Can Drones Cause Serious Harm?

Thursday, April 6, 2017 | 11:00 a.m. EDT

Asking Questions

Anti-Trust Policy

Before we begin our meeting, please keep in mind that numerous state and Federal laws absolutely prohibit the exchange of information among competitors regarding price, refusals to deal, or agreements to proceed in certain anti-competitive respects, and that no such exchange of this information is either sanctioned by NAMIC or will be permitted during our meeting. This is a very serious matter and your cooperation will be appreciated.

Although The McCarren-Ferguson Act has given a limited exemption to the insurance industry from certain otherwise prohibited activities, board members should realize that the exemption provided companies has definite limits and that NAMIC itself, as a trade association, has no such exemption. Activities, both in and out of the meeting room, are exempt only if they: a) involve the business of insurance; b) are regulated by state law; and c) do not constitute an agreement to boycott, coerce and/or intimidate or an act to further any of the three. Please note that legislative activities are protected by the 1st Amendment and are generally not subject to anti-trust laws.

Conviction upon violation of the anti-trust laws (Sherman Act, Clayton Act, FTC Act and Robinson-Patman Act) will result in mandatory jail sentences, fines or both, even for first offenders who are otherwise leaders in their communities.

Beside discussions involving any possible

insurance market boycott, coercion and/or intimidation, which are never protected under any circumstances, here are some practices which you should not initiate nor participate in as they may expose you, your company, and NAMIC to possible anti-trust investigation and/or prosecution by the FTC or Justice Department. Discussing any of the following:

■ Price, profits, commission, reinsurance or any other cost components and elements.

■ Rates or the stabilizing of rates or other terms or conditions of any products to be offered for sale.

■ Underwriting criteria with an eye toward standardizing.

■ A market division plan without a state law covering the plan, including discussions of type or products to be offered, customers to whom insurance products may be sold or the territories in which they may be sold.

■ Matters that would adversely affect availability of insurance or services to the public.

■ Future rate plans including actuarial projections.

■ “Fair” profit levels.

■ Keeping access to NAMIC membership unduly restrictive or denying unique services of NAMIC to nonmembers.

■ Developing “standards” for company operations.

■ Trading information on bidding for office equipment and supplies or agreeing to collectively refrain from purchasing any equipment, services or supplies from any supplier.

■ Suggesting a certain credit policy.

■ Referring to any company or agency by specific name in any example you may give as an illustration during our discussions.

If any of the above occurs, you should object, have your objection noted in the minutes of any meeting and, if the discussion or practice continues, leave the room. Further, the prohibitions apply to discussions in an informal or social setting, not just regularly scheduled meetings.

If you see any prohibited practices occurring in any NAMIC meeting or social event, please mention your concern to an officer of the Association.

Tom Karol

General Counsel, Federal Affairs

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies

tkarol@namic.org

MARK BLANKS

Director, MAAP and VT UAS Test Site

Virginia Tech UAS Impact Testing

and Future Research Plan

Mark Blanks: VT Mid-Atlantic Aviation Partnership

Stefan Duma: VT Center for Injury Biomechanics

Steven Rowson: VT UAS Testing and Research Plan

Federal Aviation Administration

March 24, 2017

This presentation contains Virginia Tech proprietary information. Do not distribute without prior permission.

7

• Objective: Deliver valuable data that can directly support standards development and policymaking

• Method: o Identify industry need and application

oDevelop risk-based safety case

oCollect data that directly supports the safety case

o Provide data through existing mechanisms▪ Waivers, exemptions, certification efforts

▪ Directly to standards task groups, where appropriate

• Anticipated Results:• Objective and quantitative results that will clearly demonstrate

appropriate risk mitigation across the safety continuum

• Respond to significant industry need

Our Research Approach

Outdoor UAS Cage

300’-120’-80’

Virginia Tech

UAS Testing

Facilities Helmet Lab

High Bay

Indoor UAS Facility

400’-180’-80’

MAAPCenter for Injury Biomechanics

Indoor Motion Capture

50’-40’-40’

Virginia Tech - Wake Forest UniversityCenter for Injury Biomechanics

CIB-ICTAS Helmet Laboratory CIB-VTTI Sled Laboratory CIB Testing Laboratory at WFUVTTI Blast Laboratory

40,000 sq ft of Dedicated CIB Research Facilities:

16 Collaborating Faculty Members:

Anthony TanHerring Madigan Porta Cormier Meredith Brolinson Funk Manoogian Schoppe Whitlow PowersMaldjianApel Kress

10 Faculty Members:

14 Research Staff Members:

34 Graduate Students:

Duma Gabler HardyStitzel VandeVordKemper Rowson Danelson

McNally Covey Moreno StromSmithHarris

Alphonse Beeman Brown Daniel Daniello Donoughe Fievisohn

Gregory

Howes Johnson Kusano Sajja Sandberg Tsoi Urban

Vaughn

Vavalle

Weaver White

GolmanHayes Moody

Untaroiu

Hampton EreifejGriesemerGarigliano R. Marin W. Marin Owen Sink

GormanYoung Weaver Schoell Putnam MacAlister Lu Lillie Hubbard Davis Cobb Chen

Gayzik

Center for Injury BiomechanicsSled and PMHS Lab

• 10,000 sq ft

• High Speed X-Ray

• 1.4 MN Sled

• Tissue testing

• Machine shop

Custom Instrumentation for

Injury DetectionFront ViewBack View Right View

2 Posterior 2 Posterior

5 Anterior/ LateralRight Side= 5 Anterior/ Lateral

Left Side= 3 Anterior/ Lateral

AIS = 3- Single Axis Gage

- Fracture

- Dislocation

Front ViewBack View Right View

2 Posterior 2 Posterior

5 Anterior/ LateralRight Side= 5 Anterior/ Lateral

Left Side= 3 Anterior/ Lateral

AIS = 3- Single Axis Gage

- Fracture

- Dislocation

- Single Axis Gage

- Fracture

- Dislocation

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45

Time (sec)

Ax A

ccele

rati

on

(m

/s^

2)

Test Start

FMVSS 208-2007 Camry

PMHS 1

PMHS 3

Hybrid-III

FMVSS 208- 2007 Sedan

PMHS 1

PMHS 2

Hybrid-III

Matched Cadaver and ATD Sled Testing

Hybrid-III 50th Male ATD

40 kph Acceleration PulseFMVSS 208: 2007 Popular 4-Door Sedan

Male PMHS

Motion Capture

DOD: Whole Body Blast Loading

Multi-year Project

to Develop

New Test Dummy

and Improved

Vehicles

DOD: FOCUS Head Form Development10 Year Project: 1,000+ Tests and Modeling,

New Head form with Eye and Facial Bone Sensors

Facial Bone

Fracture Thresholds• Acoustic emission

methodology

validated

• Fracture thresholds

established– Frontal Bone: 2670 N

– Nasal Bone: 340 N

– Maxilla: 1150 N

– Mandible: 1750 N

– Zygoma: 1360 N

• 200+ Human cadaver tests

• Risk function for each bone

and directionRisk of Frontal Bone Fracture Kaplan-Meier fracture tests only

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

0 1000 2000 3000 4000Force (N)

Ris

kKaplan-Meier

Std. Dev.Weibull

RC Helicopter Design

Nerf and Water Toy Design

Outdoor UAS Cage

300’-120’-80’

Virginia Tech

UAS Testing

Facilities Helmet Lab

High Bay

Indoor UAS Facility

400’-180’-80’

MAAPCenter for Injury Biomechanics

Indoor Motion Capture

50’-40’-40’

Helmet LabLinear impactor;

custom pendulum;

ASTM, NOCSAE towers;

HIII, NOCSAE, ASTM

headforms, instrumentation,

high speed video

Helmet LabDrop tower for bike helmets,

custom headforms,

Custom ead to head impact

system

www.vt.edu/helmet

2017: 18+ 5-Star Helmets (rolling additions)

www.vt.edu/helmet

www.vt.edu/helmet

Consumer InformationDriving Improved Product Design

Outdoor UAS Cage

300’-120’-80’

Virginia Tech

UAS Testing

Facilities Helmet Lab

High Bay

Indoor UAS Facility

400’-180’-80’

MAAPCenter for Injury Biomechanics

Indoor Motion Capture

50’-40’-40’

Indoor Motion CaptureFree flight and guided drop tests with high speed motion

capture for kinematic analysis of UAS Impact

Experimental Approach

Phase 1 Phase 2

Flight Impacts Falling Impacts

Outdoor UAS Cage300’-120’-80’

Virginia TechUAS Testing

Facilities Helmet LabHigh Bay

Indoor UAS Facility400’-180’-80’

MAAPCenter for Injury Biomechanics

Indoor Motion Capture50’-40’-40’

Indoor UAS Testing Facility(new football practice field, shared between events)

High Speed Cameras

Arial Video

Hybrid III Dummy Data Acquisition

Instrumented Hybrid III Dummy

6 Axis Upper Neck Load Cell

Force – x, y, z

Moment – x, y, z

3-2-2-2 Accelerometer Array

Linear Accel. – x, y, z

Rotational Accel. – x, y, z

High Speed Video Camera

Data Acquisition System

20 kHz Sampling Rate

5 g Level Trigger

Biomechanical Injury Metrics

Biomechanical Measurement Injury Correlate

PLA: Peak Linear Acceleration Skull Fx, Brain Injury

PRA: Peak Rotational Acceleration Brain Injury

PRV: Peak Change in Rotational Velocity Brain Injury

HIC: Head Injury Criterion Skull Fx, Brain Injury

Nij: Neck Injury Criterion (F and M) Neck Injury

PAF: Peak Axial Force Neck Injury

Linear Acceleration (g)

Ro

tati

on

al A

cc

ele

rati

on

(ra

d/s

/s)

0 50 100 150 2000

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

10%

25%

50%

75%

90%

5%

1%

Concussion Risk Curve

UAS Evaluated through Flight Impacts

DJI S-1000+

Weight: 11 kg

Speed: 18 m/s

DJI Phantom 3

Weight: 1.2 kg

Speed: 16 m/s

Phantom Impact #1

Biomechanical Summary

PLA: 52 g

PRA: 4760 rad/s2

PRV: 55 rad/s

PAF: 233 N

HIC15: 30

Nij: 0.07

Injury Risk Summary

AIS 3+ Head Injury (HIC): 0.1%

Concussion (PLA and PRA): 1.8%

AIS 3+ Neck Injury (Nij): 4.3%

AIS 3+ Neck Injury (PAF): 0.0%

Phantom Impact #2

Biomechanical Summary

PLA: 7.2 g

PRA: 859 rad/s2

PRV: 9.3 rad/s

PAF: 99 N

HIC15: 1

Nij: 0.03

Injury Risk Summary

AIS 3+ Head Injury (HIC): 0.1%

Concussion (PLA and PRA): 0.0%

AIS 3+ Neck Injury (Nij): 3.9%

AIS 3+ Neck Injury (PAF): 0.0%

Phantom Impact #3

Biomechanical Summary

PLA: 72 g

PRA: 4958 rad/s2

PRV: 20 rad/s

PAF: 696 N

HIC15: 59

Nij: 0.61

Injury Risk Summary

AIS 3+ Head Injury (HIC): 0.2%

Concussion (PLA and PRA): 4.5%

AIS 3+ Neck Injury (Nij): 11.6%

AIS 3+ Neck Injury (PAF): 0.0%

S-1000+ Impact #1

Biomechanical Summary

PLA: 43 g

PRA: 6505 rad/s2

PRV: 12 rad/s

PAF: 285 N

HIC15: 12

Nij: 0.43

Injury Risk Summary

AIS 3+ Head Injury (HIC): 0.1%

Concussion (PLA and PRA): 5.1%

AIS 3+ Neck Injury (Nij): 8.5%

AIS 3+ Neck Injury (PAF): 0.0%

Experimental Approach

Phase 1 Phase 2

Flight Impacts Falling Impacts

UAS Falling Impact Tests

18 ft UAS free fall prior to impact

3-2-2-2 accelerometer array

Linear Accel. – x, y, z

Rotational Accel. – x, y, z

6-axis upper neck load cell

Force – x, y, z

Moment – x, y, z

High speed video camera

Data acquisition system

20 kHz sampling rate

Repeated tests performed in each configuration

UAS Evaluated through Falling Impacts

DJI Phantom 3

Weight: 1.2 kg

Speed: 16 m/s

DJI Inspire 1

Weight: 3.1 kg

Speed: 22 m/s

DJI S-1000+

Weight: 11 kg

Speed: 18 m/s

Phantom Impacts

Biomechanical Summary

PLA: 26 ± 13 g

PRA: 3805 ± 2362 rad/s2

PRV: 11 ± 6 rad/s

PAF: 1555 ± 1016 N

HIC15: 9 ± 8

Nij: 0.39 ± 0.25

Injury Risk Summary

AIS 3+ Head Injury (HIC): 0.1 ± 0.4 %

Concussion (PLA and PRA): 1.6 ± 2.3 %

AIS 3+ Neck Injury (Nij): 7.5 ± 4.6 %

AIS 3+ Neck Injury (PAF): 0.4 ± 0.7 %

Inspire Impacts

Biomechanical Summary

PLA: 61 ± 16 g

PRA: 5675 ± 2372 rad/s2

PRV: 17 ± 3 rad/s

PAF: 2961 ± 1098 N

HIC15: 29 ± 15

Nij: 0.83 ± 0.18

Injury Risk Summary

AIS 3+ Head Injury (HIC): 0.3 ± 0.0 %

Concussion (PLA and PRA): 17 ± 17 %

AIS 3+ Neck Injury (Nij): 14 ± 8.7 %

AIS 3+ Neck Injury (PAF): 8.8 ± 14 %

S1000 Impacts

Biomechanical Summary

PLA: 367 ± 381 g

PRA: 29434 ± 35412 rad/s2

PRV: 28 ± 8 rad/s

PAF: 8018 ± 4392 N

HIC15: 1723 ± 2368

Nij: 2.00 ± 0.79

Injury Risk Summary

AIS 3+ Head Injury (HIC): 39 ± 49 %

Concussion (PLA and PRA): 55 ± 53 %

AIS 3+ Neck Injury (Nij): 64 ± 32 %

AIS 3+ Neck Injury (PAF): 75 ± 50 %

Falling Impact – Head Injury Risk

Catastrophic head injury risk increased with mass,

but varied with how UAS interacted with head.

Falling Impact – Neck Injury Risk

Catastrophic and fatal injury risk increased with mass,

but varied with how UAS interacted with head.

Experimental Testing Summary

Live Flight Impact Tests

• Energy transfer to head varied with each test

• UAS orientation

• Mass distribution

• Risk is on low end, but likely represents best-case

scenario for human

Falling Impact Tests

• Tested more orientations of UAS, energy transfer varied

• Demonstrated increasing and substantial risk with

increasing UAS size

• Risk lower with deformation of UAS body

There exists a need for large-scale research and comprehensive

testing to characterize risk

Future Research Plan

Dummy

Simulated

Flight

Drops

Simulated

Flight

Drops

Flight

Fall

Flight

Fall

Cadaver

Live UAS

Tests

Controlled

Laboratory

Tests

Standardized Testing Protocol

Research Matrix

• Range of UAS

• Mass

• Materials

• Speeds

• Characterize drone-

to-person interaction

• Energy Transfer

• Develop set of tools

to evaluate UAS risk

Virginia Tech UAS Impact Testing

and Future Research Plan

Mark Blanks: VT Mid-Atlantic Aviation Partnership

Stefan Duma: VT Center for Injury Biomechanics

Steven Rowson: VT UAS Testing and Research Plan

Federal Aviation Administration

March 24, 2017

Questions?

Thank You