A (fortunately) minor drone mishap over the weekend has sent the drone fanatics, er, I mean advocates, into a full-scale tizzy.

As reported by various media outlets, the mishap occurred in the small coastal town of Marblehead, Massachusetts (approximately 18 miles north of Boston). As shown in the report by local CBS affiliate WBZ-TV on their website, the drone appeared to be a DJI Phantom (although the image is not sufficiently clear to know with certainty). The operator, a hobbyist, was simply trying to get some aerial footage of the Memorial Day parade. Despite the operator stating “that he has flown the drone numerous times without ever having a negative experience” he nevertheless lost control. The drone struck a building, plummeted towards the ground, struck a male bystander on the back of his neck (causing a minor laceration) and ricocheted off the bystander striking a female bystander’s shoulder. Both bystanders declined medical treatment.

The incident, in and of itself, is not particularly noteworthy. Drones have gone out of control in the past and crashed into crowds (e.g., drone crash at the Virginia Motorsports Park in August 2013). What is fascinating this time, however, is the circle-the-wagons response the incident is receiving from various drone advocates. One prominent advocate implied the media coverage was much ado about nothing since the sole bystander that incurred the laceration simply put a band-aid on it. (See the bystander and the band-aid here)

Another very prominent drone advocate went quite a bit further. He stated that ‘many’ people have died when full-size helicopters crashed into crowds they were overflying and he stated that “smaller, safer drones” have caused zero deaths.

Aside from the absolutely blatant apples-versus-oranges false-analogy, the comments illustrate a very sad and disturbing trend among ardent drone advocates. It would appear that they feel any admission of imperfection in the civil drone community will doom the entire industry to a complete federal ban. Why the absolute refusal to accept a modest amount of reasonable regulation? Instead of publicly chastising the Marblehead drone operator for having insufficient training and/or pre-flight-inspection, the advocates instead want the public to laugh off the whole incident as a very minor mishap with no serious injuries.

This position in not tenable. In the CBS report, the injured bystander noted that just moments before the crash he had been holding his one-year old daughter. What would the advocates be saying today if the drone had struck her head and caused life-threatening injuries? I have commented in a previous post that I hope we do not have to have a fatality before the advocates will embrace reasonable regulations.

As reported by the Boston Herald, the Marblehead drone operator was both apologetic and embarrassed. The CBS report stated that the injured bystander (a former TV news journalist) “believes there should be some license required before people fly drones over crowds of people.” What a reasonable response! Note that he did not say that drones should be banned. He simply said that some amount of training (implied by licensure) is needed BEFORE drones are flown over crowds. Is this too much to ask? To the drone advocates, apparently it is.