caused deaths. One or two may be bad luck, but when more start happening, government will be forced to respond.
Emin Bu May 11, 2014 at 1:28am

I GUESS THEY WILL FIND ANOTHER WAY TO STOP YOU FLY

http://diydrones.com/forum/topics/3drobotics-stops-its-shipements-t...
Moderator

Gary Mortimer May 10, 2014 at 10:47pm

Did everyone miss the really important things he said, this jet was of interest to the main media. What is of interest to this community is teh introduction of section 333 permissions for some operations in the NAS ahead of the NPRM fast forward to about 3 hours on this Hangout from our show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cti42eoRGi0&list=PLS2ntMaPm2ZUhX... or give us a little while and wait for the presenter by presenter videos that we will put up on our channel https://www.youtube.com/user/sUASNews
Rocketman May 10, 2014 at 10:10pm

As an aerospace engineering student, I can absolutely tell you that if a low flying airliner ingested my quad, it would lead to complete failure of the affected engine. There is no two ways about it.

Jim
Steven G May 10, 2014 at 8:12pm

@Swift...@Steven.... machine will never be better than common sense.

Of course not but common sense is not that common. :-)
Justin Martin May 10, 2014 at 8:10pm

top*
Justin Martin May 10, 2014 at 8:10pm

I was thinking possibly GPS integration? However on that note, why not port over the free GPS files used on Garmin and multiple other full scale live GPS and Sectional maps.

Im 100% an advocate for safety. If we even want a glimmer of hope from the FAA we need to be concerned about safety and proper integration 110% of the time. Personally, I am all for a licensing system. It does not need to be as in depth as a PP certificate, but simply a UAV ground school. It can teach basic aerodynamic principles, reading sectionals, understanding airspace, and that would just about cover it. No need for anything over the tope, just straight forward information.
Steven G May 10, 2014 at 8:00pm

Some bare bones sectionals would be a great add to the MP. It's been suggested many times. Not sure what the issue is with implementation.
Justin Martin May 10, 2014 at 7:45pm

Or, missionplanner should be equipped with sectional charts. IMO ALL airspace (anything other than G and E) should be displayed in yellow. As in operate with extreme caution.

Sectional charts are available for free now of days, and it blows my mind that they are not at least in APM planner or mission planner, let alone having them overlayed.

of 4

This reply was deleted.