MAVIC FLY AWAY AND DJI CASE ANALYSES

[ksiads]

Brazil... Probably There is. But if you do fly, nothing happens, until something happens, and they blame you for the existance of cancer and ban drones from flying anywhere.

Thats how it happens.

Hey, amigo, are you telling me you wouldn't get thrown in the slammer for flying where you did?

 

[sekine12]

Office buildings are usually more like 3.5-4 meters each floor, residential would be closer to 3.

Depends a lot on a lot of things... High end residential pushes floor heights to get higher ceilings, office buildings in height restricted cities (like this one) squish floor heights to get in more usable office space.

And, often buildings have extra tall first floors (or first and second floors) if they have high lobbies, conference rooms, ballrooms, etc, on the first couple floors.

 

[whitedesigns]

Hey Guys:
I'm new to this forum and to the world of drones. I just bought the Mavic a few weeks ago and am loving it. I've got a lot to learn and I wanted to say how cool it is to see a thread like this where people take the time to analyze a complex situation and offer opinions and possible resolutions. It appears a lot more gets done here in a day than at my corporation...

 

[rydfree]

Hey Guys:
I'm new to this forum and to the world of drones. I just bought the Mavic a few weeks ago and am loving it. I've got a lot to learn and I wanted to say how cool it is to see a thread like this where people take the time to analyze a complex situation and offer opinions and possible resolutions. It appears a lot more gets done here in a day than at my corporation...

That's because the people working at those corporations are on this forum when at work . That's the only time I have to get on forums is when at work

 

[DroneForceOne]

Hey, amigo, are you telling me you wouldn't get thrown in the slammer for flying where you did?

Absolutely,

As noth hpnd to him.

Until the day smth serious bad **** happens.

 

[mogget]

They also build them to go long distance.

Not sure that this is correct. I believe they build them to have a strong radio link in los, which results in a usable signal when far out of los. perhaps they should not advertise that range, especially when they say fly only los.

 

[MavicMoira]

A very interesting thread and much learning gained. Thanks to all who contributed. Also glad the Ireland restricts distance to 300m - much less chance of losing my dear Mavic .

 

[Digata]

Give yourself a slap and go buy a new mavic... job sorted

 

[xisco]

You must not fly near buildings.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

I appreciate your help, guys.
I believe it would be physically impossible to the aircraft hit the building. According to the national urbanization act (Brazilian law), the buildings in that area (site of the incident) have a maximum height of 30 meters. We don't need to go to the law, though, if you google the question you'll find out that the average height of a 10 floor building is 30 m (3 meters for each floor).
Then, it's certain that the aircraft was at least 8 meters above the building, high enough not to crash into it.
what do you think?

The most likely thing is that it hit the mechanical room or the antennas on top of the building.

It's possible that it hit the side of the building.

Don't forget that the drone was descending at about 20-30 cm/s when you lost radio contact with it. It would keep descending for another 3 seconds. That 's 60 - 90 cm lower than the last altitude.

The altitude also has uncertainties associated with it - it may have been lower (or higher) than what was reported - these are not aviation quality baro sensors.

While the "average" height of a building may indeed by 3 m, it's an average. If it's 10% more, then that building is quite a bit higher. The "base" floor of the building can often be higher than the other floors.

I think it's time that you accept that it is very unlikely that the drone flew past the building.

And as long as you won't go to jail for it phone the building manager or maintenance man and offer him a case of beer to go look at the roof.

 

[pilotattitude]

Just curious why you chose the flight path you took. Wasn't there any Class B airspace you could've flown over?

Class B flyover? If it tops out @ 18,000msl isn't that beyond the service ceiling of the MP?

 

[Jean-Claude Picard]

Hello,
Receiving antennas would not interfere with the radio signal of a drone, but if there was transmitting antennas on that roof it could have interfere with the signal of the drone, even if it's not rf signal, harmonics signal could hurt. Have you ever think of that? If this is the case, your mavic could be beside one of these antennas, I would suggest, as many other did, you go check on the roof of that building. Be confinent and good luck!

 

[DroneForceOne]

The most likely thing is that it hit the mechanical room or the antennas on top of the building.

It's possible that it hit the side of the building.

Don't forget that the drone was descending at about 20-30 cm/s when you lost radio contact with it. It would keep descending for another 3 seconds. That 's 60 - 90 cm lower than the last altitude.

The altitude also has uncertainties associated with it - it may have been lower (or higher) than what was reported - these are not aviation quality baro sensors.

While the "average" height of a building may indeed by 3 m, it's an average. If it's 10% more, then that building is quite a bit higher. The "base" floor of the building can often be higher than the other floors.

I think it's time that you accept that it is very unlikely that the drone flew past the building.

And as long as you won't go to jail for it phone the building manager or maintenance man and offer him a case of beer to go look at the roof.

Precisely.

@FERNANDO go ahead for it.

 

[jwjonesjr]

Thank you for your support
The question about crashing or not into a building is overcome. I just wrote the information on my post so you could see how DJI changed from the first to the last analyses.
the last one is the one that matters:

"Right before the incident, the pilot pulled throttle downward to fly aircraft from 182m in altitude to 103m in altitude before it lost connection, which was inappropriate."

What does DJI mean by that?

What I get from the conclusion, is that DJI is saying you were above the legal 120 meter limit. According to them, you were at 182 meters descending to 103 meters which was "inappropriate."

I could be wrong, but maybe that's what they are trying to say.

 

[sekine12]

What I get from the conclusion, is that DJI is saying you were above the legal 120 meter limit. According to them, you were at 182 meters descending to 103 meters which was "inappropriate."

I could be wrong, but maybe that's what they are trying to say.

First of all, he's not in the USA. Second of all, 400 FT isn't a law, it's a guideline. Third, certain operators can definitely operate above that ceiling with the FAA's cooperation if they're granted permission to do so.

I read it as saying that the descent was inappropriate.

Or rather, I read it as them just making stuff up to get this guy off their back. Would have been a lot easier for them to say "you descended below LOS and lost connection, not our fault."

 

[willhay555]

The US Constitution applies in Brazil, now?

hahahahaha!!!!

Gotta love some US citizens who think we're all from their home soil.

 

[willhay555]

Looking at the excellent information provided by the specialists here, especially the red line of RTH which passes through the building, it's obvious where it is.

It's on one of those canopy roofs.

In fact, I think I can see it.

 

[jwjonesjr]

First of all, he's not in the USA. Second of all, 400 FT isn't a law, it's a guideline. Third, certain operators can definitely operate above that ceiling with the FAA's cooperation if they're granted permission to do so.

I read it as saying that the descent was inappropriate.

Or rather, I read it as them just making stuff up to get this guy off their back. Would have been a lot easier for them to say "you descended below LOS and lost connection, not our fault."[/

Gotcha [emoji6]

 

[AlanTheBeast]

Looking at the excellent information provided by the specialists here, especially the red line of RTH which passes through the building, View attachment 11486 it's obvious where it is.

It's on one of those canopy roofs.

In fact, I think I can see it.

Actually that red line is not valid. It should graze the top of the roof. Still - with the mechanical room up there (not correctly rendered in GE) and the antennas - I'd bet it's on the roof (90%) or on the ground or in a tree south of the building (9%).

 

[willhay555]

Actually that red line is not valid. It should graze the top of the roof. Still - with the mechanical room up there (not correctly rendered in GE) and the antennas - I'd bet it's on the roof (90%) or on the ground or in a tree south of the building (9%).

Yeah, sorry Alan.

My attempt at humour by poorly drawing the mavic on said canopy roof is not appropriate, even when the owner shouldn't have been surprised he lost it

I'm 46.
I've yet to achieve any basic level of maturity.