A thread for you pro telemetry readers, crash spotters and 107 knowledgeable guys please...

[Quagmire LXIX]

Hi all, I'm hoping one of you more experienced and knowledgeable people could help me out. I have attached a converted tele file from an S16 that also has a crash log for the same date. To me the tele doesn't look like it moves much lat&long and doesn't get any alt. There are 2 tele files converted on this one text file, the first tel file was created 9:12am and the 2nd was created 4 minutes later. The crashlogs were created 9:09am. The error flags raise my eyebrow, but I don't how to read them. Does anybody have insight into this?

Also, is there a way to find out if Yuneec unlocked an S16 to fly within 5 miles of airports, without trying to do it. I absolutely do not believe it is unlocked (if that's even possible), because I do not believe this individual has a 107 to try.

Thanks bunch for input!

 

[WTFDproject]

You need to zip up the ENTIRE Flightlog directory, and post that file for anyone to be able to review it. Please refer to the post by @DoomMeister .

" Help me with forensics"

 

[WTFDproject]

Also, what are we looking for when the Flight Logs are available for review?
You mentioned "crash", but did not mention if you are looking for cause of crash, location of missing drone, or other question you may have. Is this your event, or is it someone else?

 

[WTFDproject]

Thank you very much WTFDproject, may I call you WTF for short Just if it was a crash, cause and anything to describe how hard of one it might be. The drone is not lost. Someone else's event. Thank you!

Just call me "Tom". "WTF" stands for "Way To Fix" in my username, but many folks now days misinterpret it due to the more common use of that abbreviation on social media.

Also, third party reviews often become a mess. Can you get the actual pilot to log into this thread?

 

[DoomMeister]

The text file you posted is not the csv file from an ST-16, nor is it a txt file from the csv as information is not in the proper order. Since you say an ST-16 I am assuming this came from an H480 or H920 aircraft.

As @WTFDproject stated above, to truly analyze the telemetry we need the Remote, RemoteGPS, Sensor, and Telemetry files from the flight in question. They also have to be pristine and not have been opened by any other program as that can add to the file structure.

EDIT: i see you posted the info while I was composing a response. I'll take a look shortly.

 

[Quagmire LXIX]

lol, Way to Fix is exactly what I was thinking, just funnin', not meant to insult you Tom. No I can't get him to login to the thread, no worries if there are community protocols or standards being violated here, we can drop the thread. I purchased the drone and caught him in a bunch of lies and figured I would back up some other discrepancies with data.

Thanks DoomMeister, the entire flightlog directory was zipped per Tom's post and your instructions on posted link, the date in question is 9/14/18 and all 4 folders have 2 files each on that date after 9am.

No need to go any further is you two are uncomfortable or opposed to this research, thank you for your efforts. I will remove the post with the file.

 

[DoomMeister]

@Quagmire LXIX

Was the flight in question the final one in the telemetry? That would be 00113. Date and time would help narrow the search.

 

[DoomMeister]

I'll take a look.

 

[DoomMeister]

Those two files show that the TH was bound to the ST-16 and recorded a telemetry file, but was never flown for either file. The motors were never armed which would have showed up as a change in flight mode from 16 to 8 and then followed by 3 or 4 due to number of satellites detected. This was at the Hyatt Regency in Clearwater, FL and waas likely inside the building.

The aircraft was not flown on that date at all.

 

[Quagmire LXIX]

Thanks Doom, I show the times between 9:11am to 9:16am between all 8 files. There is flight data after that, the last date flown looks to be 3/9/19 which seems to be one of the lies I caught him in. He claims to have test flight before selling for 45 minutes on 2 batteries. My experience suggests its bull as I've never got 22.5 min flight on even a new battery.

 

[Quagmire LXIX]

Those two files show that the TH was bound to the ST-16 and recorded a telemetry file, but was never flown for either file. The motors were never armed which would have showed up as a change in flight mode from 16 to 8 and then followed by 3 or 4 due to number of satellites detected. This was at the Hyatt Regency in Clearwater, FL and waas likely inside the building.

The aircraft was not flown on that date at all.

Indeed, that's what I surmised just from looking at the text file I first uploaded, barely moved lat&long and didn't get any altitude. So I suspected it wasn't a crash, but yet the only crashlog on the ST16 was from that date and time. So it appears it didn't actually crash. His other flight tele dates do correspond with some video on the ST16. But upon receiving it did have damage to side of cam that he didn't disclose and now says he dropped the cam. There are more issues and nondisclosure's from this guy and completely does not fall under his listing description. Thank you very much for taking a look Doom!

 

[Fred Garvin]

What's the story here? Did you buy an aircraft that was misrepresented?

 

[FlushVision]

Thanks Doom, I show the times between 9:11am to 9:16am between all 8 files. There is flight data after that, the last date flown looks to be 3/9/19 which seems to be one of the lies I caught him in. He claims to have test flight before selling for 45 minutes on 2 batteries. My experience suggests its bull as I've never got 22.5 min flight on even a new battery.

while it is possible to get more than 20 minutes flight time out of a healthy battery...indeed I know of one person on this forum who has had a verified 24 minutes flight (actually @Fred Garvin above post), I see such times as unusual. The best time I've seen was 19 minutes. So anyone claiming 22.5 minutes on each of two consecutive batteries should be asked to prove it or shut up. If they can prove it (and it is possible but doubtful) then that's fine. If not then assume porky pies.

 

[Quagmire LXIX]

What's the story here? Did you buy an aircraft that was misrepresented?

Sure did.

while it is possible to get more than 20 minutes flight time out of a healthy battery...indeed I know of one person on this forum who has had a verified 24 minutes flight (actually @Fred Garvin above post), I see such times as unusual. The best time I've seen was 19 minutes. So anyone claiming 22.5 minutes on each of two consecutive batteries should be asked to prove it or shut up. If they can prove it (and it is possible but doubtful) then that's fine. If not then assume porky pies.

Indeed. Problem is all this was learned after delivery. Before purchase it was listed as crash free and in "pristine condition", there are no qualms about using the word pristine. He did not picture the batts, so b4 bidding, I asked how many included and are they in good condition, the answer was 2 and yes. The arrival had them swollen to a level where I could push in almost 1/8" on both sides of each battery. He claims after delivery that he tested the flight getting 45minutes from those 2 batts and was ignorant that swollen batts are bad, but assuring me that everything works well (like I care about assurances at this point). He even claims he did not describe it as "pristine condition", the listing clearly says different. Ebay's Money Back Guarantee has been initiated and I have this kid spilling his guts with the facts on email, but refusing to refund, the case should be closed quickly.

 

[PatR]

If the H had unlocked NFZ’s there would be a trail of e-mails with Yuneec. One would be a request for application, one would have a blank PDF application form, one would have a completed application PDF, and the last would be an e-mail with a firmware file attachment. The completed application and returned firmware e-mails are the important ones as each firmware file is specific to the aircraft auto pilot serial number. The completed application would have a copy of the requestor’s 107 cert.

 

[Quagmire LXIX]

How have you been Pat? Don't know about his 107, still doubt he would have one, but DoomMeister just confirmed with me it is unlocked and some details I figured likely. Too bad the cam shows signs of damage and the batts are really messed up, there are many other signs and details this guy lied about though. He's offering a $100 partial refund to avoid the Money Back Guarantee which I am sure to be granted, but I do have concerns about shipping it back and covering my A about him saying I sent back rocks or something. He says he got this as a birthday present when he was 16 and the ST16 seems to show all of his history, he was just a casual user and never cleared his folders and I have a lot of pics and vids where he is doing illegal stuff, especially if he was a 107.
Meanwhile Doom points out Ty is down to $550 on his, hindsight and all...

 

[DoomMeister]

I don’t think he was getting the permanent unlock on the craft. I suspect he was getting the 90 day unlock that is applied through the GUI.

 

[Quagmire LXIX]

Makes sense Doom, thanks again. I really dont want the unlock anyway, i always chk my area b4 flight, but good to have the lock for crucial airspace. Just good to hear something truthful could come from him, even if it was temporary.

 

[PatR]

You could fix all of it but a good lesson would be taught about truthfulness if you executed the money back guarantee. If you felt like it you could have the box contents notarized but I don’t think that would be necessary. However, I would discharge those batteries down to zero before I would ship them back.

I’ll be selling one of mine soon but Ty’s price is good, just as I’m sure his H is.

 

[Fred Garvin]

.....Ty’s price is good, just as I’m sure his H is......

X2.....if you can get your money back and score Ty’s bird.....that’d be an awesome ending....