High Wind Velocity

[Amarand]

Tap on the map (usually in the lower left corner) and it will switch over. It will show the aircraft pitch. Actually there may be an icon you need to click on. Without having it in front of me I can’t describe it exactly, but another commenter should be able to. But I think just tapping on the map might switch it over (It’s sort of muscle memory at this point).

Cool, I’ll try that out tomorrow!

 

[old man mavic]

it is the round display on the screen that looks like a radar screen ,as you move the drone it changes colour and depending on which direction you are going it moves across the circle, a bit like the attitude indicator in and aircraft shows the pilot if the aircraft is flying level or banking or climbing or descending, if you were flying into the wind at full throttle, and the indicator line was exactly in the middle of the circle then you would know that the drone was not making any headway

 

[Amarand]

it is the round display on the screen that looks like a radar screen ,as you move the drone it changes colour and depending on which direction you are going it moves across the circle, a bit like the attitude indicator in and aircraft shows the pilot if the aircraft is flying level or banking or climbing or descending, if you were flying into the wind at full throttle, and the indicator line was exactly in the middle of the circle then you would know that the drone was not making any headway

Ahh, okay. I tried it today but still couldn't figure out what I'm looking at on the map screen. I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually.

 

[DanMan32]

I would have called it an artificial horizon. It's actually only one of several components/features of that radar. Sometimes that's hard to see.

If you're using a tablet, it appears on one side of the screen, map on other.
For a phone, On the upper right edge of the minimized map is the icon to toggle to radar view.

 

[BlokusPokus]

Most likely it is determined by the pitch of the Mavic vs.it's movement or lack of movement. Altitude should not factor into it at all. I almost always ignore the warning as it seems to be way to sensitive, to the point is like crying "wolf".

Is this being recorded in the logs? If so, then I am sure the hyper-sensitive reporting is a way for DJI to ensure that they can always use the "should not have flown in high wind" response with customers complaining about a lost/damaged drone.

 

[Meta4]

Is this being recorded in the logs? If so, then I am sure the hyper-sensitive reporting is a way for DJI to ensure that they can always use the "should not have flown in high wind" response with customers complaining about a lost/damaged drone.

Full flight data is recorded in the flight logs.
It's extremely useful to investigate any flight incident.

 

[BlokusPokus]

Full flight data is recorded in the flight logs.
It's extremely useful to investigate any flight incident.

Yes, and then DJI always has the wind to blame and log entries to prove that you should not have flown in the first place

 

[Meta4]

Yes, and then DJI always has the wind to blame and log entries to prove that you should not have flown in the first place

It doesn't work like that.
DJI's high wind warning comes on when it detects a wind of 7 metres/sec.
You can fly in 7 m/s winds and stronger. If you aren't a good flyer you could lose your drone in less wind than that.
I've never seen a case where DJI said the pilot should not have been flying and used that as a way to avoid warranty cover.
But if the flight data shows the cause of a lost drone incident was that the drone was flown well downwind, up high in very strong winds and was unable to return because of that, DJI would rightly blame user error for the incident.
Their warranty covers incidents caused by DJI issues.
It does not cover against incidents caused by user error.

 

[BlokusPokus]

It doesn't work like that.
DJI's high wind warning comes on when it detects a wind of 7 metres/sec.
You can fly in 7 m/s winds and stronger. If you aren't a good flyer you could lose your drone in less wind than that.
I've never seen a case where DJI said the pilot should not have been flying and used that as a way to avoid warranty cover.
But if the flight data shows the cause of a lost drone incident was that the drone was flown well downwind, up high in very strong winds and was unable to return because of that, DJI would rightly blame user error for the incident.
Their warranty covers incidents caused by DJI issues.
It does not cover against incidents caused by user error.

If that were only true.......This is a story spanning a few videos, but this one puts a finer point on how DJI can/will use the warning (or users ignoring the warnings).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Meta4]

If that were only true.......This is a story spanning a few videos, but this one puts a finer point on how DJI can/will use the warning (or users ignoring the warnings).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

That video doesn't show DJI refusing a warranty claim because someone flew with warnings of a strong wind.
It shows a guy that had a glitch during his flight and we don't have the benefit of seeing his flight data to work out what his issue was.
Going by his explanation of what he considers possible causes, I wouldn't consider his ideas reliable at all.

I can't see anything in that (much too long) video to contradict what I wrote in post #28.

 

[BlokusPokus]

That video doesn't show DJI refusing a warranty claim because someone flew with warnings of a strong wind.
It shows a guy that had a glitch during his flight and we don't have the benefit of seeing his flight data to work out what his issue was.
Going by his explanation of what he considers possible causes, I wouldn't consider his ideas reliable at all.

I can't see anything in that (much too long) video to contradict what I wrote in post #28.

LOL, yes a potential $1,500 glitch that was clearly not exceeding the use case of the drone. I think it clearly shows that DJI is using the flight-log data in an attempt to quickly brush off any claims by a customer that the drone was behaving erratically. They clearly state in the email "...however, the user keeps ignoring the warning". I really do not want to get into a pissing contest here, but it is an easy way for a manufacturer to detract from any product malfunction if they can just pull the user-error card. I think we just have a difference of opinion here as to how manufactureres use data like this.

 

[Meta4]

They clearly state in the email "...however, the user keeps ignoring the warning".

They said that because that's what the data showed.
They did not say anything at all about that being the reason for any decision on their part.
And I've never seen them do that in any other case either.

I really do not want to get into a pissing contest here, but it is an easy way for a manufacturer to detract from any product malfunction if they can just pull the user-error card.
I think we just have a difference of opinion here as to how manufactureres use data like this.

You are making your argument based on what you imagine might happen, not what actually happens.
Show me a case where warranty service was denied because DJI actually said it was due to ignoring a strong wind warning and you would have a case.
At the moment you don't.

 

[BlokusPokus]

They said that because that's what the data showed.
They did not say anything at all about that being the reason for any decision on their part.
And I've never seen them do that in any other case either.


You are making your argument based on what you imagine might happen, not what actually happens.
Show me a case where warranty service was denied because DJI actually said it was due to ignoring a strong wind warning and you would have a case.
At the moment you don't.

I would say the guy told a pretty convincing story and took extra time to chase the issue. The responses from DJI were not very forthcoming and clearly written in an attempt to shut him up, so no, I do not have any proof, but can still draw my own conclusions. Besides, the particular user is not exactly new to flying drones, nor an irrational guy, so I would give him the benefit of the doubt as the customer. But you can believe whatever you want and are entitled to your opinion- it is certainly your prerogative. Have a great day!

 

[Meta4]

The responses from DJI were not very forthcoming and clearly written in an attempt to shut him up, so no, I do not have any proof, but can still draw my own conclusions.

DJI aren't the best at communications, but they didn't use the high wind warnings as a reason for denying anything in that case.
Your whole "point" is that DJI do and I challenge you to find a case where they have.
You aren't drawing conclusions, you are imagining situations that don't happen.

Besides, the particular user is not exactly new to flying drones, nor an irrational guy, so I would give him the benefit of the doubt as the customer.
But you can believe whatever you want and are entitled to your opinion- it is certainly your prerogative. Have a great day!

He says enough to demonstrate that he's not particularly knowledgeable about how DJI drones work and what affects them and what doesn't.
Despite that he doesn't say anything to support the case you are trying to make.

 

[BlokusPokus]

DJI aren't the best at communications, but they didn't use the high wind warnings as a reason for denying anything in that case.
Your whole "point" is that DJI do and I challenge you to find a case where they have.
You aren't drawing conclusions, you are imagining situations that don't happen.

He says enough to demonstrate that he's not particularly knowledgeable about how DJI drones work and what affects them and what doesn't.
Despite that he doesn't say anything to support the case you are trying to make.

I am a bit a loss here what exacty you are arguing? The guy clearly had his drone take off and behave erratically, unless you want to dispute that, too. Then, he reaches out to DJI and they respond with "..we have received a response from our support team and here is the result of their analysis..." "..the strong wind carried the drone away" "...Thank you for your support". Had this guy let it rest and accepted DJI's response, then this would have been the end of the story... So, yes, DJI clearly tried to use the wind argument. The story merely goes on because the guy didn't settle for the initial DJI response.

 

[Meta4]

I am a bit a loss here what exacty you are arguing?

That's obvious.
I have been addressing the suggestion you made back in post #25 where you said:

I am sure the hyper-sensitive reporting is a way for DJI to ensure that they can always use the "should not have flown in high wind" response with customers complaining about a lost/damaged drone.

The guy clearly had his drone take off and behave erratically, unless you want to dispute that, too. Then, he reaches out to DJI and they respond with "..we have received a response from our support team and here is the result of their analysis..." "..the strong wind carried the drone away" "...Thank you for your support". Had this guy let it rest and accepted DJI's response, then this would have been the end of the story... So, yes, DJI clearly tried to use the wind argument.

There was some sort of glitch in the flight, DJI gave the flight data a cursory inspection and didn't find the real cause of the temporaryy incident, but explained to the customer what the data appeared to be showing.
That was that the drone was affected by a strong wind gust.
But DJI did not use the "should not have flown in high wind" response that you are suggesting they will to avoid warranty responsibility.
I examine flight data from many flight incidents every week.
I've found lost drones and helped flyers when DJI has made a mistake in data analysis.
But I've never any evidence of DJI using the "should not have flown in high wind" response to avoid a warranty claim as you imagine they might.

The High Wind Warning is there as a useful indication for flyers and like all error messages and warnings, it gets recorded in the flight data.

 

[BlokusPokus]

That's obvious.
I have been addressing the suggestion you made back in post #25 where you said:




There was some sort of glitch in the flight, DJI gave the flight data a cursory inspection and didn't find the real cause of the temporaryy incident, but explained to the customer what the data appeared to be showing.

I think you are now making your argument based on what you imagine might have happened, not what actually happened, unless you were part of the DJI team responding to the customer of course.

But DJI did not use the "should not have flown in high wind" response that you are suggesting they will to avoid warranty responsibility.

I think it is there in plain English- well sort of English. DJI support is coming back to the customer saying that the drone flew away because of high winds and that the customer ignored the warnings. Again, had the customer accepted this response, then this support case would have been closed by DJI. I think it is anybody's guess how often DJI uses this argument, and, unless you are part of DJI support, I do not think that you can draw conclusions about how DJI handles these cases either. However, I do challenge you to find a case where they have accepted a claim for a fly-away drone despite the fact that there were wind warnings in the log and just conceded that it was a software glitch.

I examine flight data from many flight incidents every week.
I've found lost drones and helped flyers when DJI has made a mistake in data analysis.

I am not challenging that and I am sure you have!

But I've never any evidence of DJI using the "should not have flown in high wind" response to avoid a warranty claim as you imagine they might.

Why would you have, or is DJI sharing all their customer service correspondence with you? I have worked in tech in corporate America long enough to understand that KPIs for service organizations revolve around how quickly you can turn around a support incident with minimal support and material cost impact to the company. My wild guess here is that this is not any different for Chinese companies. If there is a choice for services to take a $300 hit (or whatever the cost for the MP2 is) or to brush off a customer by pointing them to log entries and ignored warnings about windy conditions, then I am letting my imagination run wild here and assume they opt for the latter. Anyways, I think this horse is beaten to death now.

The High Wind Warning is there as a useful indication for flyers and like all error messages and warnings, it gets recorded in the flight data.

Yes, it sure is

 

[sar104]

If that were only true.......This is a story spanning a few videos, but this one puts a finer point on how DJI can/will use the warning (or users ignoring the warnings).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This flight was posted and analyzed on this forum:

90 + kph Mavic pro 2 flyaway

Hi All, A friend had a flyaway and the drone moved according to most of what we can determine over 90 KPH . DJI says wind gust . Which was on a day with surface winds about 10 KPH. Anybody able to help out here here is link to dat file it is big 2. + GB unless a txt may be better ...

mavicpilots.com

As discussed in that thread, the flight data clearly show a type of IMU failure that has appeared in a few Mavic 2 incidents. Even though their first-line support mis-diagnosed the issue (not uncommon), DJI has replaced at least a couple of aircraft that exhibited similar failures. In this case the aircraft wasn't lost, and so there was no replacement needed.

As for the video, the OP appears to have misunderstood entirely the explanation for the immediate cause of the flight behavior - specifically the high-speed excursion and the lack of control during the event. I have no idea why he goes on about KP indices, GPS issues, compass calibration, IMU calibration or ESC errors - none of those had anything to do with this problem. And I'm not clear what he wants from DJI - the aircraft behaved strangely and then recovered.

Lastly, even though I provided him with all the information needed to communicate the problem clearly to DJI, he appears to have so badly confused the whole thing that it doesn't surprise me that DJI are baffled.

 

[Meta4]

However, I do challenge you to find a case where they have accepted a claim for a fly-away drone despite the fact that there were wind warnings in the log and just conceded that it was a software glitch.

1. There's no such thing as a fly-away, you are thinking of lost drone incidents.
2. DJI don't replace lost drones. They replace drones where the loss can be shown to have been caused by a DJI fault.
The recorded flight data is very useful in identifying the cause of an incident
3. Without that evidence, you have no claim against them.
4. Whether the data includes strong wind warnings is irrelevant as DJI are not looking for user errors to invalidate warranty cover.
All they are looking for is evidence of a DJI fault - no DJI fault = no replacement.

My wild guess here is that this is not any different for Chinese companies. If there is a choice for services to take a $300 hit (or whatever the cost for the MP2 is) or to brush off a customer by pointing them to log entries and ignored warnings about windy conditions, then I am letting my imagination run wild here and assume they opt for the latter.

What you've imagined doesn't make any difference.
All that's relevant is: If you can prove the loss was a DJI issue, they will replace the drone.

 

[BlokusPokus]

This flight was posted and analyzed on this forum:

90 + kph Mavic pro 2 flyaway

Hi All, A friend had a flyaway and the drone moved according to most of what we can determine over 90 KPH . DJI says wind gust . Which was on a day with surface winds about 10 KPH. Anybody able to help out here here is link to dat file it is big 2. + GB unless a txt may be better ...

mavicpilots.com

As discussed in that thread, the flight data clearly show a type of IMU failure that has appeared in a few Mavic 2 incidents. Even though their first-line support mis-diagnosed the issue (not uncommon), DJI has replaced at least a couple of aircraft that exhibited similar failures. In this case the aircraft wasn't lost, and so there was no replacement needed.

As for the video, the OP appears to have misunderstood entirely the explanation for the immediate cause of the flight behavior - specifically the high-speed excursion and the lack of control during the event. I have no idea why he goes on about KP indices, GPS issues, compass calibration, IMU calibration or ESC errors - none of those had anything to do with this problem. And I'm not clear what he wants from DJI - the aircraft behaved strangely and then recovered.

Lastly, even though I provided him with all the information needed to communicate the problem clearly to DJI, he appears to have so badly confused the whole thing that it doesn't surprise me that DJI are baffled.

I am really not trying to argue the specific details of the case at hand. My single point is that many people do not have access to Forums like this (for various reasons ranging from being unaware of their existence to being completely non technical) and therefore have no access to any background info. Many poeple do not even know how detailed the flight logs are. There are also many people who will take the first response from customer service of a large company as gospel and not push back. All I am saying here is that in these instances DJI has an easy way to squash any kind of inquery by customers. DJI can also keep potentially lengthy customer service investigations that cost lots of actual $$ short by using the "you were flying in windy conditions" as a first response. That is whaty they apparently did in this case and is my only point of contention. Whatever follows/could follow is inconsequential for customers that just accept the L1 reposnse thinking they were at fault.