Lost Inspire 1 HELP locate please

[Meta4]

The height you left the Inspire to RTH is ridiculous.
At 250 metres or 823 feet, the drone is having to fight winds that are much stronger than you experienced at ground level.
You should have descended to 100 feet or so.
You also left the drone to RTH hands-off.
RTH is a slow driver and only cruises at 10 metres/sec.
You can manually drive much faster to get home before the battery runs down fighting a strong wind.

You will see how the drone tries to maintain RTH path but cant fight against the wind and keeps trying to correct.

It's quite likely that your Gopro mount is acting like a rudder and setting the RTH off course in strong winds.
The drone would have had no trouble at all pointing straight toward home without it.

 

[Gryphon962]

The link he posted is a simple web page.
You don't need any tools to open it and you just click the link and it gives you a kml file.
The flight data recorded by the app is the same whatever drone is being flown, the principles are all the same.

The web page works fine. However:

• The kmz file I got from it appears to show elevation relative to takeoff elevation, but tagging them as absolute elevation, so in google earth in chrome none of the points were visible above ground.
• I also tried to open his csv in CsvView and it told me it was a file of unknown format. That was why I concluded there were differences.

 

[Meta4]

The web page works fine. However:

• The kmz file I got from it appears to show elevation relative to takeoff elevation, but tagging them as absolute elevation, so in google earth in chrome none of the points were visible above ground.
• I also tried to open his csv in CsvView and it told me it was a file of unknown format. That was why I concluded there were differences.

The CSV file is fine, there's nothing wrong with it.
I've noticed the kmz file displaying that way for a few different flight records lately.
It's not unique to this incident.

 

[CarlStarke]

Just curious - did you locate it in the area Kazzaaz suggested ?

Yes it was exactly at the last recorded point

 

[CarlStarke]

The height you left the Inspire to RTH is ridiculous.
At 250 metres or 823 feet, the drone is having to fight winds that are much stronger than you experienced at ground level.
You should have descended to 100 feet or so.
You also left the drone to RTH hands-off.
RTH is a slow driver and only cruises at 10 metres/sec.
You can manually drive much faster to get home before the battery runs down fighting a strong wind.

It's quite likely that your Gopro mount is acting like a rudder and setting the RTH off course in strong winds.
The drone would have had no trouble at all pointing straight toward home without it.

Hi Meta4, I had no connection and no control and could not reduce altitude

 

[Kazzaaz]

Looks like there was no need for me to break out Microsoft Paint after all ?

Glad everything turned out and next time watch the wind!!

 

[ajkm]

While the wind left a no-go decision as the only responsible course, I would also note that this was presumably way beyond VLOS for most of the flight. That, over a heavily populated area and a major 4-lane road, should imho give pause for thought about responsible decision-making processes for RPAS/UAV/UAS piloting at the very least.

Not being sure of the country where this flight took place, I can only hazard a guess that it was substantially outside permitted regulations. If 893ft was AGL rather than MSL, that is something that would benefit from serious review and reflection.

I really hope there was a Public Liability insurance policy in place, as the potential for major injury or damage was extremely high; though, having said that, I could easily see an insurer absolutely refusing a coverage claim on the base of reckless or negligent behaviour.

Ultimately, I respectfully hope this was a severe learning experience and that nothing of this nature will ever be attempted again. It’s precisely this kind of thing that gets the profession a bad name - we are all responsible for protecting our collective reputation at the end of the day.

I also hope that others can learn from this “mistake” as this is one of the purposes of a forum such as this.

 

[HWCM]

While the wind left a no-go decision as the only responsible course, I would also note that this was presumably way beyond VLOS for most of the flight. That, over a heavily populated area and a major 4-lane road, should imho give pause for thought about responsible decision-making processes for RPAS/UAV/UAS piloting at the very least.

Not being sure of the country where this flight took place, I can only hazard a guess that it was substantially outside permitted regulations. If 893ft was AGL rather than MSL, that is something that would benefit from serious review and reflection.

I really hope there was a Public Liability insurance policy in place, as the potential for major injury or damage was extremely high; though, having said that, I could easily see an insurer absolutely refusing a coverage claim on the base of reckless or negligent behaviour.

Ultimately, I respectfully hope this was a severe learning experience and that nothing of this nature will ever be attempted again. It’s precisely this kind of thing that gets the profession a bad name - we are all responsible for protecting our collective reputation at the end of the day.

I also hope that others can learn from this “mistake” as this is one of the purposes of a forum such as this.

[emoji849][emoji107][emoji107][emoji2533]

 

[Gryphon962]

While the wind left a no-go decision as the only responsible course, I would also note that this was presumably way beyond VLOS for most of the flight. That, over a heavily populated area and a major 4-lane road, should imho give pause for thought about responsible decision-making processes for RPAS/UAV/UAS piloting at the very least.

Not being sure of the country where this flight took place, I can only hazard a guess that it was substantially outside permitted regulations. If 893ft was AGL rather than MSL, that is something that would benefit from serious review and reflection.

I really hope there was a Public Liability insurance policy in place, as the potential for major injury or damage was extremely high; though, having said that, I could easily see an insurer absolutely refusing a coverage claim on the base of reckless or negligent behaviour.

Ultimately, I respectfully hope this was a severe learning experience and that nothing of this nature will ever be attempted again. It’s precisely this kind of thing that gets the profession a bad name - we are all responsible for protecting our collective reputation at the end of the day.

I also hope that others can learn from this “mistake” as this is one of the purposes of a forum such as this.

The flight was in South Africa which is unlikely to have same rules as US.

 

[sar104]

The flight was in South Africa which is unlikely to have same rules as US.

But, by remarkable coincidence then, it does.

 

[Gryphon962]

But, by remarkable coincidence then, it does.

Then all we have to do now is find a forum member who obeys them

 

[ajkm]

[emoji849][emoji107][emoji107][emoji2533]

How about being part of the solution rather than part of the problem, eh?

 

[ajkm]

The flight was in South Africa which is unlikely to have same rules as US.

Try reading this from the South African CAA then: General Information

 

[Gryphon962]

Try reading this from the South African CAA then: General Information

Thanks for posting.

The main difference I see is that flight over 150 feet (50m) agl isn't allowed and that you cant fly closer than 50m to anyone's property without their permission.

Given those, it seems you cant do much at all (legally) in any urban area in SA.

 

[ajkm]

Then all we have to do now is find a forum member who obeys them

And this is really what disappoints me about forums in general including this one. Surely it's not expecting too much for members here to fly within the relevant regulations in their country?
And on a related topic, it is disappointing to see anyone who mentions responsible piloting in this forum being immediately flamed or given thumbs down reactions.
Aren't we all concerned with the safety of our flying and in trying to maintain some level of positive view from the public about what we do?

 

[ajkm]

Thanks for posting.

The main difference I see is that flight over 150 feet (50m) agl isn't allowed and that you cant fly closer than 50m to anyone's property without their permission.

Given those, it seems you cant do much at all (legally) in any urban area in SA.

Right, though I'm not sure why "legally" is in parentheses. This forum and others seem almost to be promoting and applauding illegal flying. I just don't understand that at all.

 

[Gryphon962]

Right, though I'm not sure why "legally" is in parentheses. This forum and others seem almost to be promoting and applauding illegal flying. I just don't understand that at all.

I'm relatively new to drones, but have the part 107 and 20 years of military flying experience. There are many very good reasons why there is a mismatch between what the rules say (in multiple nations) and what pilots - even experienced ones - actually do. But that's a topic for another thread.

 

[ajkm]

I'm relatively new to drones, but have the part 107 and 20 years of military flying experience. There are many very good reasons why there is a mismatch between what the rules say (in multiple nations) and what pilots - even experienced ones - actually do. But that's a topic for another thread.

I get that - and I think all professionals will, from time to time, adapt procedures and protocols when really necessary in a particular situation. But, as you well know, we are taught and teach (and follow) SOPs, printed checklists (or EFB) and so on. I suspect some of the mismatch is in the lack of consequences for the bad behaviour we see applauded - if those piloting behaviours occurred in any serious aviation scenario, our licence to function and our livelihood would be on the line. I'd not that even private pilots (i.e. "amateur"/hobbyist) respect and follow the rules (even though there's no livelihood risk); it's about time some of these hobbyist pilots followed suit, rather than engaging in behaviours that jeopardise the professional operations of the rest of us. Public enforcements actions have become the only realistic answer in my view.
Now watch for the flames and thumbs down...