Weird things can happen to any piece of hardware that is totally software driven at any time for any number of reasons, not the least of which is bugs in the code and little used subroutines stepping on the same memory locations used by critical pieces of code when they activate at the same time. It's nearly impossible to write code that has no potential problems and to also test every possible scenario that may be encountered in real world use. The bottom line is you can only trust things so far and have to be ready to override the automatic parts of the program (if possible!) in a split second to avoid a total disaster. That said, the folks that fly around in GPS mode are just asking for trouble IMO, it isn't meant to be a flight mode, it's there mainly to enable holding a set position and if capable, to allow autonomous return to home on loss of control signal from the TX, it was never intended to be engaged while flying around as you would in manual or atti mode.
The problem I see these days is way too many people can't actually fly without it or rely on it as a crutch. Even worse are the "carefree" modes that allow the craft to be in any orientation and react as though it is always tail-in, with those capabilities there is no incentive for new pilots to learn how to actually fly when the flight controller will do it for them. The more features you pile on top of one another the more potential there is for something to glitch and put the system into an unrecoverable error mode and this instance may well be one of those times.
I've owned a few WKM and still have one. I've lost count of how many Naza I've owned in total and currently have 4 or 5 of them installed on frames though all of the later ones are the "Lite" version mainly because of what I said above, the more software you cram into a processor the more likely it is that eventually you'll run into just the right combination of conditions to cause it to go off into some unresponsive mode. Maybe I've been lucky in that I've never had a flyaway with any of my DJI systems although I've been flying them since the first batch made it to the USA, or maybe it's just the fact that I avoid the ones with the greatest amount of bells and whistles and rely on basic flight functions and my own fingers to keep it in the air and controllable, seems to work well that way.
Ken
The problem I see these days is way too many people can't actually fly without it or rely on it as a crutch. Even worse are the "carefree" modes that allow the craft to be in any orientation and react as though it is always tail-in, with those capabilities there is no incentive for new pilots to learn how to actually fly when the flight controller will do it for them. The more features you pile on top of one another the more potential there is for something to glitch and put the system into an unrecoverable error mode and this instance may well be one of those times.
I've owned a few WKM and still have one. I've lost count of how many Naza I've owned in total and currently have 4 or 5 of them installed on frames though all of the later ones are the "Lite" version mainly because of what I said above, the more software you cram into a processor the more likely it is that eventually you'll run into just the right combination of conditions to cause it to go off into some unresponsive mode. Maybe I've been lucky in that I've never had a flyaway with any of my DJI systems although I've been flying them since the first batch made it to the USA, or maybe it's just the fact that I avoid the ones with the greatest amount of bells and whistles and rely on basic flight functions and my own fingers to keep it in the air and controllable, seems to work well that way.
Ken
