5 ms·

Drones can be engineered to be far more resilient to failure than what we are currently seeing today. The DJI Phantom for example only has 4 rotors and a singl

by Phlarp 11y ago

Drones can be engineered to be far more resilient to failure than what we are currently seeing today. The DJI Phantom for example only has 4 rotors and a single battery, so any one failure of a component in the power train or controller will likely bring down the entire device. The type of drone Amazon is likely to deploy widely in this scenario would of course be much larger, but would also have many more rotors, think of a copter with 8 arms and 2 motors per arm, with the power trains wired up as 4 independent systems each with 4 opposing rotors and it's own battery capable of keeping the device flying independently. Flight controllers can also be built hilariously cheap, so having 3 or 5 in a voting configuration is equally simple. Now you have a machine that can stay airborne and under control with over half of the rotors disabled.

Johnny555 11y ago
Sure, engineering can reduce the risk, but even passenger aircraft sometimes suffer catastrophic failures and drones will likely be under much less scrutiny than passenger aircraft - $10,000 metal fatigue scanning may make sense on a $3M aircraft, but on a $10,000 drone? what will happen to your 8 armed aircraft if the batteries burst into flames, metal fatigue in the central hub makes 3 of the arms on one side fall off, or a rogue drone runs into it? When drones are making millions of flights a year, even a one in a million malfunction is likely to occur many times a year.
- kenrikm 11y ago
  Cars kill ~38,000 people per year just in the US. Considering the number of cars on the road would go down (used for deliveries or trips to the store) The number of lives saved would most likely counteract any lost to the 1 in a million chance of a drone falling and killing you. Zero risk is not going to happen but given enough care is provided and sane regulations are in place drones should have a net positive impact on the number of people killed each year. It's a shame we have become so risk adverse as there are plenty of things way more likely to kill you then drones.
  - Johnny555 11y ago
    All I'm asking is to show me the numbers and quantify that risk. With dozens of drones flying around there's minimal risk, but what's the risk look like when there are many hundreds or thousands of drone flights every day across every city? People and buildings have already been hit by drones despite the fact that drones are relatively rare.
    - kenrikm 11y ago
      There as well over 1 million drones currently in the US. I get that number by adding up sales figures or estimates of the bigger manufacturers. (Parrot, DJI, 3DR etc..) There could certainly be well more then that (and most likely are) as that's not including hobbyist DIY drones. I've yet to find more then a handful of references to deaths by drones over the past few years and even then those were caused by Single Rotor RC helicopters or RC planes (if you want to lump those in as "drones")
  - CardenB 11y ago
    While I agree with you, I think people are concerned because they know how to deal with a car accident. However, as one user asked before, who do you call when the drone crashes into your house? What about your child? No one is really proposing an established procedure and quantifying the risk yet, which is scary.
    - giaour 11y ago
      Regulators could address this concern by requiring drones to carry identifying documents (e.g., license plates) and liability insurance. This model has worked for truck deliveries for a century.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        Sure. But somebody has to start having the conversation about actually implementing those requirements.
    - thoman23 11y ago
- SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
  > drones will likely be under much less scrutiny than passenger aircraft - $10,000 metal fatigue scanning may make sense on a $3M aircraft, but on a $10,000 drone? I'd like to think that the cost of a passenger aircraft isn't the only reason why they come under more safety and regulatory scrutiny than a motor car. I'd hope that it's because they have an additional severe failure mode that cars don't called falling out of the sky. I realise that I might be going on about this and I'm a layman, but it seems a bit overlooked that any object that is airborne and needs to be made safe surely starts at a large handicap compared to objects on the ground.

by Phlarp 11y ago

Johnny555 11y ago

Sure, engineering can reduce the risk, but even passenger aircraft sometimes suffer catastrophic failures and drones will likely be under much less scrutiny than passenger aircraft - $10,000 metal fatigue scanning may make sense on a $3M aircraft, but on a $10,000 drone? what will happen to your 8 armed aircraft if the batteries burst into flames, metal fatigue in the central hub makes 3 of the arms on one side fall off, or a rogue drone runs into it? When drones are making millions of flights a year, even a one in a million malfunction is likely to occur many times a year.

kenrikm 11y ago
Cars kill ~38,000 people per year just in the US. Considering the number of cars on the road would go down (used for deliveries or trips to the store) The number of lives saved would most likely counteract any lost to the 1 in a million chance of a drone falling and killing you. Zero risk is not going to happen but given enough care is provided and sane regulations are in place drones should have a net positive impact on the number of people killed each year. It's a shame we have become so risk adverse as there are plenty of things way more likely to kill you then drones.
- Johnny555 11y ago
  All I'm asking is to show me the numbers and quantify that risk. With dozens of drones flying around there's minimal risk, but what's the risk look like when there are many hundreds or thousands of drone flights every day across every city? People and buildings have already been hit by drones despite the fact that drones are relatively rare.
  - kenrikm 11y ago
    There as well over 1 million drones currently in the US. I get that number by adding up sales figures or estimates of the bigger manufacturers. (Parrot, DJI, 3DR etc..) There could certainly be well more then that (and most likely are) as that's not including hobbyist DIY drones. I've yet to find more then a handful of references to deaths by drones over the past few years and even then those were caused by Single Rotor RC helicopters or RC planes (if you want to lump those in as "drones")
- CardenB 11y ago
  While I agree with you, I think people are concerned because they know how to deal with a car accident. However, as one user asked before, who do you call when the drone crashes into your house? What about your child? No one is really proposing an established procedure and quantifying the risk yet, which is scary.
  - giaour 11y ago
    Regulators could address this concern by requiring drones to carry identifying documents (e.g., license plates) and liability insurance. This model has worked for truck deliveries for a century.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Sure. But somebody has to start having the conversation about actually implementing those requirements.
  - thoman23 11y ago
SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
> drones will likely be under much less scrutiny than passenger aircraft - $10,000 metal fatigue scanning may make sense on a $3M aircraft, but on a $10,000 drone? I'd like to think that the cost of a passenger aircraft isn't the only reason why they come under more safety and regulatory scrutiny than a motor car. I'd hope that it's because they have an additional severe failure mode that cars don't called falling out of the sky. I realise that I might be going on about this and I'm a layman, but it seems a bit overlooked that any object that is airborne and needs to be made safe surely starts at a large handicap compared to objects on the ground.