3 ms·

You might lack context in order to understand the very real dangers posed by toy drones. First, LiPo battery packs, when damaged, become the source of unbeliev

You might lack context in order to understand the very real dangers posed by toy drones. First, LiPo battery packs, when damaged, become the source of unbelievably energetic fires. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg3r2erRrfw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg3r2erRrfw ...and it can happen this quickly in a flying situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjrTNkOjgt8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjrTNkOjgt8 Here's a convenient YouTube search with more LiPo fires: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lipo+battery+fire https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lipo+battery+fi... Second, we are in Southern California, where massive brush fires have taken out entire neighborhoods. This is particularly dangerous during Santa Ana wind conditions, where we can have sustained 30 to 60 mph winds. If a drone crashes into fuel (brush, a home, etc.) and the LiPo is damaged or shorted you have a very high potential for a large fire. Add wind and more fuel to that and you can easily take out a chunk of a neighborhood if not the entire area. For context, we had a small fire two blocks away just a few months ago. The hill on the side of the road lit for some reason. It was very windy. Before you knew it three homes --not adjoining-- had gone up, several fences burned and probably about a quarter of a mile of grass/shrubs/fuel burned-up. This was with two Super Scooper aircraft and three or four water-dropping helicopters dumping water and retardant at a furious pace (we live by a lake, so round trips are quick). And then there are real cases of real homes, garages and businesses going up in flames due to drone or LiPo batteries catching fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wzJ5Wv0cKM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wzJ5Wv0cKM In other words, no, I am not over-stating the danger of people flying drones around hills, brush, homes or roads. It doesn't matter how small they are, LiPo's are very energetic and can start nasty fires. This is part of the problem I alluded to in my earlier note. People simply aren't educated about this stuff and actually think it is safe to fly these things anywhere and might even laugh at those proposing this is very dangerous. The industry has failed to educated people, which is why it will get pounded with legislation. BTW, all of my LiPo batteries are stored in fireproof bags inside a fireproof metal container. My garage might fill with smoke but I am not going to lose my home over a bunch of batteries for my model aircraft.

Dylan16807 7y ago
But the regulations don't say a single thing about battery type. And something like LiFePO4 is a lot safer.
- robomartin 7y ago
  A shorted battery with enough energy to fly something is able to start a fire. If you don't believe me, just short the battery and see what happens. BTW, about 25 years ago I used to manufacture motor controllers for model airplanes and drones. Back then I bought almost every available motor controller in the market for testing. The final test was to short the output of the motor controller (simulating a potential reality of a crash). Every single controller in the market at the time went up in flames. In other words, in a crash there's some probability N of one of the M motor controllers on the drone shorting or the motor being prevented from spinning. Without safeguards (which is the case with most consumer products of this class and particularly true of cheap Chinese products) this means nearly 100% of the the energy in the battery will go towards heat generation, potentially culminating with ignition of anything from the battery to the motor and, eventually, any fuel in contact with the same. BTW, back 25 years ago my motor controllers were differentiated by addressing a number of these safety features, including short circuit protection, stalled motor protection and more. Every single motor controller shipped went through automated testing that included short circuiting the output, stalling a motor and more. Yes, LiPo's are nasty due to their chemistry, yet, at the end of the day, this is about converting the energy in a battery into heat, inside or outside the battery pack.
ceejayoz 7y ago
As I said, "you've got bigger issues". California's a tinderbox, and is regularly getting ignited by non-drone ignition sources.
- robomartin 7y ago
  This is a reality everywhere. California has bigger issues, yes, but that's not to say that a drone crashing into a neighborhood anywhere in the US could not launch a catastrophic event. BTW, even if the issue was narrowed down to burning down a single home it would be serious enough not to have these things flying above neighborhoods. Let's be sure we are not doing the typical HN thing of getting lost in an endless and pointless minutiae argument --typical of programmers-- where everyone is trying to find the missing "case:" statement in the poster's scenario to show just how smart they are or have their position hold. If you want to find one, you can, that doesn't mean these things are anywhere near fault tolerant or safe to have flying everywhere. There is no position that can support the idea of someone having fun flying around and taking pictures in exchange for a range of negative outcomes from hurting to killing someone on the ground or causing varying degrees of property damage. That's what we are talking about: Taking pictures in exchange for creating public danger. If you want to find a "case:" where my argument is wrong, feel free. YouTube is full of evidence of the danger posed by these things. At this point the genie is out of the bottle. As much as I hate heavy government involvement this is likely becoming a case where no other option remains on the table. This has now become the gun debate with different hardware.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > There is no position that can support the idea of someone having fun flying around and taking pictures in exchange for a range of negative outcomes from hurting to killing someone on the ground or causing varying degrees of property damage. Again, that argument means I can't play baseball with my kids in the backyard. It's not a standard I'm prepared to just accept on your say-so.
    - robomartin 7y ago

Dylan16807 7y ago

But the regulations don't say a single thing about battery type. And something like LiFePO4 is a lot safer.

robomartin 7y ago
A shorted battery with enough energy to fly something is able to start a fire. If you don't believe me, just short the battery and see what happens. BTW, about 25 years ago I used to manufacture motor controllers for model airplanes and drones. Back then I bought almost every available motor controller in the market for testing. The final test was to short the output of the motor controller (simulating a potential reality of a crash). Every single controller in the market at the time went up in flames. In other words, in a crash there's some probability N of one of the M motor controllers on the drone shorting or the motor being prevented from spinning. Without safeguards (which is the case with most consumer products of this class and particularly true of cheap Chinese products) this means nearly 100% of the the energy in the battery will go towards heat generation, potentially culminating with ignition of anything from the battery to the motor and, eventually, any fuel in contact with the same. BTW, back 25 years ago my motor controllers were differentiated by addressing a number of these safety features, including short circuit protection, stalled motor protection and more. Every single motor controller shipped went through automated testing that included short circuiting the output, stalling a motor and more. Yes, LiPo's are nasty due to their chemistry, yet, at the end of the day, this is about converting the energy in a battery into heat, inside or outside the battery pack.

ceejayoz 7y ago

As I said, "you've got bigger issues". California's a tinderbox, and is regularly getting ignited by non-drone ignition sources.

robomartin 7y ago
This is a reality everywhere. California has bigger issues, yes, but that's not to say that a drone crashing into a neighborhood anywhere in the US could not launch a catastrophic event. BTW, even if the issue was narrowed down to burning down a single home it would be serious enough not to have these things flying above neighborhoods. Let's be sure we are not doing the typical HN thing of getting lost in an endless and pointless minutiae argument --typical of programmers-- where everyone is trying to find the missing "case:" statement in the poster's scenario to show just how smart they are or have their position hold. If you want to find one, you can, that doesn't mean these things are anywhere near fault tolerant or safe to have flying everywhere. There is no position that can support the idea of someone having fun flying around and taking pictures in exchange for a range of negative outcomes from hurting to killing someone on the ground or causing varying degrees of property damage. That's what we are talking about: Taking pictures in exchange for creating public danger. If you want to find a "case:" where my argument is wrong, feel free. YouTube is full of evidence of the danger posed by these things. At this point the genie is out of the bottle. As much as I hate heavy government involvement this is likely becoming a case where no other option remains on the table. This has now become the gun debate with different hardware.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > There is no position that can support the idea of someone having fun flying around and taking pictures in exchange for a range of negative outcomes from hurting to killing someone on the ground or causing varying degrees of property damage. Again, that argument means I can't play baseball with my kids in the backyard. It's not a standard I'm prepared to just accept on your say-so.
  - robomartin 7y ago