Anecdotal Hypothesis

[EricJT]

Been confined too long and my thoughts are wandering, but here goes....

Based on following these forums over the years and my own experiences, I have tentatively concluded that the research and study for flying a multirotor AC is directly proportional to the cost of the AC.

My first multirotor (non-stabilized, fully manual) was inexpensive and learning to fly was trial and error, no pre-initial flight preparation....multiple crashes.

When I bought a DJI Phantom 2 Vision, even knowing it had self-stabilization technology, the cash outlay made me research and read a ton of information before my first flight....never crashed but I did have a few close calls.

A year ago I bought a M2P and I did even more research and reading than ever before....no incidents to date.

I think when DJI introduced the Mavic Mini at its price point and size, an expectation was created that it was an adult toy that was easy to fly....so entry into the multirotor market became less expensive and some new pilots came along trying to fly with little to no research and study.

So having read about so many "fly aways", and read the after the fact analyses of the flight logs, then I conclude the correlation between price and pre-initial flight preparation.

Your thoughts?

 

[sar104]

Excluding outliers, which always exist, I'm sure that's broadly correct.

 

[FoxhallGH]

I believe you are broadly correct, but I think there is another factor at work here too. DJI (and other drone manufacturers) put a lot of cash into marketing that makes their drones look like a flying camera that you take out of the box, send it off into the wild blue - and you are an instant Picasso! ( or <insert the name of your favourite artist / photographer>). There's very little in the advertising that warns a new owner that they might have to comply with a load of laws, and that some basic airmanship will be required. Being of an engineering background, I watched a load of YouTube videos and checked out several pages of the manual (no - I didn't read it all!), before I dared to take my first flight - but based on a lot of newbie stories in this Forum - I'm sure I'm in a minority.

 

[John235]

Agree! When I got my MP, I read the entire manual and watched every how-to video on the DJI site multiple times before I took it outside to turn on for the first time. I continued re-reading and re-watching for many flights afterwards.

Less anxiety means more enjoyment.

 

[JC in New Hampshire]

The disproportionate number of MM crashes tells me that those entering the field at the Christmas gift / hobby price points simply have no idea that there are so many subtle ways you can get chopped. Those entering from the experimenter / professional / engineering perspective may not know what all the hazards are, but know they exist. And so, those pilots start out more cautiously and go to great lengths to learn as much as possible before taking risks while flying.

The more you know, the more you know how much you don't know.

 

[Johnmcl7]

I don't think there's any doubt that the cheaper something is the less careful people are likely to be with it but I think there is more to it than just that with the Mavic Mini. We don't have an accurate view of crashed Minis because we're only seeing the people who've had problems and while they appear numerous, the lower price of the Mini and being under 250g means there's likely a high number of them sold. If flown in identical circumstances where the wind is just a bit too high for the Mini and they'd be lost, the other Mavic series drones which can handle the higher winds would manage fine and the Mavic 1 and 2 would also be able to handle range better. In some cases those Mavic owners know they are flying within the capabilities of the drone because they're being careful but there's clearly others that aren't and are just lucky, I've seen plenty threads here and on the DJI forums where people have lost their Mavic 1 or 2 to high winds and been very careless.

There's also the uncommanded descent issue with the Mavic Mini which if I understand it correctly (I don't follow the Mini too carefully) means the Mini can be lost without any error made by the pilot, while there have been hardware faults with other drones they don't appear to have been as common as the uncommanded descents.

While cost is definitely one part I don't think it's the whole story and I think it's unfair towards many Mini owners who I'm sure are careful and I remember around the time of the original Mavic Pro release I saw very similar posts from Inspire and Phantom owners that the wider market the Mavic would bring would be careless and not understand drones properly. I don't agree with that either although when I was doing a lot of reading just after buying the Mavic 1 Pro and the Mavic 2 Pro I was very surprised at some of the crashes or losses resulting from people being incredibly careless with their new M1P/M2P not understanding either how the drone worked or bothering to check any of the actual laws.

There was a discussion about 'flyaways' which looks concerning to people browsing the forum as it looks pretty bad until you go into these topics and find in most cases it's not a flyaway at all as the title claims but an avoidable error. I was toying with going through the crash/flyaway forum section here and working out the stats for crashes, hardware faults and unknown which may be worth counting against the drone model as well.

 

[Camino Ken]

I think the boldness of the pilot comes into play as well. There are some that are motivated to push the envelope and take risks just because they can. The lower cost point just exacerbates the issue.

 

[blubyyou]

I TOTALLY agree! $300 isn't pocket change for me, but my level of concern about protecting that investment is nothing compared to me having $1,500 up there in the air. I **** sure will take far more care with that investment.

 

[kwolfskill]

To me, the Mini is kind of like when decent cameras started showing up on cell phones. Suddenly everyone thought that all they had to do was point and click, and they would be a great photographer.

Turns out, it isn't quite as simple as they thought, but simple enough, and cheap enough, to get them air born.

For some of them, that will mean getting a more serious drone down the road.
For others, they will be happy with what they can do with the Mini.
And for others, the frustration factor will cause them to blame the drone for not doing the things it was never designed to do.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

Been confined too long and my thoughts are wandering, but here goes....

Based on following these forums over the years and my own experiences, I have tentatively concluded that the research and study for flying a multirotor AC is directly proportional to the cost of the AC.

My first multirotor (non-stabilized, fully manual) was inexpensive and learning to fly was trial and error, no pre-initial flight preparation....multiple crashes.

When I bought a DJI Phantom 2 Vision, even knowing it had self-stabilization technology, the cash outlay made me research and read a ton of information before my first flight....never crashed but I did have a few close calls.

A year ago I bought a M2P and I did even more research and reading than ever before....no incidents to date.

I think when DJI introduced the Mavic Mini at its price point and size, an expectation was created that it was an adult toy that was easy to fly....so entry into the multirotor market became less expensive and some new pilots came along trying to fly with little to no research and study.

So having read about so many "fly aways", and read the after the fact analyses of the flight logs, then I conclude the correlation between price and pre-initial flight preparation.

Your thoughts?

Well that's almost interesting. It fails interesting because it's so obvious and it misses the mark.
What's really going on is what happens to all technology as it matures. The price goes down and the ease of operation goes up.
If you wanted to drive a car in 1920 you needed skills. Just starting it with and hand cranks and manual choke was only the beginning.
If you wanted to take a photograph in 1890 you needed skills.
If you wanted to shoot a rifle you needed to know how to load and operate a musket.
So we are in a transition from a highly technical, skill based technology to one where anyone can do it.

Also your idea starts to unravel as the perception becomes you don't need to learn much when it's "that easy" due to its maturity.
So it's not really as much about the cost as the perception of what level of skill is required to safely operate it.

Do you think someone who buys a Mercedes "reads up" on how cars work and how to drive safely any more that someone who buys an economy car?
And in the case of a car you're talking about a really really dangerous machine that while easy to operate it's equally easy to crash.
Yet thanks to Madison Avenue cars are perceived as easy to operate, safe and requiring almost no skills.

I also think you are overlooking this idea - if new MM owners and new M2 owners both invested a minimum amount of time to learn, the statistics would not be much different - as the MM is by it nature easier to lose, so there would still be more losses. So while you idea seems to make sense, the evidence you provide does not actually indicate that, meaning it's quite possible that M2 owners don't spend any more time to learning that MM owners. It's just that the M2 is harder to lose.
Note I am not postulating one way or the other, because even if you went through all the crash threads here you would not have much other than "this is what we have seen here". I say that because older pilots are much less likely to come here (or anywhere else) an announce that they just crashed, and other reasons that most crashes are never reported. What I am saying is that the data here is not a random sample, which is required to apply statistical methods.