Question about the quad that almost fell on skier Marcel Hirscher


SleepyC

SleepyC

www.AirHeadMedia.com
Av8Chuck said:
You do realize that everyone who has a 333 exemption has a pilots license? We get it.
Click to expand...

Not ture. My company will have a 333 in Jan, and I do not hold a PPL. I have a PPl that is working with me, but the exemption will be mine and my companies. :D
 

Old Man

Old Man

Active Member
Over the course of the last few years our military has well established the person flying a remotely controlled aircraft may not be the PIC. Generally the "Mission Commander" holds that responsibility. The same holds true in many civilian enterprise applications. Our FAA has been provided a lot of operational guidance from those groups related to UAS operations and functions.
 


Av8Chuck

Av8Chuck

Member
SleepyC said:
Not ture. My company will have a 333 in Jan, and I do not hold a PPL. I have a PPl that is working with me, but the exemption will be mine and my companies. :D
Click to expand...
The exemption doesn't grant you the authority to fly, that comes from the COA that will accompany your exemption and it specifies that the PIC must have a PPL. The operator doesn't have to be a PPL but if anything happens the PIC will lose their license. Thats' the leverage the FAA is applying so that people take this responsibility seriously.
 



Old Man

Old Man

Active Member
Av8Chuck said:
That crash happened in Italy, they don't care about the FAA and our 333 exemptions.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it was Italy but you might be surprised in how much commonality there is between foreign military and government operation of UAV's with our military and government ops. With the exception of the Israeli's we've spent over a decade teaching the world how to do much of this stuff. I could name 8 different countries that closely match their unmanned rules and ops practices to ours, with only minor procedural differences. It all trickles down to the civilian sector eventually.
 

dazzab

dazzab

Member
R_Lefebvre said:
We have had cases where people complained their copter won't fly on Arducopter, but it will fly on other systems. What we found is that they were operating in the danger zone, where our program was cutting total power to ensure it had enough to stabilize. We're happy to not help these people get airborn.
Click to expand...
Depending on what you define as 'danger zone' this may be why Arducopter might not be the best choice for larger camera ships which often times have a hover rate over 50%. Like it or not, much of the professional work produced out there is done on such systems quite successfully. My copter is slightly over that and can still fly with a motor out.

Regardless, it might be a good thing to mention in the Arducopter technical data. I spent a lot of time/money contributing to Arducopter hoping I could prove it's usefulness in the area of professional filming but it didn't work out too well which forced me to in to the evil clutches of DJI.
 

dazzab

dazzab

Member
R_Lefebvre said:
I've been very much against "flight termination systems", and this is a perfect example of why. This is not safety! It's flying, and you drop it?! The whole idea is predicated on the idea that you're flying in a safe area, and it suddenly starts flying away, and you drop it before it leaves the safety zone. But what about when the safety zone is only 200 feet wide?
Click to expand...
While training to obtain my CASA Operator's Certificate I was told that an independent termination system would be considered a plus if I wanted to apply to fly closer than 30 meters to people/structures. I was in the process of installing such a system when I decided that it simply was not a good idea. The more I thought about it, the less I liked the idea of yet more complexity and a possible single point of failure that could bring the copter down at any time. Bottom line, regardless of what CASA likes I decided against it.
R_Lefebvre said:
How about instead of mandating these auto-crash system, they instead look at DJI's systems and, to quote The Donald, "figure out what the hell is going on over there!"
Click to expand...
I've been asking why it isn't a requirement to have flight controller code independently reviewed since I started flying. There seems to be plenty of evidence now the the Wookong FC can cause a loss of control. Even CASA testing has proved this. So why hasn't there been some independent testing and why are these flight controllers allowed to be sold given the evidence that they are susceptible to interference?
 

dazzab

dazzab

Member
Blue Collar said:
The real question for me is why they didn't use a much smaller system when doing something like this. Everyone complains about the DJI Phantom crowd (I'm not a big DJI fan myself) but I'll give credit to DJI for making a fairly capable quad that is light, has a somewhat break away hull, and props that will fail before causing serious lacerations. The big rigs have there place but for a live TV downhill ski event I would have used a much smaller custom rig with a Connex and a GoPro or some other small mirrorless cam.
Click to expand...
The obvious reason is that the Phantom can't carry professional payloads. Also, in some countries you are required to demonstrate that the copter can fly with a motor out. Good luck doing that with a Phantom.
 

M

MiikisRC Sr

Member
R_Lefebvre said:
The aircraft is using a DJI Wookong-M flight controller. ... Pilot states that it began what appears to have been a "GPS Flyaway", while at the same time he lost remote control of the aircraft.
Click to expand...

Somewhere I read that the pilot was able to reduce altitude before cut-off. That leads me to think back our own experience with WKM after a periodic maintenance procedure. Shortly after takeoff, at low altitude, (on two separate occasions) our flat octo started to have its mind of its own and veer off and we were barely able to take it down. On both occasions we observed that the compass GPS PMU plug was loose. This plug can easily become loose under vibration so since then it is firmly fastened and we have never experienced any similar since.
 


dazzab

dazzab

Member
MiikisRC Sr said:
Somewhere I read that the pilot was able to reduce altitude before cut-off. That leads me to think back our own experience with WKM after a periodic maintenance procedure. Shortly after takeoff, at low altitude, (on two separate occasions) our flat octo started to have its mind of its own and veer off and we were barely able to take it down. On both occasions we observed that the compass GPS PMU plug was loose. This plug can easily become loose under vibration so since then it is firmly fastened and we have never experienced any similar since.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. Finally some useful information about what can cause these situations. My frustration about all this is that it's been going on for so long and no one seems to have done any conclusive lab testing to determine what the issue is. Surely it's not that hard to test so we can once and all find out what causes loss of control with Wookong FCs.
 

Av8Chuck

Av8Chuck

Member
dazzab said:
Thanks for that. Finally some useful information about what can cause these situations. My frustration about all this is that it's been going on for so long and no one seems to have done any conclusive lab testing to determine what the issue is. Surely it's not that hard to test so we can once and all find out what causes loss of control with Wookong FCs.
Click to expand...
What this isn't useful?

"the amp draw exceeded the C-rating on the battery, especially when you consider the lower performance of the batteries in cold weather. It also appears that the batteries are in parallel and one battery might have been discharged or had a much lower charge on takeoff. That might account for the loss in power, and I've seen several A2's that when that occurs it begins to toilet bowl, the operator gets behind on the controls and instead of punching out to put as much distance between the ground and drone they try to save it and fly the drone into the ground."

Every bit as plausible and more likely than a loose cable. If a cable can get that loose maybe people should use DJI kit?
 

A

Ancistrus01

Member
Av8Chuck said:
... and I've seen several A2's that when that occurs it begins to toilet bowl, the operator gets behind on the controls and instead of punching out to put as much distance between the ground and drone they try to save it and fly the drone into the ground."
Click to expand...

I am from Czech Republic, so I probably don't understand the meaning correctly. What should they do? Fly as high as possible? I don't think it is the right idea... When you don't have enough power in batteries you should land. If you don't land you will definitely fall from the sky.
 

B

Blue Collar

Member
dazzab said:
The obvious reason is that the Phantom can't carry professional payloads. Also, in some countries you are required to demonstrate that the copter can fly with a motor out. Good luck doing that with a Phantom.
Click to expand...
Well that is why I stated a smaller custom rig with a Connex and a gopro (probably modified) or a small mirrorless such as a Sony RX100. If you look at the pix of their setup they were flying a Prosumer camcorder and a Connex for downlink so it was not like they were carrying an Alexa mini with follow focus and a Teradek bolt pro. So they could have done the job with a much smaller rig but my guess is that they use their "Pro" rig on jobs no matter what the job, even on the slope of a mountain operating in close proximity of skiers and more than likely spectators.
 

Old Man

Old Man

Active Member
Some don't have the funding to support multiple levels of platforms so they put what they have into units that allow flexibility of function. Just a thought.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.
Top