Question about the quad that almost fell on skier Marcel Hirscher

[Bartman]

A good reason to invest in a hot melt glue gun.

i've been trying to tell people that for years now!!!

a little dot of hot glue where connectors plug in can make everything so much more reliable!! especially when we're all flying aircraft that are plugged together using non-aviation rated connectors.

 

[Old Man]

Then in the US you have this taking place and the FAA doing nothing about it.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/11/see-gorgeous-drone-footage-of-the-royals-world-series-victory-parade

We don't know that nothing is being done about that flight activity. The process is ponderous and they don't comment on them until they file.

 

[MiikisRC Sr]

i've been trying to tell people that for years now!!!

a little dot of hot glue where connectors plug in can make everything so much more reliable!! especially when we're all flying aircraft that are plugged together using non-aviation rated connectors.

Experienced RC people know this - and so did we, but at the time when we bought the WKM it was considered "high-end" and "pro" hardware for "professional use". We did not expect to use hobby-grade stuff like hot glue on this piece of equipment (although it actually can be mentioned in the manual - initially we missed that though).

Nowadays I always tell people - regardless of what kind of flying RC platform we are talking about - that they must be regarded TOYS. They have very little or no redundancy at all, single points of failures all over, dynamic flying conditions etc. At BEST these are built using indoor office graded components that are not made to last in cold or wet environments. Over time components, cables and connectors degrade and can cause intermittent failures that are virtually impossible to detect after a crash. A higly regarded and reliable setup can be a flying time bomb if it is not maintained and inspected on a regular basis. Also, learning to fly in isolated areas is a lot different from flying in tight areas with buildings and vegetation and radio signals from people on the ground.

The pilot is always ultimately responsible when things go south. Customers and production companies can be very demanding and I can understand how a pilot can feel sometimes. Personally, I think the pilot in this case reacted very swiftly, decisively and according to regulation when he became aware of changes in responsiveness. The fact that the drone almost hit the athlete is most unfortunate. What I feel more sad about is that media and RC people are so eager to blame the pilot - despite the fact that drones should not be used in environments like this in the first place. The pilot surely did the best he could under the circumstances, no doubt about that.

The fact that this could even happen is because decision makers (other than the pilot) made the call to use drones in the first place. In my opinion the best outcome of this unfortunate incident is to make it an example of what could happen and educate decision makers of how dangerous these things really are. In my opinion it is not right to bark at the pilot for flying the drone, we can't expect RC pilots to carry the responibility of educating customers and production companies. They only think the pilot is a ***** and turns to some other [less responsible] guy who is willing to do the job.

 

[Av8Chuck]

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.

From my understanding this happened at the beginning of the race so its doubtful it was out of power. In cold weather the amount of current a battery can discharge [the C-rating] goes down. You can exceed the burst rate of the battery even though its fully charged. There are also other contributing factors like what accessories, FPV, camera, gimbal, landing gear that can effect this depending on how they're connected.

If the burst rate of the battery is exceeded then theirs a possibility of a "brown out" of the controller or more likely the Rx which might cause the flight controller to reboot. Since the aircraft is in the air and not on the ground, still and level, the IMU has no point of reference for the horizon and it begins a serious of over corrections, it begins to oscillate. It starts off slowly as though its a fly away, so the natural thing for the operator to do is try and correct for this but that only serves increase the oscillation until it literally flies itself into the ground.

Lets give the operator the benefit of the doubt, they checked the batteries before flight and they were flying the drone well off to the side. By about the third or fourth oscillation the drone would be moving side to side by as much as 6 of 7 meters, I've seen this happen four times and only once did it not end the way this crash ended. On the one that successfully sort of controlled this, it still crashed but the operator did not "chase" the drone, he heard the sound the motors were making, quickly recognized the situation and gave it a little throttle to gain altitude to avoid hitting an obstacle then lowered the throttle until it crashed. Although it crashed it was not nearly as violent as the others.

As far as actually being able to control the drone under these conditions I'm not sure its possible, probably just better to be aware that the condition exists and do what you can to avoid it. But I find it unlikely that this accident was because because the batteries were dead and it appeared to be under power when it hit the ground, so that rules out a total power failure and since it was an X8 and didn't appear to be that large of a payload I doubt it would have been in that flight attitude with the failure of one motor. I was testing an X8 with a ten pound weight and had an ESC fail on a top motor, it didn't effect its performance that much, it just started to yaw.

 

[Bartman]

i've been trying to tell people that for years now!!!

a little dot of hot glue where connectors plug in can make everything so much more reliable!! especially when we're all flying aircraft that are plugged together using non-aviation rated connectors.

for anyone reading this suggestion for the first time, the hot glue goes outside of the connection just to keep the pieces together and to keep the parts from vibrating causing deterioration of the connection

 

[Ancistrus01]

In my opinion it is not right to bark at the pilot for flying the drone, we can't expect RC pilots to carry the responibility of educating customers and production companies. They only think the pilot is a ***** and turns to some other [less responsible] guy who is willing to do the job.

Yes, that's it!!!
When I fly I am always responsible, but the pressure from production company is horrible. They always want really dangerous shots so I have to refuse it. They take less responsible pilot that will do it. I lost my contract with that production company because they think I am not able to do it...

This is NOT my video. This type of shot is prohibited in Czech Republic based on our laws. But as you can see, this irresponsible pilot did it.
You can take pictures like this under extreme safety rules (restricted area, any people, permission from Czech CAA...) - all these cost money...
This pilot didn't have any permission from CAA...

 

[Old Man]

Nice views of the city though. Not being supportive of all that had to occur to make the video but it did have a lot of appeal.

 

[Old Man]

Nowadays I always tell people - regardless of what kind of flying RC platform we are talking about - that they must be regarded TOYS. They have very little or no redundancy at all, single points of failures all over, dynamic flying conditions etc. At BEST these are built using indoor office graded components that are not made to last in cold or wet environments. Over time components, cables and connectors degrade and can cause intermittent failures that are virtually impossible to detect after a crash. A higly regarded and reliable setup can be a flying time bomb if it is not maintained and inspected on a regular basis. Also, learning to fly in isolated areas is a lot different from flying in tight areas with buildings and vegetation and radio signals from people on the ground.

If you want to see a lot of people become indignant and irate real fast, simply relate that fact to them. I've done so and had to just sit back in wonder about their naivete'

 

[jfro]

Here is something that will might prevail here in the U.S. http://www.suasnews.com/2015/12/40954/40954/

 

[Old Man]

It has been applicable since 91.3 was first published.

 

[jfro]

It has been applicable since 91.3 was first published.

But oblivious to many drone pilots....

If that is being followed here, how do the peeps that have the 333 exemptions fly over the ski races. There is no bail out room. The course is usually lined with spectators, so if you to fly down the mountain, but away from the course, you'd need a pretty long lens of which most peeps don't fly. Just curious on this...

As a hobbyist with a lot invested, I don't fly near or over people other than occasionally a little to near to family. Have grounded myself a few times when there was too much going on around. I see so many you tube/vimeo video's and even stuff like the DJI launch of the Inspire where they flew/fly in crowded major metropolitan cities where I'd never consider.

30 years ago I quit dirt bike racing and riding as it was getting to hard to find places to ride. I fear my fate being duplicated with my MR's.

 

[Old Man]

I think it's a case of extreme professionalism. Knowing the equipment though many, many flights under many conditions. Understanding what you are working with and how to compensate for numerous different factors. Having a team, or the team review the flight zone and anticipated conditions long before the flights take place. Developing a plan, and flying that plan based on experience and coordination with the event management. It would require having a space set aside for the aerial operations and operational briefings with all that would be participating in the event.

In short, people that are serious about this stuff are not going to buy something ready to fly from an online source and just start shooting professional video. People that do that are little more than amateurs with deep pockets, but if and when something happens those pockets won't be as deep as they thought they were. In essence a bunch of "fly by nights". Unfortunately that description likely covers 85% or more of those that have filed for and received a 333. This is something that has concerned me since I first started seeing Phantoms being accepted as legitimate commercial aerial platforms.

 

[MiikisRC Sr]

I think it's a case of extreme professionalism. Knowing the equipment though many, many flights under many conditions. Understanding what you are working with and how to compensate for numerous different factors. Having a team, or the team review the flight zone and anticipated conditions long before the flights take place. Developing a plan, and flying that plan based on experience and coordination with the event management. It would require having a space set aside for the aerial operations and operational briefings with all that would be participating in the event.

I agree. Event managements and similar organizers need to be educated on the risks involved. As with any business you need planning, quality equipment, well trained operators, LOTS of training and experience in actual environment, risk management etc. You would think that a business that is interested in keeping its reputation clean and profiling itself as a responsible organization avoids ideas like flying unprotected lawn movers over (or close to) athletes and spectators. The thing is, all this involves substantial hardware and labor costs. I don't know how eager event organizers are to pay for RC aerial services if it is to be done right and responsibly. At the moment it seems its easier to go ahead with simple instructions like "you fly along this path behind the athlete, no closer than 15 metres" and blame the pilot when something happens.

In short, people that are serious about this stuff are not going to buy something ready to fly from an online source and just start shooting professional video. People that do that are little more than amateurs with deep pockets, but if and when something happens those pockets won't be as deep as they thought they were. In essence a bunch of "fly by nights". Unfortunately that description likely covers 85% or more of those that have filed for and received a 333. This is something that has concerned me since I first started seeing Phantoms being accepted as legitimate commercial aerial platforms.

Right, and guilty as charged (apart from the rich part). We, like many other with RC background have seen a business potential in using our RC skills to earn a buck to finance our hobby or provide additional aerial services along with other products and services we sell. Most aerial operators fly occasionally and don't have "everyday" experience in operating their equipment under various and changing conditions.

Furthermore, I think the likelyhood of numerous incidents in the future will happen due to the fact that many production companies, photographers and organizers can buy equipment that produce decent footage at low cost (especially for low cost productions) and these are flown in hazardous places by people with basically no RC background at all and have next to no interest in listening to old farts (like me) who try to advice them in safety, good practice and responsible operation. I sense around here where I live that customers (with no previous RC experience) are buying Phantom-class setups and plan on (or has already begun) operating them by themselves instead of using services provided by operators with at least some level of RC background.

Once it becomes legal to fly camera drones (after some bureaucratic procedure) various schools will tag along and market themselves as innovative and teach flying Phantoms, you can only hope that they also teach safety and responsible flying. I have talked to principals (here in Finland) about this and the only thing that is holding them off is that current teachers have no interest in RC and "fear the unknown" and simply refuse to include AP/AV in their teaching. In coming years I do believe graduated photographers are introduced to flying RC platforms, you can only hope they are doing it with their brains and not with their cojones.

 

[Old Man]

Thanks for not taking offense with my reference to fly by nights and deep pocket amateurs. That was meant to be descriptive, not offensive and I'm pleased you got that. Everyone starts somewhere and grows their knowledge and experience base from that point. Issues arise when people are led to believe something is easy to do, requires little skill, and that an over night success is almost assured. This is far from the truth.

Success comes from knowledge, proficiency, and reliability. Proficiency comes from practice, lots and lots of constant practice. the word "currency" should be added to operator requirements. Currency can only be maintained after gaining proficiency, which implies some kind of training program to assure an operator is initially qualified while being subjected to cyclic currency training to assure they have retained what they learned and are maintaining proficiency. Aircraft and the associated equipment truly do need a repetitive maintenance process to assure they are safe to fly the next job, and a couple more. Aerial firms will need to be cognizant of a responsibility for them to educate the people they will be performing work for, perhaps coming up with legal documents transferring risk to be signed by the employer in the event employers elect to force a violation of established safety standards. One thing is certain, aerial firms with well developed plans, paperwork, and record keeping will survive the longest in this trade. They may not end up the wealthiest but they will be leading the group with the fewest operational issues.

What happened at the ski event is unfortunate and has already proven to be detrimental to MR aerial operations. The operations crew may or may not have been proficient, may or may not have had a solid maintenance inspection plan, may or may not have been one of the best operations in the world. We don't know. What we do know is something happened that should not have happened, in a setting that placed people at risk, in full view of many while recorded for the world to watch over and over again.

 

[SamaraMedia]

This is not the first time a MR was used under these circumstances and I'm not endorsing that by any means. They were successfully used at the Olympics where safety was a major factor in coverage but I don't believe they flew at night. As a matter of fact DJI touted their extensive use of the Inspire1 at a made for TV event with snowboarder Shawn White in LA back in April. What struck me was how did a 333 exempted company get to fly at night but as I read through the article and listened to the accompanying video of the event I further put off by the fact they had just received the units a few days prior to the event which was to be broadcast on ESPN3 and how easily they were swayed into using the aerial footage.

Article - http://www.dji.com/newsroom/news/dji-inspire-1-broadcasts-live-from-air-style-los-angeles-2015
Video - http://www.epictv.com/player/metro-player/601665
Sochi Olympics - http://skyvantage.co.uk/drone-filming-sochi-2014-winter-olympics/

A local 333 exempt company produced a video for an annual road race and used a combination of hand-held gimbal and Inspire video to capture the event. Some might question whether they followed all the proper safety requirements, first aerial footage begins at the :45 mark.

I was covering a basketball game the other day (I'm a photojournalist for a newspaper in CT) and the discussion came up about if I'm making any money with my drones. I told him not yet but I'm sure spending a lot of money trying to get to a point where I can do it "legally" as I'm trying to earn my Sports pilots license then apply for a 333 next year. We talked about the crash at the ski race and he was telling me about NASCAR, which he covers often, and how they banned the use of the Skycam after one of the cables snapped and caused an accident at a race - http://espn.go.com/racing/nascar/cup/story/_/id/9314259/fans-hurt-coca-cola-600-halted-cable-falls
I wonder what would happen if a cable snapped while covering an NFL game where it is used extensively. How quick would the NFL pull the use of that camera angle if a star QB was taken out by the unit?

It seems the risk assessment becomes a secondary thought after a system is used and proven safe under all types of weather conditions which the Skycam has done for a few seasons now.

I admire all those that push the limits of this technology to bring new and interesting views of our world but not at the expense of safety for notoriety. I started my photographic career once upon a time on the ski slopes of New England covering pro ski races and appreciate the skill the athletes have under hazardous conditions. As a MR operator I'm not sure I would want to be the one at the sticks at an event like this today. My hands don't stay as warm as they once did so I can imagine how little feel I would have in extreme cold let alone how my equipment would handle the cold. As many have already stated cold temps have effects on battery life etc...Personally I would decline due to my own shortcomings and confidence in those conditions. Now put me in a warmer climate covering say surfing...after watching the WSL in Hawaii this weekend I could cover that confidently.

Just happy no one got hurt, this time.

 

[Old Man]

I just finished a flight after a fresh snow fall and without some good gloves I have just about 1 battery of flight time in my fingertips. Did you see the Pe'ahi coverage?

 

[MiikisRC Sr]

... the word "currency" should be added to operator requirements. ...

This sounds like a good proposal. But if customers are only interested in getting their footage and turn to the next guy if someone starts to lecture them, what then?

I suggest that no insurance covers damage caused by drones if they are flown against regulations (of course, the injured person or damaged property is paid for by the insurance, but the operator/pilot is ultimately paying the costs back to the insurance company). I guess this is SOP anyway, but drone pilots and market customers need to understand this and consider the consequenses in the event of a failure. This should deter irresponsible pilots and operators from taking jobs that could ruin their lives. Media could have an important role in educating the public in the matter and every now and then explain what happens if you don't behave responsibly, both as a hobbyist and as a commercial operator.

Personally, I have told people that I am not so afraid of damage caused by a falling Phantom [to the person/property below], but what scares me more is what could happen if it falls on top of a fast moving car in heavy traffic. Damage caused by the car to other people or property can be substantial.

 

[SamaraMedia]

I just finished a flight after a fresh snow fall and without some good gloves I have just about 1 battery of flight time in my fingertips. Did you see the Pe'ahi coverage?

Not yet, watched the women in the Target championship from Honolulu Bay yesterday.

 

[Old Man]

That was pretty good, especially with a couple of nice tube rides.

 

[Old Man]

This sounds like a good proposal. But if customers are only interested in getting their footage and turn to the next guy if someone starts to lecture them, what then?

The solution will be a slow and painful process, but as more things go wrong individual liability becomes the ring that will bind them. So will shared liability. It's unfortunate but it will take a few injuries, or worse, deaths, for the customers to learn they will suffer pain along with those injured due to a lack of safety concerns and/or policies. During that same time period aerial companies will learn how to use attorneys to create operations and safety agreements that will have to be endorsed by the customers before a shoot will initiate. Customers that refuse to agree and go to the lowest non safety compliant bidder will share in whatever fate befalls their aerial company, unless the aerial company is so stupid as to sign an agreement assuming any and all risks for their flight activities to absolve the customer from liability.

Once operating rules have been generally developed insurance companies will void coverage if the tenants of the coverage are violated. Be assured they will look under a microscope for any such violations after an incident occurs to avoid a claim pay out. I doubt there are many aerial companies that have liability insurance that have any desire to see that coverage lost because they were doing something they knew was outside of a given safety envelope. In a word it's called "professionalism". Some have it, some don't, and over a little time those that don't will destroy themselves, or allow their customers to do that for them. It pretty much happened that way with full scale aerial coverage, plus the FAA came into being.