Lost my whole new setup

shrill mute said:
Gary567 said:
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.

Well, you didn't really sound "amused" - you sounded angry and defensive.

I was replying to your answer that "there is no FAA limit let alone a 400 ft. limit". Funny that you considered my more detailed and documented answer to be simplistic and naive compared to yours.

You're right, though...I should have quoted koviatt when I referred to the lecture. Sorry if that's what set you off.
 
mrand said:
Gary567 said:
adanac said:
That's high! Isn't the FAA limit 400 feet everywhere?



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.

+1
 
Gary567 said:
shrill mute said:
Gary567 said:
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.

Well, you didn't really sound "amused" - you sounded angry and defensive.

I was replying to your answer that "there is no FAA limit let alone a 400 ft. limit". Funny that you considered my more detailed and documented answer to be simplistic and naive compared to yours.

You're right, though...I should have quoted koviatt when I referred to the lecture. Sorry if that's what set you off.

Oh my. Once again you didn't "set me off" with your amusing and trite lecture. Projecct much?
 
Why don't you two get a room? Or perhaps start another thread where you can rip on each other? Interesting issues, for sure, but when it turns personal, you're wasting pixels in the rest of our worlds.

Kelly
 
wkf94025 said:
Why don't you two get a room? Or perhaps start another thread where you can rip on each other? Interesting issues, for sure, but when it turns personal, you're wasting pixels in the rest of our worlds.

Kelly

Who is forcing you to waste your time reading posts that bother you?
 
wkf94025 said:
Why don't you two get a room? Or perhaps start another thread where you can rip on each other? Interesting issues, for sure, but when it turns personal, you're wasting pixels in the rest of our worlds.

Kelly
Thanks for yanking us back into reality, Kelly. Guess we got a little carried away! :|
 
macheung said:
Sorry for your lost.
I watched the video and noticed a few things, not sure how useful they're for locating your quad but hopefully will reduce the chance of us losing the next one in a similar fashion.

Too much wind:
It looks like there was a lot of wind and the quad was having a hard time holding position in GPS mode. In fact, it is almost using all available horizontal thrust to try and stay in one place. You can tell by looking at the OSD pitch and roll angle indicator. In GPS mode, the max tilt is 25 degree (combined vector). In your case, it is at 20-21 degree just holding still, so that means that it is near the limit of the ability to maintain station in GPS mode, you'll make very little headway against the wind if you have to and FS mode would not work as it has a even lower pitch limit.

At the start of the flight, I usually lift the quad to maybe 50-60ft (above the nearest obstacles) and have it face directly into the wind on GPS mode with all stick centered to observed the pitch angle as it holds position. It gives you a clue on hold hard the quad have to work to fight the wind. If the pitch is >12 degree (50% power) then I would only ever fly it upwind just in case.

Note that the max pitch in a bit higher in ATTI mode (35 degree) but lower in FS mode is even lower at around 15 degrees, so you'll have to be very careful with that.

Descend is too slow:
With firmware V3.02 and up, the max descend rate is 2m/s in GPS/ATTI mode. So your flight is at risk even before you finished your ascend to 1.6km altitude as it would take like 13-14 min just to come down at 2m/s. Your option at that point is either go to manual mode which doesn't have descent limits, or if your TX is not so configured, do a CSC to shut down the motors, let it free fall to maybe 300 meters or so then restart and hope it stabilizes. The later option is risky, but we've seen videos of a NAZA controlled quad doing such and in your situation the alternative would certainly be worse.

Where did it fell?
As to where it would have fell after you lost video contact... I am not expert at this area but it would likely depend on what you were doing with the sticks for the next 15-30 seconds. The battery probably still have some power to not completely free fall even if it cannot maintain altitude for a little bit even after the video fails. So if they are on, it can possibly drift quite a bit. I would search downwind from the last known location.

Here is my estimates:
Estimated wind: 12m/s, based on the fact that it takes 20 degree pitch to hold position
Freefall speed (terminal velocity): 25m/s (golf ball is 32m/s and P2 has lot more to catch the air like props and stuff)
Semi-powered uncontrolled descend at: 10m/s for maybe 20 seconds more before total freefall
Last known altitude: 1200m

This would mean it will fall for about 60 seconds, putting it about 800m downwind from last known location based on our very rough estimation.


using given ref. to above :
basic physics formulas ; x= 1/2 (a) (t)^2 and v= d/t , using metric system
thus: 1600m = 1/2 (9.81m/sec.^2) (t)^2, solve for time
then: t = 18 seconds
assume wind vel. = 12m/s (25 miles/hr is acceptable)
then: d = 12m/s (18s) = 216 meter

therefore searching areas approx. = 650 ft. radius from the point of probability of impact.
( or x=1200m, therefore = 580 ft radius approx. )

good luck ! ;)
 
For me it's simple.

Full size aircraft generally fly at 500ft and above, so 400ft altitude limit is sensible to give some separation.. Flying above that altitude is just dangerous, could actually kill somebody and is rightly illegal in the UK..

Why anyone would wish to endanger other people in order to set a personal record is beyond me.
 
HeliTV said:
For me it's simple.

Full size aircraft generally fly at 500ft and above, so 400ft altitude limit is sensible to give some separation.. Flying above that altitude is just dangerous, could actually kill somebody and is rightly illegal in the UK..

Why anyone would wish to endanger other people in order to set a personal record is beyond me.
+1
 
Folks, I need to take this one on the chin. The warnings posted above are accepted and will be heeded. I will not make excuses and speak defensively about this flight. These guys have legitimate concerns both for the (our) hobby and more importantly for safety.

I was bragging, proud, and it got me into trouble. This time, the cost was a piece of equipment and my bruised ego. It could have been much worse.

I do not resent the advice, and seriously, based on what I have now read (in the FAA PDF that is posted above) I have no excuse to continue flying like this.

Flying FPV beyond the bounds of LOS is a very hot topic. I learned a lesson and appreciate all the feedback.
 
koviatt said:
Folks, I need to take this one on the chin. The warnings posted above are accepted and will be heeded. I will not make excuses and speak defensively about this flight. These guys have legitimate concerns both for the (our) hobby and more importantly for safety.

I was bragging, proud, and it got me into trouble. This time, the cost was a piece of equipment and my bruised ego. It could have been much worse.

I do not resent the advice, and seriously, based on what I have now read (in the FAA PDF that is posted above) I have no excuse to continue flying like this.

Flying FPV beyond the bounds of LOS is a very hot topic. I learned a lesson and appreciate all the feedback.

Great news -well done ;-)
 
koviatt said:
Folks, I need to take this one on the chin. The warnings posted above are accepted and will be heeded. I will not make excuses and speak defensively about this flight. These guys have legitimate concerns both for the (our) hobby and more importantly for safety.

I was bragging, proud, and it got me into trouble. This time, the cost was a piece of equipment and my bruised ego. It could have been much worse.

I do not resent the advice, and seriously, based on what I have now read (in the FAA PDF that is posted above) I have no excuse to continue flying like this.

Flying FPV beyond the bounds of LOS is a very hot topic. I learned a lesson and appreciate all the feedback.
+1
 
HeliTV said:
Grebe news -well done ;-)

ClarksGrebe-Vyn-110928-0011.jpg
 
I guess everyone with posts that are ripping him for flying that high have never done anything wrong.....I bet they all drive the posted speed limits at all times!!! LOL Yea...I have to stir the pot a little bit! :lol: :twisted:
 
I am sorry that Koviatt has lost his Phantom - I would also be sick. It's an idea I face all the time and I'm trying to find a similarly equipped but cheaper alternative, like perhaps the F450.

I also applaud his decision not to fly super high. Personally, I am thrilled with the distance/height possibilities of the Phantom and, like him, have decided to channel that excitement and experimentation in lower altitude flight. It's still tons of fun!
 
Certainly a valid discussion of flight practices.
But I suggest we get back to ideas that will let Koviatt find his Phantom.
 
adanac said:
I am sorry that Koviatt has lost his Phantom - I would also be sick.

Agree.

Personally, I am thrilled with the distance/height possibilities of the Phantom and, like him, have decided to channel that excitement and experimentation in lower altitude flight. It's still tons of fun!

I think Manual mode flying below 400' is at least as stimulating as height/distance challenges.

Kelly
 
dentedk said:
I guess everyone with posts that are ripping him for flying that high have never done anything wrong.....I bet they all drive the posted speed limits at all times!!! LOL Yea...I have to stir the pot a little bit! :lol: :twisted:
You're not really stirring the pot much, just being silly. No one's perfect. That doesn't mean we can't learn from one another. I've learned more from this forum than I have from the user manual (and yes, I've read it)!
 
John, how were you able to get this info from his video?

John Shaw said:
I was able to find the location of the last pic on google earth. It was easier than I thought.
The photo a 13:16 of the video was taken at 36deg 9min 15.47secN 80deg 32min 39.2secW and was headed out Forbus Road. I put the red star at the site of the last pic and I expect it was headed SE.
I wish you luck in finding it. Hope this helps.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,090
Messages
1,467,569
Members
104,974
Latest member
shimuafeni fredrik