Mavic Pro Flyaway

[tjcooper]

Msinger,
would like to hijack this thread for a minute to ask a question that deals with this "flyaway". Say you got up high, and all of a sudden you are at low battery. What course should you take to stop damage?

- do you come down at a max rate hoping you have some battery left as you get near the ground to do a minimum impact to the ground?
-do you try to do smooth rate down and pray that you hit the ground before you hit 0% battery?
-is there any way that DJI could put in "counter rotation" so that back spin the props and reverse charge the battery so that you have some energy left at the lower elevation to do a controlled landing? (consider turning the Mavic upside down so it would reverse spin the motors to generate battery power).
-do you just point your down camera at the largest open grass area and try to get over that spot so that in free-fall you will hit the non-populated area?

Any other ideas that would help spare the ground population if you get really low on battery? I fly a lot of gliders and DLG prop-less planes. I have been caught in updrafts so strong that I could not point the nose down and decent. Had to do a knife-edge flight and come in at a downward spiral to bring me out of the thermal. Almost broke the wings off trying to force the nose down. So it could happen that I might get low on battery before I could get out of the problem. Different from the case in this thread. But I always like to think what I should do if things get really bad when you are up in the air.
tjcooper

 

[Davedavedave17]

Even if I wanted to, I can’t fly my Mavic Pro Platinum with IPhone 8 Plus more than 50 meters without the video signal disconnecting almost every flight :-((((((

This has been the case ever since buying it new in November 2017. Everything kept updated at all times. A big big disappointment DJI

 

[msinger]

Say you got up high, and all of a sudden you are at low battery. What course should you take to stop damage?

Unless the current ground elevation is much lower than the takeoff point, the Mavic should be able to make it to the ground after it starts auto landing due to the battery reaching the critically low level. As long as you don't hold the throttle in the full up position to prevent the Mavic from auto landing, it should make it to the ground safely in most cases.

 

[787steve]

Guys- serious about ‘line of sight
’? The mavic is unseeable at about 500’ distant. It’s advertised range is approx 4 miles. Why buy a mavic if you don’t intend to fly out of sight? Just buy a spark then. I don’t condone recklessly flying out too far, and if video is your goal, I always try to get as close as possible to my target to maximize loiter time. But don’t fly out of sight? Just buy a $20 toy drone and fly around your living room [emoji849]

So flying out of sight isn't a problem? Well this gent has over a year on the board, and considerable MAVIC time would be my guess. He just flew out about two miles, and now his Mavic has probably fallen out of control into what looks like a residential area. No problem here. None at all. But personally, I wouldn't like to have 1 1/2 pound objects dropping into my yard unannounced. Just sayin'

 

[787steve]

A few people seem to be missing my point I’m not really suggesting to buy a spark instead of a mavic I’m saying for those people that think you shouldn’t fly out of sight why the **** would you buy a drone with a 4 mile range then?

To fly and take pics and videos. Just because it can go 4 miles doesn't mean it has to. I think people just really think you should try to obey the laws like they do. Not a terribly difficult concept to under

Just to clarify, there is no altitude limit for recreational pilots in the US flying under Section 336.

Elsewhere on this forum, someone calculated that the Mavic will reach its terminal velocity in the first 200 feet of free fall. So dropping from 1200 feet wouldn't be any worse than from 200 feet.

There is a limit for keeping in visual line of sight. And I am sure that the calculation from "someone" on this board is totally accurate. Come on!

 

[kakao]

This thread is a good lesson for all of us.

MP is such a nice toy, we all get taken at times, thus such catastrophic results sometimes.

 

[okw]

There is a limit for keeping in visual line of sight.

My comment made no mention of horizontal distance, only vertical.

And I am sure that the calculation from "someone" on this board is totally accurate. Come on!

That "someone" is a skydiver that knows a thing or two about terminal velocity. If you'd like to offer evidence to the contrary, please do.

 

[787steve]

My comment made no mention of horizontal distance, only vertical.

That "someone" is a skydiver that knows a thing or two about terminal velocity. If you'd like to offer evidence to the contrary, please do.

Let me restate my position. I'm sure that "someone on this board who claims to be a skydiver" is totally accurate. I cannot offer evidence to the contrary because unlike the "someone", I do not have access to the mass, coefficient of drag, and reference area of a falling MP. All of which would be necessary to accurately calculate that answer. I wonder how he got those figures. According to someone who says he is a skydiver, it must be considerably different from a person, which is a bit over 1000'. But the real problem in this instance is that the reason it went into free fall, was due to the fact that it was to high to make a controlled landing, due to loss of power. If it had not been so far above the ground, at least it might have had a controlled landing, instead of a crash into what appears to be a densely populated area.

How many times have we seen posts where someone flew out of visual range and happened to also exceed RTH range, then posting asking help for finding their drones? I understand making mistakes, even those mistakes. What I can't understand is with all of these lost drones that would not have been lost if they had been in VLOS, people say that flying BVLOS is perfectly safe. That is the part I don't get. We have many documented cases of drones landing (or crashing) in unknown areas, and some people see no problem with that. I guess I have been flying the other way for too long.

 

[maven4336]

The GO app offers so much support when flying out of sight, the video stream, display of distance, speed, altitude and battery levels, map, radar. So it's no real problem for a pilot with some experience flying this way, I do it all time.
But I would NEVER fly long distance until automatic RTH will kick in because of low battery. And I would NEVER rely on RTH for flying back as long as I am capable doing it by myself. And I would NEVER do a long distance flight with strong wind conditons.
And if he would have kept the golden rule in mind, landing at about 30% battery capacity, this wouldn't have happened.

Same here do it all the time and is very cool to fly far out and record diff things and never fly far off if wind is strong

 

[motopokep]

This reply is EXACTLY the same as saying "What do you mean" Stay within the speed limits?!? " I bought a Ferrari that will do 240 mph. Why buy a Ferrari if you don't intend to go beyond the speed limits?" I've got news for you: The laws as they stand about flying drones apply to you too. Don't like the laws? Get them changed. Until they are changed, they apply to everyone.

It is perfectly legal to do 240 mph on the track in your Ferrari, and some buy Ferraris, or other sporcars, or sportbikes, precisely to test their limits. By coincidence, I have a sportbike that does 185 mph, and I have taken it to 185 mph. It is perfectly legal to fly a drone out of line of sight in the USA. FAA does have a guideline to fly within line of sight, which is yet to become law. It's only a guideline for now. Many, if not most, don't buy a $1,000 drone for pretty pictures. We buy them for the ability to explore long distances and come home using GPS, if needed. Otherwise, if you want pretty pictures, strap a gimbal and a good camera to a $100 drone from Banggood, and fly within visual sight cheaply. In fact, that's exactly what I did (minus the gimbal) before moving on to the Mavic. The only thing that's fun flying LOS are racing drones and helicopters. GPS drones were built to explore.

 

[genesimmons]

At the end of your flight log, the battery was at 0% and your Mavic was located here (about 1,168 feet in the air):

View attachment 26866


The auto landing procedure did not kick in soon enough since the flight controller did not know there was such a large difference between the altitude at the takeoff point and last known location. That means the battery definitely shut off before the Mavic was able to safely land on the ground.

According to the last location in your flight log, your Mavic should have made impact with the ground (or a house/car/tree/person) around this spot:

View attachment 26867

icredible bit of dicifering that log, wow, very impressive, csi aint got nothing on u dude

 

[sar104]

It is perfectly legal to do 240 mph on the track in your Ferrari, and some buy Ferraris, or other sporcars, or sportbikes, precisely to test their limits. By coincidence, I have a sportbike that does 185 mph, and I have taken it to 185 mph. It is perfectly legal to fly a drone out of line of sight in the USA. FAA does have a guideline to fly within line of sight, which is yet to become law. It's only a guideline for now. Many, if not most, don't buy a $1,000 drone for pretty pictures. We buy them for the ability to explore long distances and come home using GPS, if needed. Otherwise, if you want pretty pictures, strap a gimbal and a good camera to a $100 drone from Banggood, and fly within visual sight cheaply. In fact, that's exactly what I did (minus the gimbal) before moving on to the Mavic. The only thing that's fun flying LOS are racing drones and helicopters. GPS drones were built to explore.

Technically speaking, in terms of Part 101, VLOS is only a guideline - from the AMA Safety Code. The problem is that if you don't follow that guideline (and the rest of the AMA Safety Code) then you cease to be covered by Part 101, and default back to Part 107 where you would be in violation of the VLOS requirement - and other requirements if you were not Part 107 certified.

So, while obviously that guideline is regularly not followed with no repercussions, the force of law is there if the FAA chose to exert it.

 

[motopokep]

What authority states that you default back to part 107? You need to be certified to fly 107, I don't see how you default "back":..or correctly to say "forward" to a certified status by not obeying a lower section. That's like saying, you need to be licensed to own a fully automatic weapon, so if you misuse your semi-automatic gun, you are now treated as a gun owner under the fully automatic gun statute.

 

[sar104]

What authority states that you default back to part 107? You need to be certified to fly 107, I don't see how you default "back":..or correctly to say "forward" to a certified status by not obeying a lower section. That's like saying, you need to be licensed to own a fully automatic weapon, so if you misuse your semi-automatic gun, you are now treated as a gun owner under the fully automatic gun statute.

No, it's not like that at all. 14 CFR 107.1 states that you fall under Part 107 unless you meet the criteria of Part 101:

§107.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part applies to the registration, airman certification, and operation of civil small unmanned aircraft systems within the United States.

(b) This part does not apply to the following:

(1) Air carrier operations;

(2) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of part 101 of this chapter; or

(3) Any operation that a remote pilot in command elects to conduct pursuant to an exemption issued under section 333 of Public Law 112-95, unless otherwise specified in the exemption.​

 

[motopokep]

sorry, I fail to follow the logic how one becomes a section 107 pilot if one fails to follow the guidelines of section 101. 14 CFR 107.1(b)(1) states that Section 107 does not apply to an UAV subject to section 101. Subpart C then goes on to describe the certification to fly under 107.

Section 101, Subpart E, governing model aircraft, states that it is applicable to model aircraft flown for hobby or recreational use. 101.41(b) does say (b) The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

A bit vague, but means that local municipalities may enact LOS rules...or if there is "nationwide community-based organization", it must follow its rules also. AMA safety guidelines state " I will maintain visual contact of an RC model aircraft without enhancement other than corrective lenses prescribed to me. When using an advanced flight system, such as an autopilot, or flying First-Person View (FPV), I will comply with AMA’s Advanced FlightSystem programming."

So it DOES allow for FPV flying. If you are flying with FPV goggles, you never have a line of sight, because your eyes are covered and are looking at a screen and you can't see the drone, so this is construed to allow BLOS flying.

Unless CFR states "one shall not fly beyond line of sight" (I simplified it), it's not law. AMA safety guidelines do not become law by virtue CFR vaguely referring to them, not even naming the organization.

And again, I fail to see how not following section 101 makes you a section 107 pilot, for which you have to be certified.

 

[sar104]

sorry, I fail to follow the logic how one becomes a section 107 pilot if one fails to follow the guidelines of section 101. 14 CFR 107.1(b)(1) states that Section 107 does not apply to an UAV subject to section 101. Subpart C then goes on to describe the certification to fly under 107.

Section 101, Subpart E, governing model aircraft, states that it is applicable to model aircraft flown for hobby or recreational use. 101.41(b) does say (b) The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

A bit vague, but means that local municipalities may enact LOS rules...or if there is "nationwide community-based organization", it must follow its rules also. AMA safety guidelines state " I will maintain visual contact of an RC model aircraft without enhancement other than corrective lenses prescribed to me. When using an advanced flight system, such as an autopilot, or flying First-Person View (FPV), I will comply with AMA’s Advanced FlightSystem programming."

So it DOES allow for FPV flying. If you are flying with FPV goggles, you never have a line of sight, because your eyes are covered and are looking at a screen and you can't see the drone, so this is construed to allow BLOS flying.

Unless CFR states "one shall not fly beyond line of sight" (I simplified it), it's not law. AMA safety guidelines do not become law by virtue CFR vaguely referring to them, not even naming the organization.

And again, I fail to see how not following section 101 makes you a section 107 pilot, for which you have to be certified.

OK, I see what is causing the confusion here. While the term "Part 107" is commonly used to describe the "FAA Remote Pilot Certificate with small UAS rating", Part 107 itself is much more than that - it is the overarching law governing sUAS operations, as stated in 107.1 (a).

§107.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part applies to the registration, airman certification, and operation of civil small unmanned aircraft systems within the United States.​

unless they fall under one of three other categories listed in paragraph (b), the second of which says:

(b) (2) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of part 101 of this chapter​

To restate: civil sUAS operations in the U.S. are governed by 14 CFR Part 107 unless they are exempt by falling under one of three other categories, one of which is 14 CFR Part 101.

So if we now go to 14 CFR Part 101, we find that subpart E is the short provision referred to as the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft" which starts, as they all do, with applicability:

§101.41 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes rules governing the operation of a model aircraft (or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft) that meets all of the following conditions as set forth in section 336 of Public Law 112-95:

(a) The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(b) The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

(c) The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;

(d) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and

(e) When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation.​

101.41 describes the conditions (from Section 336 of Public Law 112-95) that must be met in order to fall under this provision. If these conditions are not met, then the operation doesn't meet applicability, doesn't fall under Part 101, and therefore is not exempt from Part 107.

In this case the condition in question is 101.41 (b) - the community-based guidelines requirement which currently means the AMA Safety Code. So - if you don't follow that safety code (even though the code only comprises guidelines), then you fail 101.41 (b). That's not a violation of any law, since 101.41 only describes applicability, but it means that you simply don't fall under Part 101, therefore don't meet the exemption test of 107.1 (b) (2), therefore fall under Part 107.

So you don't get to avoid Part 107 simply by not being certified under it - you only get to avoid it if you can claim one of the exemptions in 107.1 (b) (Air Carrier, Part 101 or Section 333), which requires meeting the conditions laid out in those specific provisions.

 

[Judge Advocate]

If you guys never fly out of sight your missing out and boring. Way more people do it then not so I would just not comment. He is looking for help not to be spanked.

Yes and no. We have to feel sorry yes but at the same time, no, because he was flying illegally beyond line of sight. It’s like saying we have to feel sorry for someone who crashed his car while going 100 miles an hour!
There are safe ways to fly and there are other ways to fly. I’m leaving it at that.

 

[Judge Advocate]

I've been flying the Mavic for the past two years and never once had this issue. I have been flying the DJI brand and have been very aware of its limitations.

I have posted my flight log if someone can take a look at it. I know the distance was rather far, but the app indicated when it was a good idea to head back home and I let it do its thing. It's important to note that the drone barely made it 1000 feet closer to me before hitting critically low power which I find weird. The app should always be calculating distance/wind to determine a more accurate return time right? Attaching the flight log now.

It doesn’t calculate wind! You have to do that on your own!

 

[Judge Advocate]

At the end of your flight log, the battery was at 0% and your Mavic was located here (about 1,168 feet in the air):

View attachment 26866


The auto landing procedure did not kick in soon enough since the flight controller did not know there was such a large difference between the altitude at the takeoff point and last known location. That means the battery definitely shut off before the Mavic was able to safely land on the ground.

According to the last location in your flight log, your Mavic should have made impact with the ground (or a house/car/tree/person) around this spot:

View attachment 26867

Hope he had insurance !

 

[787steve]

sorry, I fail to follow the logic how one becomes a section 107 pilot if one fails to follow the guidelines of section 101. 14 CFR 107.1(b)(1) states that Section 107 does not apply to an UAV subject to section 101. Subpart C then goes on to describe the certification to fly under 107.

Section 101, Subpart E, governing model aircraft, states that it is applicable to model aircraft flown for hobby or recreational use. 101.41(b) does say (b) The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

A bit vague, but means that local municipalities may enact LOS rules...or if there is "nationwide community-based organization", it must follow its rules also. AMA safety guidelines state " I will maintain visual contact of an RC model aircraft without enhancement other than corrective lenses prescribed to me. When using an advanced flight system, such as an autopilot, or flying First-Person View (FPV), I will comply with AMA’s Advanced FlightSystem programming."

So it DOES allow for FPV flying. If you are flying with FPV goggles, you never have a line of sight, because your eyes are covered and are looking at a screen and you can't see the drone, so this is construed to allow BLOS flying.

Unless CFR states "one shall not fly beyond line of sight" (I simplified it), it's not law. AMA safety guidelines do not become law by virtue CFR vaguely referring to them, not even naming the organization.

And again, I fail to see how not following section 101 makes you a section 107 pilot, for which you have to be certified.

Let me give this a try. It is not the easiest and clearest legislation out there.

On Feb 14, 2012, the congress PASSED Public Law 112-95. ( https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ95/PLAW-112publ95.pdf ) You often see it it referred to on this board as the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. This is the legislation that bars the FAA from passing regulations that affect model aircraft. It also sets up the ability for the FAA to regulate any drone not flown as model aircraft. That is the portion referred to as Part 107. Part 107 requires you to pass a test to operate under it's domain. If you make money with your flying, you are under part 107. If you do so without passing the test, it is similar to driving your Ferrari without a license. You can be charged for any traffic violation you commit, as well as driving without a license. Just because you don't have a driver's license doesn't mean you can't be charged for speeding. Simple enough.

In Public Law 112-95, is where you see Section 336, Special Rule for Model Aircraft.
https://drones.princeton.edu/sites/drones/files/sec-336.pdf

Section 336 is the part which restricts the FAA from controlling model aircraft such as our drones. It does so with this statement:
"Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if--".
Pay very close attention to that last two letter word. "if". This is where most people stop reading when they have posted what you have come to think of as the whole story. But the "if" makes all the difference in the world to you and I and our Mavics.
When you get to the last section of Sec 336, is the catcher. Paragraph (C) defines what a model aircraft is. And remember, the only way to avoid the restrictions of Part 107 is to fly a model aircraft. I will copy paragraph (c) since it is so short.

"(c) Model Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term ``model aircraft'' means an unmanned aircraft that is--
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

By definition of the law, if you do not fly within visual line of sight, you are not flying a Model aircraft. Only model aircraft tare exempted from FAA. If you fly beyond VLOS, you are subject to the FAA regs, and you already have two violations; flying beyond VLOS, and operating under Part 107 without a license.

Do people break this law with impunity? According to this board, some surely do. In fact, I do not know of any board on the web where so many people publicly brag about how they break the law so regularly. You would think that, with the poor public image which our hobby suffers, people would zip it when it comes to such public bragging about purposely and frequently breaking the law. How difficult do you think it would be for congress to change that legislation in a way that would really hurt the hobby?
I hope I presented this is a way that makes it clear. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me, or reply here. I encourage you tp read the whole of Sec 336. It is quite short. That also has the part about the community based set of safety guidelines, of which the AMA seems to be the only one to use.