R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
What other systems could that be? Xaircraft?
Question about the quad that almost fell on skier Marcel Hirscher
- Thread starter ARDroneFlyer
- Start date
Old Man
Active Member
Law is literal. The word "over" is critical to defining intent. Agreed, more care and planning is required of MR in such conditions but risk can be mitigated. Example; I would not fly over the course of a motocross that did not have an active TFR or qualify under the size if crowd rules but if conditions permitted I MIGHT fly adjacent to the course away from any spectators. I would also have previously well qualified my MR as absolutely reliable through rigorous testing and numerous familiarization flights.
Risk can be mitigated else nobody would be flying anything, anywhere, at any time. Plan the flight using known and anticipated conditions, obey the law, fly the plan, and or modify the plan as conditions change or warrant. The operator in the video was obviously flying "chase" over the course, which was a pretty dumb thing to do.
Risk can be mitigated else nobody would be flying anything, anywhere, at any time. Plan the flight using known and anticipated conditions, obey the law, fly the plan, and or modify the plan as conditions change or warrant. The operator in the video was obviously flying "chase" over the course, which was a pretty dumb thing to do.
F
fengshuidrone
Guest
It WAS a nice looking bird. As I look at the photo of it, it looks like the booms are square carbon fiber tubes which leads to a homebuilt as the most likely frame. I can't help but expect the FC to be DJI or one of the other FCs well known to be used on high end custom AP rigs.I came here because I figured you guys would be hot on the trail of figuring out the details.
I'm trying to figure out which frame that is. It's hard to say, but looks highly customized, possible home-built from a kit. Doesn't look like it's direct from any of the big players.
I was expecting to see a white GPS, but it appears to be black. Could be a 3DR GPS puck. Or several other brands, but it's not white. If it was Arducopter, I want the logs.
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
It doesn't look like DJI to me, unless he painted it black.
I don't agree that the booms are square, I think they're round.
I don't agree that the booms are square, I think they're round.
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
It looks an awful lot like the Foxtech Devourer D130 V2, which is available with the ZeroUAV system which has a black GPS puck?
Only, the picture doesn't appear to have upswept arms, where I think the Devourer does?
Only, the picture doesn't appear to have upswept arms, where I think the Devourer does?
F
fengshuidrone
Guest
All you gotta do is figure out which one mounts one battery higher than the other one. The battery one the left side is about an inch higher (and no, it's not just that the quad is sitting on a slope.) Take this shot and zoom in just a little on the batteries. They are uneven.
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
http://www.infrontsports.com/news/2...-world-cup,-slalom-race,-on-22-december-2015/
"The initial technical report indicates a malfunction of the drone. According to the drone operating company, the most likely reason is a strong and unforeseen interference on the operating frequency, leading to limited operability. Detecting this, the pilot followed the official security procedure, purposely flying the drone as close as possible to the ground before releasing it. The aim was to destroy the drone, in order to prevent it from losing control."
That makes no sense at all to me. Anybody else?
"So, there was interference, and they lost control, but they could control it enough to get it close to the ground and then purposefully crash it? Doesn't make a lot of sense. "
Was this a near-flyaway in GPS mode, and the operator switched to full manual, brought the altitude down, and switched off the motors? I don't understand why you'd purposefully crash a copter you had manual control over. If you didn't have manual control, why not allow radio-failsafe Autoland? How did you do this "controlled crash" if you had no control? Just doesn't make sense.
"The initial technical report indicates a malfunction of the drone. According to the drone operating company, the most likely reason is a strong and unforeseen interference on the operating frequency, leading to limited operability. Detecting this, the pilot followed the official security procedure, purposely flying the drone as close as possible to the ground before releasing it. The aim was to destroy the drone, in order to prevent it from losing control."
That makes no sense at all to me. Anybody else?
"So, there was interference, and they lost control, but they could control it enough to get it close to the ground and then purposefully crash it? Doesn't make a lot of sense. "
Was this a near-flyaway in GPS mode, and the operator switched to full manual, brought the altitude down, and switched off the motors? I don't understand why you'd purposefully crash a copter you had manual control over. If you didn't have manual control, why not allow radio-failsafe Autoland? How did you do this "controlled crash" if you had no control? Just doesn't make sense.
F
fengshuidrone
Guest
I blew it up in photoshop. One is higher. Even if I'm wrong and you're right.....OK then just figure out what frame mounts batteries offset OR higher.......I was simply trying to narrow down what frame it might be by visual clues. Does anybody know what frame uses either an offset or one higher than the other battery setup?
Last edited:
scotth
Member
Probably unlikely that any sort of investigation takes place that would look at say, the remaining battery voltage. They can say whatever they want.
Old Man
Active Member
feng,
On my builds I can set battery trays at any height I want by using different stand off lengths. That could easily be the case here if it's a custom build and some lower component was so tall the battery mount needed to be higher. The boom tubes appear round using the visibility tape as a dimensional reference. The frame could be any number of brands that started out as a flat 8 and modified to X-8 by removing some arms. It's something I'll do to a Tarot flat 8 frame every chance I get.
I'm with Rob, the company press release was pure B.S.
On my builds I can set battery trays at any height I want by using different stand off lengths. That could easily be the case here if it's a custom build and some lower component was so tall the battery mount needed to be higher. The boom tubes appear round using the visibility tape as a dimensional reference. The frame could be any number of brands that started out as a flat 8 and modified to X-8 by removing some arms. It's something I'll do to a Tarot flat 8 frame every chance I get.
I'm with Rob, the company press release was pure B.S.
F
fengshuidrone
Guest
I think it was a custom build. Just my two cents. Yep, that press release.....lol...what a crock.
violetwolf
Member
I agree with an earlier poster that said drones should not be allowed to film sporting events. There are too many bystanders around, and a drones never crash straight down... Most loss of control involves an angled descent.
FerdinandK
Member
The drone came down vertically, and perfectly leveled. It came down exactly in the flight-path where it should fly. (Should be exactly above the current racer, like it has been done at the racers before). It was exactly above the racer, and it crashed exactly at the position of the racer. The most easy explanation is a weak/empty battery.
Just some more info (with speculation), as probably most of you are not familiar with ski-racing ...
In "world-cup" slalom races, the starting interval is 1:30, this was the second heat, where the top 30 of heat one are starting in reversed order. So the leader of heat one comes last in heat 2. Before the top 8 racers there is a (ad-) break of (I think) 3min. In this break most likely the battery was changed. Then within 8x1:30 = 12min everything is over (from the pilots perspective). I watched the race, I cannot remember a delay at the top 8. So the bad thing is, that the last two racers are the most important. I am not sure that it would be possible and save to land the copter change the battery (or take another copter) launch and get to the target position within one minute (between two racers). So if the pilot watched the battery voltage getting down, he had the decision to land before (the most important top 2 races) and possibly miss one of them (and loose the contract for the following races) or to continue (since he knew the theoretical flying time of the copter), but possibly missed the fact, that the copter was operated in cold conditions and pretty fast (40-60km/h) lowering the flying time (compared to hover).
Let me add the copter-pilot flew exactly where the Italian TV was telling him to fly (the flying path was no accident), since the shot was all the same at a lot of racers before, chasing the racer from above (here you get the best view which path the racer took, also this view is always used in after-race analysis). So everyone (of the officials) knew how and where they are flying. So for the sake of a good show they (TV, world-cup officials, ...) risked this to get a nice view from above, but of course afterward the pilot only is the bad guy. A pilot never should have commercial thoughts in the background when flying or the voice of the int. broadcasting TV-company in his ear.
best regards
Ferdinand
Just some more info (with speculation), as probably most of you are not familiar with ski-racing ...
In "world-cup" slalom races, the starting interval is 1:30, this was the second heat, where the top 30 of heat one are starting in reversed order. So the leader of heat one comes last in heat 2. Before the top 8 racers there is a (ad-) break of (I think) 3min. In this break most likely the battery was changed. Then within 8x1:30 = 12min everything is over (from the pilots perspective). I watched the race, I cannot remember a delay at the top 8. So the bad thing is, that the last two racers are the most important. I am not sure that it would be possible and save to land the copter change the battery (or take another copter) launch and get to the target position within one minute (between two racers). So if the pilot watched the battery voltage getting down, he had the decision to land before (the most important top 2 races) and possibly miss one of them (and loose the contract for the following races) or to continue (since he knew the theoretical flying time of the copter), but possibly missed the fact, that the copter was operated in cold conditions and pretty fast (40-60km/h) lowering the flying time (compared to hover).
Let me add the copter-pilot flew exactly where the Italian TV was telling him to fly (the flying path was no accident), since the shot was all the same at a lot of racers before, chasing the racer from above (here you get the best view which path the racer took, also this view is always used in after-race analysis). So everyone (of the officials) knew how and where they are flying. So for the sake of a good show they (TV, world-cup officials, ...) risked this to get a nice view from above, but of course afterward the pilot only is the bad guy. A pilot never should have commercial thoughts in the background when flying or the voice of the int. broadcasting TV-company in his ear.
best regards
Ferdinand
violetwolf
Member
Yes, straight down does sound like battery doesn't it.
And definitely a machine large enough to kill someone.
And definitely a machine large enough to kill someone.
F
fengshuidrone
Guest
All I know for sure is that all these new commercial drone "pilots" doing things like that (a stupid, reckless, preventable action) are ruining everything for the little guy hobbyist who has been observing safe flying practices and not doing things like that for years, all in the pursuit of money. Why not just fly into him next time and finish things off for us all. I can see all the governments banning all drones after the first accidental death, after all, that would be a typical knee jerk reaction put in place ASAP by our fearless leaders. You know they won't stop with just banning drones, but ALL sUAS including fixed wing. I can guarantee it will not be caused by a model flyer. Thanks in advance guys. Now go ahead and ask me, why don't I say how I really feel? I just did.
Last edited:
Old Man
Active Member
And this is where commercial flight regulations start making some sense. Not berating the operations crew in any way but definately putting some heat on the commerce ($$) side of things. To generate the most revenue possible someone came up with the idea that flying over the contestant would be great video. Never mind the risk to the contestant, they might generate a few more ad $$ if they can obtain those "racing on the course" aerial shots. Very thrilling for the viewing public, very risky for the contestants. But what's a little risk from a multirotor over your head when you're already on the edge of breaking every bone in your body, right? Safety was given a back seat to revenue generation-again.
This is exactly why commercial operating regulations and commercial pilot training came into being. It was recognized that someone flying for hire could, might, and have pushed the boundaries of the envelope to insure a revenue generating flight was completed regardless of the hazard to the pilot and people/property on the ground. The commercial pilot has to be far better qualified and more knowledgeable of how to operate an aircraft than the average pilot in order to obtain the maximum performance the aircraft is capable of. To do that the pilot also has to be a lot more capable. The commercial operator has to be fully cognizant of all the limits they will encounter, both in their personal ability, the aircraft's, and the operating conditions. Limits had to be developed to assure that flight safety maintained precedence over revenue generation. Of course it hasn't always worked that way but the intent is there.
This is exactly why commercial operating regulations and commercial pilot training came into being. It was recognized that someone flying for hire could, might, and have pushed the boundaries of the envelope to insure a revenue generating flight was completed regardless of the hazard to the pilot and people/property on the ground. The commercial pilot has to be far better qualified and more knowledgeable of how to operate an aircraft than the average pilot in order to obtain the maximum performance the aircraft is capable of. To do that the pilot also has to be a lot more capable. The commercial operator has to be fully cognizant of all the limits they will encounter, both in their personal ability, the aircraft's, and the operating conditions. Limits had to be developed to assure that flight safety maintained precedence over revenue generation. Of course it hasn't always worked that way but the intent is there.
F
fengshuidrone
Guest
The pilot was mute? He could have done what was right and just not done the shots they wanted refusing on the grounds of safety. That is what I would do. The pilot has his fingers on the controls, not the network. The pilot is the one who ultimately answers to the lawsuits that would arise. But then, I am a retired hobbyist with no greedy expectations of getting rich forgetting about the safety of others. Buck passing sucks.
ARDroneFlyer
Member
Please don't get into arguments about this. I just wondered if anyone knew the specifics. We must all stick together as one collective unit.