Lost my whole new setup

[dentedk]

Try looking in these areas. I would start with the green area (not knowing the winds from 1.2k down) plus you should not get an extreme amount of drift once the motors shut off but it sounds like it still had some power and was in FS so should have been making a little headway towards you. Look in the green first and then the yellow. If no luck follow the green back towards take off point. If still no luck expand your search to both sides (getting wider as you go down wind) of the last known track.

When you do your search, dont just walk around aimlessly looking. If you have a hand held GPS bring it. Try to make a straight line and then turn 90 degrees, walk for maybe 5 feet, turn 90 again and start again.

Good luck!

 

[ianwood]

Did you stop descending at several points? Your descent rate went to 0 several times. That could be updrafts which may need to be factored into the final descent path. That said, I would still guess the impact point will be within a pretty small arc just downwind of where it lost power.

 

[John Shaw]

I studied the last snowy frame where I could make anything out on the ground and found the exact center. The exact center of that picture is shown in the attached picture. It is consistent with some of the projections.

 

[adanac]

That's high! I don't think I would ever have the 100% guarantee, that you obviously did, that it's not possible any aircraft ever use that airspace. How did you know? Is there a reference you used? Isn't the FAA limit 400 feet everywhere?

 

[doug86]

This thread is amazing. ! When you guyz are done here, there's this plane from Malaysia that they're looking for.... :mrgreen:

No, really. You guys are doing a good job sleuthing this out.

 

[golgotha]

Do you have any video? What's the technique? I'd like to learn to do this. How hard is it to recover from manual mode fall at 15m/s? Does it put any extra stress on the props or airframe?

I do have some but not readily available. I'll post some here later.

The technique is pretty simple: when I'm several hundered meters up, I tilt gimbal down to put over safe area (in case of a crash), and then tilt the gimbal up a bit so I can see both the ground and the horizon. I switch to manual mode, in which idle throttle is not enough to hover and it will already begin to drop. Sometimes this is good enough and I don't touch the sticks. I just make sure the horizon stays "good" so it doesn't flip or do anything odd when descending at high speed. It shouldn't since the rotors are still turning. For an even faster descent, give it a touch of down throttle, but be careful to keep the model upright. Also keep in mind that the model will drift with the wind since GPS is no longer active.

To avoid vortex ring state, flip it back into GPS mode well before ground level (I usually do it at 30 meters up or so). Sure, the model will struggle to regain control and hover, but 30 meters is more than enough for it to do that (YMMV).

I've used this technique since even before the 3.x updates when the descent rates started to get crippled by software. I've never had a single issue or scare, but again, YMMV.

On a side note, I highly recommend everyone get some familiarity with flying in manual mode, as switching to manual mode can be the difference between a potential failed GPS and flyaway and a safe, manual flight back to home base.

 

[dentedk]

I went to Search and Rescue Controller school and did a LOT of these types of models before I retired. I am interested if he found it and where it was! If he was closer I would even head out and help with the search!

 

[shrill mute]

That's high! Isn't the FAA limit 400 feet everywhere?

There is no FAA limit let alone a 400 foot limit.

 

[wkf94025]

Do you have any video? What's the technique? I'd like to learn to do this. How hard is it to recover from manual mode fall at 15m/s? Does it put any extra stress on the props or airframe?

I do have some but not readily available. I'll post some here later.

The technique is pretty simple: when I'm several hundered meters up, I tilt gimbal down to put over safe area (in case of a crash), and then tilt the gimbal up a bit so I can see both the ground and the horizon. I switch to manual mode, in which idle throttle is not enough to hover and it will already begin to drop. Sometimes this is good enough and I don't touch the sticks. I just make sure the horizon stays "good" so it doesn't flip or do anything odd when descending at high speed. It shouldn't since the rotors are still turning. For an even faster descent, give it a touch of down throttle, but be careful to keep the model upright. Also keep in mind that the model will drift with the wind since GPS is no longer active.

To avoid vortex ring state, flip it back into GPS mode well before ground level (I usually do it at 30 meters up or so). Sure, the model will struggle to regain control and hover, but 30 meters is more than enough for it to do that (YMMV).

I've used this technique since even before the 3.x updates when the descent rates started to get crippled by software. I've never had a single issue or scare, but again, YMMV.

On a side note, I highly recommend everyone get some familiarity with flying in manual mode, as switching to manual mode can be the difference between a potential failed GPS and flyaway and a safe, manual flight back to home base.

Fantastic insights into fast descents. What sort of meters per second do you see in a typical controlled descent? And what descent rate causes you to pucker up? Is there a reason you don't employ some upwind right stick rather than than simply going straight down?

Kelly

 

[golgotha]

Fantastic insights into fast descents. What sort of meters per second do you see in a typical controlled descent? And what descent rate causes you to pucker up? Is there a reason you don't employ some upwind right stick rather than than simply going straight down?
Kelly

I usually keep it between 12m and 15m/second. That's fast enough for me and haven't tried any faster.

I don't touch the pitch or roll when descending in manual mode. The controls are not as forgiving as in GPS/ATTI and you can quickly lose control. There's already enough going on as it is and I don't want to complicate. When coming down from high altitude, I keep in eye on model roll/pitch (keep it level), what's below me and how far the wind is taking me. If the wind is strong, I may stop my descent, put it back in GPS mode and re-position the model before descending again.

 

[wkf94025]

Thanks! Excited to try this. Any other tips you learned the hard way?

 

[ianwood]

Thanks! Excited to try this. Any other tips you learned the hard way?

You first! It'll be a puckering moment for sure!

 

[wkf94025]

I think I will pull my $$$ equipment off (H3+, 3D gimbal, 5.4mm lens, GroundStation, nicer transmitter and better antenna) and fly with a basic fpv camera, one of my crappier antennae, and four older, dinged-up props. Hoping to DVR this too. Not sure if I should put $300 Garmin tracker on board or not. Guessing I should wear a helmet too! :shock:

Kelly

 

[koviatt]

Getting them back from a high altitude is the goal. I was not prepared. I am a risk taker and it cost me big time this time around. I don't even have a busted up craft to show. We spent another afternoon searching with the phantom 1. About 10 flights. So far nothing looks promising in those areas that you all suggested. We expanded our search a little. The farmers have assured me that if it's in the wheat fields they will find it.

One more thing. I really appreciate you all not lecturing me on all the typical things I see on so many other sites. I know it was nuts. I reached my goal. Have some rough video to prove it. You all have helped me deal with the hit. You all deserve a big thanks for your support and staying focused on the recovery. If we find the quad it will be a help to be able to predict future scenarios.

I'm not giving up. Just need to regroup.

Now. A question about the mini iOSD reporting it's angle. Do I need to factor in declination? It seems that my actual position and the azimuth data is off. Consistently.

 

[sohail99]

Really sorry for your loss

Hope you have looked around this area



I'd do 1sq KM search in that area, taking the area shown in the picture as the center of that square, by dividing it into sections.
Starting from the center and going outwards either clockwise or anticlockwise.

 

[Gary567]

That's high! Isn't the FAA limit 400 feet everywhere?

There is no FAA limit let alone a 400 foot limit.

The FAA regulations and their interpretations are certainly being disupted everywhere these days. The FAA has definitely issued an "Advisory Circular" (in 1981) regarding model aircraft that "advises" flight limits of 400 feet. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... c91-57.pdf

Furthermore, the FAA "regulations" state that model aircraft must be within sight of the operator at all times. (Scroll down to Sec. 336 here: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies ... -112publ95[1].pdf)


Clearly, this operator was outside both the "advice" and the "regulations".

Regardless of the regulatory issues, operating at these altitudes where manned aircraft may be encountered, ESPECIALLY without visual contact of the UAV, is irresponsible. Situations like this one will ultimately lead to more regulation of our hobby, if not to tragedy.

Sorry for the lecture - I know you didn't want to hear it, but I'd like to enjoy our great hobby without the public and the FAA breathing down my neck.

 

[mrand]

That's high! Isn't the FAA limit 400 feet everywhere?

There is no FAA limit let alone a 400 foot limit.

The FAA regulations and their interpretations are certainly being disupted everywhere these days. The FAA has definitely issued an "Advisory Circular" (in 1981) regarding model aircraft that "advises" flight limits of 400 feet. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... c91-57.pdf

Furthermore, the FAA "regulations" state that model aircraft must be within sight of the operator at all times. (Scroll down to Sec. 336 here: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies ... -112publ95[1].pdf)


Clearly, this operator was outside both the "advice" and the "regulations".

Regardless of the regulatory issues, operating at these altitudes where manned aircraft may be encountered, ESPECIALLY without visual contact of the UAV, is irresponsible. Situations like this one will ultimately lead to more regulation of our hobby, if not to tragedy.

Sorry for the lecture - I know you didn't want to hear it, but I'd like to enjoy our great hobby without the public and the FAA breathing down my neck.

I totally agree!! Not trying to be a ****, but your personal record setting excursion could get people hurt. Anytime you fly you run the risk of getting people hurt being responsible or not, but purposely flying high and out of sight......not good.

 

[shrill mute]

Sorry for the lecture - I know you didn't want to hear it, but I'd like to enjoy our great hobby without the public and the FAA breathing down my neck.

How did you determine that I didn't want to hear your trite lecture?

While the law isn't settled and is muddy at best folks (like you) will still wring their hands about the FAA and what they imagine they will do and how they assume that will affect them while flying their plastic toys.

The "lecture" is simplistic at best and utterly naive at worst.

 

[Gary567]

Sorry for the lecture - I know you didn't want to hear it, but I'd like to enjoy our great hobby without the public and the FAA breathing down my neck.

How did you determine that I didn't want to hear your trite lecture?

While the law isn't settled and is muddy at best folks (like you) will still wring their hands about the FAA and what they imagine they will do and how they assume that will affect them while flying their plastic toys.

The "lecture" is simplistic at best and utterly naive at worst.

My comment about a lecture was actually in response to an earlier post by koviatt thanking folks for not "lecturing". Please try to be less defensive and angry and read the entire thread. I'm not really into hand wringing, but I am realistic. North Carolina (where koviatt lives) is already struggling to formulate legislation regarding drones. Lastly, I don't understand why my response is either simplistic or naive...? It is you who is naive if you think it's OK to endanger manned aircraft, property, or bystanders simply because we want to behave any way we want.

P.S. Please consider this "lecture" just for you.

 

[shrill mute]

My comment about a lecture was actually in response to an earlier post by koviatt thanking folks for not "lecturing". Please try to be less defensive and angry and read the entire thread. I'm not really into hand wringing, but I am realistic. North Carolina (where koviatt lives) is already struggling to formulate legislation regarding drones. Lastly, I don't understand why my response is either simplistic or naive...?

I'm not defensive - simply amused by your trite "lecture."

Here's a suggestion: If you are replying to someone else then quote them. Good luck with that.