Help me identify all the faults with my mavic

[LakeTravis]

If it makes anyone who hasn't received their's yet feel more confident, my Mavic Pro FM Combo arrived October 28th and has (knocking on wood) functioned flawlessly ever since the maiden flight.

As my pops used to say, it's better to be lucky than good!! Sometimes it's true!

 

[The Editor]

This is the official detail on drone flying ...

The Dronecode | UK Civil Aviation Authority

CAP1202: Droneaware

That's not actually the 'official' regs - they are contained within CAP393
CAP 393: The Air Navigation Order 2016 and Regulations
Section 94/95

 

[Richard-mavic]

Ok thanks for clarifying. I'd prefer if this got back on topic now...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Daniel Richards]

Look up the definition of a congested area as per the CAA and you will see this most definitely is.
He would need to have the houses 'under his control' with permissions in place for flights within 50m of buildings, structures, vehicles, people, vessels etc.
No flying directly overhead - ever unless you have an approved OSC and non standard permissions from the CAA (and you won't get one with a quad!).

I'm more interested in the dictionary definition of congestion as they actually define it. As follows:
ADJECTIVE

• 1(of a road or place) so crowded with traffic or people as to hinder or prevent freedom of movement:
  
  ‘the congested streets of the West End’
  
  ‘the road was congested with refugees’
  
  
  As the CAA don't define the word congestion I have to take it as the actual meaning of the word. Because they can't really just change the meaning to suit themselves?! As per the definition above I would say that the area the op is flying in is not in the slightest bit congested.
  Also, 'have to have houses under his control' quite literally makes no sense. If we followed the definition of the CAA we would not be able to fly anywhere. I would love a lawyer to clarify.

 

[Daniel Richards]

You're right! It's extremely ambiguous. Sorry, I wasn't having a go at you at all


Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots

I didn't think you were in the slightest!
I just find the whole thing ridiculous. We see people being idiots all the time but I would say maybe the rules aren't clear enough and that may contribute to some of the idiotic behaviour of drone fliers.

 

[Andy]

Look up the definition of a congested area as per the CAA and you will see this most definitely is.
He would need to have the houses 'under his control' with permissions in place for flights within 50m of buildings, structures, vehicles, people, vessels etc.
No flying directly overhead - ever unless you have an approved OSC and non standard permissions from the CAA (and you won't get one with a quad!).

Glad someone cleared that up whilst I wasn't watching this thread.
This is my problem with many drone pilots, they are quick to go and buy something that could potentially kill someone (extreme I know) without understanding the rules.
What if that drone starts to drift and falls through someone's windscreen or hits an electricity pylon? Sounds ridiculous but people need to think about these things and what their backup plan is if things do go wrong.
I've built quite a few drones and joined a club at first and I've experienced and seen drone crashes. These things aren't always as reliable as people think, it only takes a flaky firmware or say a loose prop and it could cause a major headache.
I'm not policing, just making a point because it's only a matter of time before someone spoils it for the rest of us.

Best bet is to go to a big open field or somewhere in the countryside as long as it's not national trust or a farmers livestock field.

 

[Andy]

I'm more interested in the dictionary definition of congestion as they actually define it. As follows:
ADJECTIVE

• 1(of a road or place) so crowded with traffic or people as to hinder or prevent freedom of movement:
  
  ‘the congested streets of the West End’
  
  ‘the road was congested with refugees’
  
  
  As the CAA don't define the word congestion I have to take it as the actual meaning of the word. Because they can't really just change the meaning to suit themselves?! As per the definition above I would say that the area the op is flying in is not in the slightest bit congested.
  Also, 'have to have houses under his control' quite literally makes no sense. If we followed the definition of the CAA we would not be able to fly anywhere. I would love a lawyer to clarify.

It's pretty clear to me and a lot of other people.
You're right, there's almost nowhere to fly apart from big open fields.

This is the problem, people think it's just a toy and only realise after they've bought one but a lot of it does come down to common sense.

If you think that you can film like DJI show in their ads and Casey Neisat then you'll be dissapointed.

 

[Richard-mavic]

I personally think the rules will be relaxed at some point in the future.

I'm all for punishing anyone, strongly, who flies near an airport for example. Very strongly.

But trying to impose a rule that forbids someone flying a drone in their own garden is not sensible.

I think either the rules will be updated or potentially they will be ignored on such a large scale that they become ineffective. Already if you look at drone videos on the internet you see that probably 75% break these rules. It's not a good start.

It's a tricky time. It's an even trickier time being a licensed operator, because you can't claim ignorance. I thought about licensing, but then you see the nature and vagueness of the rules above (still don't understand the bubble analogy I'm afraid) and i see a set of rules that is not keeping pace with the changing technology, or with the public's general understanding of those rules. There is no fun left at that point.

Perhaps start by banning advertising from likes of dji or GoPro that shows stuff that is clearly unachievable. It's misleading. Then maybe stop people like Casey making loads of money whilst constantly breaking the rules. At that point people might start to pay more attention.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dam]

I personally think the rules will be relaxed at some point in the future.

I'm all for punishing anyone, strongly, who flies near an airport for example. Very strongly.

But trying to impose a rule that forbids someone flying a drone in their own garden is not sensible.

I think either the rules will be updated or potentially they will be ignored on such a large scale that they become ineffective. Already if you look at drone videos on the internet you see that probably 75% break these rules. It's not a good start.

It's a tricky time. It's an even trickier time being a licensed operator, because you can't claim ignorance. I thought about licensing, but then you see the nature and vagueness of the rules above (still don't understand the bubble analogy I'm afraid) and i see a set of rules that is not keeping pace with the changing technology, or with the public's general understanding of those rules. There is no fun left at that point.

Perhaps start by banning advertising from likes of dji or GoPro that shows stuff that is clearly unachievable. It's misleading. Then maybe stop people like Casey making loads of money whilst constantly breaking the rules. At that point people might start to pay more attention.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have some good points.. This defeats the whole purpose of having a "camera" drone such as the DJI phantoms, mavics and the likes. They were built with the budding photography buffs in mind (now remember since the advent of camera phones everyone has become a photographer in some form or circumstance).
So imagine having this beauty and not being able to fly it (responsibly) in areas where you can maximize the cameras capabilities is simply ridiculous.
Its like saying to a lamborghini or ferrari or bugatti or even a superbike owner that "hey your car is too fast or too dangerous.. only drive it on the track.. its forbidden on any roads ! ".

The FAA , CAA and all the AA's in the world must be keeping a watchful eye on what goes on.. of course they address the serious issues , like someone flying near an aircraft etc.. however silly stuff about some guy flying in his backyard is probably not on their radar.. So what happens nowadays is that there are numerous people who dont let the FAA and CAA and AA's do their job, instead they start policing the issue and becoming drone police vigilantes preaching to all the folks and end up sending in complaints to the FAA and CAA and other AA's . This they dont realize that it has a rippling effect, that the more complaints they receive the more stringent the laws will become. So they are also digging their own graves !! Eventually there will be point where they may ban them altogether (which i see as highly unlikely as its a big business). So know this the FAA , CAA or AA's in all countries are not backward they too have access to the internet and forums etc... they can view and study the issues and bring more safety to the industry.

Now we all agree that a car is a dangerous vehicle, far more dangerous than a drone ot whatever is out there.. so the laws were put in place to make vehicles safer via a standard, then have the person driving (take an exam or course) and become competant, and of course they knew that since this is not a perfect world accidents would be inevitable so they made insurance mandatory to cover for loss etc..

So again , let the law handle the issue, they will come up with some rational procedures - let them do their jobs !! Its so annoying somebody will put a video with beautful scenery and flight work and most comments will be "hey against this law and that law".. sheesh let the authories decide that for themselves and stop screwing up this issue..

 

[Richard-mavic]

yep I agree. It's also so inconsistent. Why does the camera make any difference? Is it privacy or is it safety? If it's privacy I understand the 50m thing. But then don't cite reasons of safety. I can get much better shots of my neighbour showering with my 600m lens on my Sony Camera, for what it's worth.

I could play football in my garden with my friends and stand more chance of breaking my neighbour's window than by flying my mavic. My daughter could ride her scooter along the pavement of that very same road and cause a car to swerve and have an accident. More likely than my mavic falling out of the sky and landing through a windscreen.

They should start by updating the law. One category covering everything under 7kg is useless. That covers the most over-specced S1000 Octocopter with a Red camera underneath (which really could kill someone) as well as a parrot drone (which really can't). Hardly the same machine, and so shouldn't be lumped with the same restrictions. It just shows how slow to react the authorities are. How about rules for 0-0.5kg, 0.5kg to 1kg, 1-2kg etc.

I have no desire to break the law on purpose, or act dangerously. But I've also got no time for the sorts of people who can't focus energy on the real trouble makers, or perhaps even the ones making money on youtube flouting the law so blatantly. People flying close to crowds, near airplanes, stupidly distances or in commercial airspace.

Do any of these so called 'police' (not my term by the way) drive their car faster than 70mph on the motorway? Far more dangerous in my opinion, but even the real police know it's not worth stopping someone going less than 80mph. Was I within 25m of my neighbour's house, or 50m - really?! Is that really worth adding to this thread?

I do hope they bring out some kind of exam. I'd take it. But they'll have to make it a bit more relevant first.

 

[Wacker2611]

You have some good points.. This defeats the whole purpose of having a "camera" drone such as the DJI phantoms, mavics and the likes. They were built with the budding photography buffs in mind (now remember since the advent of camera phones everyone has become a photographer in some form or circumstance).
So imagine having this beauty and not being able to fly it (responsibly) in areas where you can maximize the cameras capabilities is simply ridiculous.
Its like saying to a lamborghini or ferrari or bugatti or even a superbike owner that "hey your car is too fast or too dangerous.. only drive it on the track.. its forbidden on any roads ! ".

The FAA , CAA and all the AA's in the world must be keeping a watchful eye on what goes on.. of course they address the serious issues , like someone flying near an aircraft etc.. however silly stuff about some guy flying in his backyard is probably not on their radar.. So what happens nowadays is that there are numerous people who dont let the FAA and CAA and AA's do their job, instead they start policing the issue and becoming drone police vigilantes preaching to all the folks and end up sending in complaints to the FAA and CAA and other AA's . This they dont realize that it has a rippling effect, that the more complaints they receive the more stringent the laws will become. So they are also digging their own graves !! Eventually there will be point where they may ban them altogether (which i see as highly unlikely as its a big business). So know this the FAA , CAA or AA's in all countries are not backward they too have access to the internet and forums etc... they can view and study the issues and bring more safety to the industry.

Now we all agree that a car is a dangerous vehicle, far more dangerous than a drone ot whatever is out there.. so the laws were put in place to make vehicles safer via a standard, then have the person driving (take an exam or course) and become competant, and of course they knew that since this is not a perfect world accidents would be inevitable so they made insurance mandatory to cover for loss etc..

So again , let the law handle the issue, they will come up with some rational procedures - let them do their jobs !! Its so annoying somebody will put a video with beautful scenery and flight work and most comments will be "hey against this law and that law".. sheesh let the authories decide that for themselves and stop screwing up this issue..

AMEN TO THAT!!!!


Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots

 

[Daniel Richards]

AMEN TO THAT!!!!


Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots

Agreed!