Another one bites the dust...
- Thread starter tstrike
- Start date
Gary Mortimer
Member
@DennyR its just how the newspaper stories normally tell the tale, @Droider I have been told about the changes from a service provider but told not to tell ;-) One thing is for certain the CAA has PPL(U) and CPL(U) in place holders in a CAP I can't remember the number of. At Farnborough 2010 the man from the CAA told me that's where they were headed.
SMP
Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yEx_ZeEZAqk Imagine the irony had they dropped this one. Looked like they spent plenty of time flying over the crowd and not in their little silo.
I imagine that they had spotters. The phantom is no comparison to the heavy Octo that was dumped over the river. I think that it's light enough not to cause concern if it were flown over a crowd. I can see news media using a multicopter like this to obtain video for news casts/events. You don't have to worry about killing someone if it were to go down in a crowd. It's also quick to deploy and relatively inexpensive.
I don't see why it's necessary to carry these heavy cameras when a small camera will do for the 5 second shot that would be used for a TV broadcast. Gopro's website has some excellent examples of the imagery that you can obtain with their cameras. Why is it necessary to lift a crazy amount of weight?
I'm sure it would not even make the news if a DJI Phantom dropped out of the sky during a broadcast. Lol.
Gary Mortimer
Member
Anybody know who it was yet? I can't find out and the X factor production company are mum. I have heard the CAA are in the process of pulling everybodys permissions for aircraft over 7kg and flight over congested areas. But again no one will confirm that. Somebody in here knows..... Beginning to smell like it was not an authorised flight.
Last edited by a moderator:
APVXtreme
APVXtreme
If X Factor is that quiet it could have been the X Factor film crew themselves, I still think Google paid them to do it for publicity though... When you watch it over and over again it looks like the pilot over exhausted his battery to a few people I've been speaking with. WKM is a fairly solid platform and is flown with great success around the world, I fly with it all the time. As for nobody honing up to it, it's most likely they don't want to deal with the effect of they're cause. I almost don't blame them, if there is a ruling that grounds all multi's they will have a rather large lynch mob of APVers coming for them regardless of the CAA. Those of us with 10's of thousands of dollars into it will be looking for blood... just sayin'
Thank god for them I'm in Canada... lol
MultiCopterFPV
Noob
Problem is, bad press like this will hurt our very small community around the world. and here in the US it just means that someone will pass a law banning us from flying or put ludicrous provisions on how/where we can fly.
All kinds of bad stuff could have happened, oh the humanity, but nothing did happen other than somebody's expensive copter and camera got wet when it was ditched in the Thames. Still the incident raises all sorts of concerns. "String up the irresponsible pilot." "Ban all drones!" "No flying over built-up areas!" "Certainly no flying within x-metres of any people."
In January 2009, moments after takeoff from LaGuardia, over densely populated New York city, the engines of Capt "Sully" Sullenberger's Airbus flamed out after ingesting a flock of geese. With only a couple minutes to think about it, Capt Sully guided his plane to a dead-stick ditching in the middle of the Hudson River, with no loss of life (other than the geese). Capt Sully, deservedly, is lauded as a hero!
Where was the outcry then? Think of all the bad stuff that could have happened, but didn't. "Ban all airplanes!" "No flying over built-up areas!" "Certainly no flying over areas where falling planes might wipe out entire neighbourhoods housing crowds of people."
Sheesh. At the very least they should have banned geese, or at least force geese to apply for a flight permit before allowing them to operate anywhere near airports.
In January 2009, moments after takeoff from LaGuardia, over densely populated New York city, the engines of Capt "Sully" Sullenberger's Airbus flamed out after ingesting a flock of geese. With only a couple minutes to think about it, Capt Sully guided his plane to a dead-stick ditching in the middle of the Hudson River, with no loss of life (other than the geese). Capt Sully, deservedly, is lauded as a hero!
Where was the outcry then? Think of all the bad stuff that could have happened, but didn't. "Ban all airplanes!" "No flying over built-up areas!" "Certainly no flying over areas where falling planes might wipe out entire neighbourhoods housing crowds of people."
Sheesh. At the very least they should have banned geese, or at least force geese to apply for a flight permit before allowing them to operate anywhere near airports.
That's because people get bent out of shape by seeing anything flying in the air. Lots of drama...
DKTek
Member
So, are you saying that it is safer to fly worn out equipment with thousands of flights over several years? Your battery packs must be out of this world to have flown that many flights. What about the ball links, bearings and servo's? Honestly, just how much of the original flight control parts are still in use? I'm not looking for a logic war here but your definition seems far more dangerous than actually flying over the crowd.
Bottom line here is when any part of the control system is replaced for regular maintenance whether scheduled or not, reliability is then reset to zero until proven worthy again. On that note, who determines when a part is to be replaced as scheduled maintenance and who determines at what point the aircraft is worthy again? How long must it fly and when does it expire?
Just playing the devils advocate.......
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
Yup. Just like my great-grandfather's axe. It's been handed down from father to son for generations. The head has been replaced twice, and the handle 5 times. But it's been a reliable workhorse for 100 years!
Your point is extremely pertinent. Yes, experience is extremely important. But it can't be used as a argument that an older airframe is safer than a newer one.
Your point is extremely pertinent. Yes, experience is extremely important. But it can't be used as a argument that an older airframe is safer than a newer one.
gadgetkeith
likes gadgets
hey that sounds just like a saying from ( only fools and horses) del boys mate trigger had a broom just like your axe
its had 17 new heads and 14 new handles but its still the same origonal broom been in the family for ages
they sure dont make em like they used to del boy
its had 17 new heads and 14 new handles but its still the same origonal broom been in the family for ages
they sure dont make em like they used to del boy
Last edited by a moderator:
Benjamin Kenobi
Easy? You call that easy?
This video was an example of best practise. It was a legal flight approved by the CAA. The pilots were in touch with London City airport and only flew with their consent. The flight plan was approved beforehand. There was an investigation and the pilot passed with flying colours. He just retook his flight test with his new aircraft and also passed that with flying colours.
The outcome from the investigation was that the GPS antenna came off in flight. The pilot noticed something wrong, brought the landing gear down, still not responding correctly so ditched it in river as planned in the risk assessment.
I just wanted to add some facts here.
Cheers!
Using Tapatalk...
The outcome from the investigation was that the GPS antenna came off in flight. The pilot noticed something wrong, brought the landing gear down, still not responding correctly so ditched it in river as planned in the risk assessment.
I just wanted to add some facts here.
Cheers!
Using Tapatalk...
Benjamin Kenobi
Easy? You call that easy?
...the video of the crash in a stadium in Brazil on the other hand is a perfect example of worst practice.
Great info! This could help others stay in the air. Check your GPS antennas!
helloman1976
Ziptie Relocation Expert
It's a UF-OH NO!!!!!
SMP
Member
Debating whether I should bother responding... In a moment of stupidity I mounted the GPS puck backwards (its mounted on the crash cage which we remove on/off for shipping). During the very short flight I had about 11.3% flight control, Meaning virtually none. I got lucky as it cost me a landing leg but I can tell you unequivocally while a ditch in the river may have been planned I certainly didn't have enough control of my copter to steer it anywhere. I strongly suspect he didn't either and got lucky just like me. Iris has it right with the no crowds policy. The bottom line is that there are the right tools available for certain jobs and multi's over people isn't one of them. Anyways off rant/on topic w GPS related failures... check your puck orientation.