I never thought that this could happen, but if you are also trying to land with FPV and not looking at the bird, you're an idiot and should sell your drone to someone who won't ruin the drone or cause a bad name for all drone enthusiasts. There needs to be a control of who can buy a drone, requiring lessons and tests with a certain amount of logged time with an experienced pilot. Drones shouldn't just be sold to anyone. Just like a vehicle or any other aircraft, there needs to be consequences and progression of knowledge. There should be a mandatory time flying quadcopters with and without altitude stabilization and angle/pilot mode. The price for training and quadcopters should be low to encourage not only responsible flying and education, but make the industry grow. After you have demonstrated proficiency with quadcopters, then you can progress to racing quadcopters or drones. A probationary period should be placed on any drone pilot once licence is acquired that they can be tracked they are flying in correct areas, heights etc. After the probationary period is done then they should have autonomy to fly. I'm a professional heli pilot as well and have been flying RC airplanes since I was a kid before graduating to quadcopters and then drones. I look at every drone flight the way i do a normal helicopter flight. I do a visual snd physical inspection, know the weather (wind direction, humidity, barometric pressure, temperature etc), start my aircraft once i have acheived telemetry/Gps satelites (never fly unless i have 10 minimum on drone), flight times, battery levels pre and post. I log everything whether I'm flying a drone or heli. I love flying and think anyone who is responsible should, and wouldn't want anyone to not have the joy I have. So that being said stop allowing just anyone who can afford to buy a drone the ability. I'll be fine I have a pilots licence and this will not affect me, but it can ruin it for everyone else.
Another bad landing
- Thread starter pipinmels
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2017
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 6
- Age
- 60
Hello Members, just want to jump in and say i also have same problem and it is my right joy stick .. Its showing a jerky not smooth return .. So how does one fix this problem? ..
I got an arousal can and sprayed air in the base but still same?
Any suggestions
You obviously have strong feelings on the subject of who should be allowed to fly model aircraft (to use an outdated phrase). You also seem to make a distinction between helicopters, quadcopters and drones so where does the H fit into this heirarchy? In my opinion, your post comes across as very elitist and against the desires of many hobbyists who fly many different types of craft from very small to quite large. Government and big business would agree with you so that they can control and extort cash from people. The fees would not be "low to encourage" but high enough to make the pips squeak!
You say "I'll be fine I have a pilots licence and this will not affect me". Perhaps if all drones are regarded as aircraft and you crash yours, what happens to your licence then?
Stop restricting freedoms.
FlushVision
Premium Pilot
Hmmm. I'm a bit torn on this one. I partly agree with AveryBadman, but I also agree with you.
As you know, here in the U.K. there is new UAV legislation being introduced in the not-too-distant future which will introduce a requirement to get registered, have insurance, and have pilots demonstrate (in the form of a test?) some sort of proficiency in flying UAVs. Now, as a PfCO holder, I'm not yet clear how this would affect me: I have a Remote Pilots Certificate, Have insurance for commercial operations and, in a sense, already have my UAVs registered since they are detailed in my CAA approved Operations Manual.
But I think that the upcoming legislation is, essentially, not a bad thing if it will make pilots better pilots...but, as far as I can tell, the legislation will not stop anyone from purchasing a drone...just make it illegal to fly it without meeting the legislation's requirements. My view, though, is that the legislation will not stop all pilots fly their drones if those pilots have not met the requirements of that legislation. Some pilots will still take to the air no matter how illegally they are doing it. Only legislation introduced that meets what AveryBadman is saying will do that. But it won't! I imagine that it would only work in relation to new aircraft purchased above board. To make it work for all aircraft bought any legislation would have to be draconian, and we don't need that.
So, although I would agree that it would be nice if pilots had to demonstrate some proficiency in their UAS before taking to the air I think that having laws that are strong enough to prevent all pilots buying UAVs before taking a test (how do you cater for the second hand market) would be just going to far. What the U.K. government are proposing, I think, is a reasonable compromise as I understand it.
With Respect.
Watch this video starting at min 2:20. Canned air doesn't work because the gimbal pots are enclosed in a plastic housing. It can take several application to get the spray to finally penetrate into that housing. Also, on the back of the ST16 there is a tiny rubber plug over each gimbal. You can remove the plug and spray in at an angle to hit the pots.
On the requirements... agree on a need for proficiency and safety. Although, several indicate flying since a kid... that can be a 10-12 yr old. Wouldn’t this limit the hobby and skillsets developed? Shall bicycle usage be limited until test & license, much higher quantity and unregistered cyclist involved in accidents. How about privacy invasion, the photography component needs to request and file permits to shoot the scene prior to arriving? Regulations tend to grow beyond practical intentions presented a piece at a time.
PatR
Premium Pilot
Avoiding the last part of your post, only addressing the first, I don’t believe having to built a skill set to be limiting at all. I see it more as the path required to achieve a goal, and very much like climbing a ladder. You don’t start at the top unless the only place you want to go is the bottom.
Using the bicycle as an example, most start out when young with training wheels until they learn balance and coordination. Those that start later in life, too proud to start with the basics, leave a lot of skin on the pavement.
Anyone can buy whatever they can afford, and some will buy more than they can afford, but having something does not mean they have enough skill to make effective use of it. To blame the equipment for a personal lack of skill and understanding is at minimum immature. I have yet to encounter anyone that is qualified to do anything they want to, however, most can do whatever they want to if they are willing to put in the time and effort to learn how.
Using the bicycle as an example, most start out when young with training wheels until they learn balance and coordination. Those that start later in life, too proud to start with the basics, leave a lot of skin on the pavement.
Anyone can buy whatever they can afford, and some will buy more than they can afford, but having something does not mean they have enough skill to make effective use of it. To blame the equipment for a personal lack of skill and understanding is at minimum immature. I have yet to encounter anyone that is qualified to do anything they want to, however, most can do whatever they want to if they are willing to put in the time and effort to learn how.
Last edited:
PatR
Premium Pilot
Dougcjohn,
The reason i avoided the latter portion of your post is because I'm in the great Socialist state of California, where the government owns everything and the people own nothing, but pay for everything the state owns. Where anything not specifically permitted is prohibited, which may be relieved by applying for permits, registration, back ground checks, and filing fees, and special use taxes. To shoot alongside a road requires a CalTrans permit and lots of staffing for traffic control, along with CalTrans direct oversight. To shoot commercial inside a big city you'll probably have to go through several state and local regulatory agencies to obtain approval. Bring lots of money and don't plan on keeping any of it. In other countries they call what's done here graft, bribery and extortion. In California photography is considerably regulated, especially if the imagery is used for commercial purposed. All private property and persons have rights pertaining to when and where their images can be used without written permissions. Those operating as amateurs that elect to record and publish images of someone on that persons property without permission are subject to whopping fines and jail time. Our Honorable? Dianne Feinstein tried real hard to make that even worse but thankfully her proposed bill failed.
The reason i avoided the latter portion of your post is because I'm in the great Socialist state of California, where the government owns everything and the people own nothing, but pay for everything the state owns. Where anything not specifically permitted is prohibited, which may be relieved by applying for permits, registration, back ground checks, and filing fees, and special use taxes. To shoot alongside a road requires a CalTrans permit and lots of staffing for traffic control, along with CalTrans direct oversight. To shoot commercial inside a big city you'll probably have to go through several state and local regulatory agencies to obtain approval. Bring lots of money and don't plan on keeping any of it. In other countries they call what's done here graft, bribery and extortion. In California photography is considerably regulated, especially if the imagery is used for commercial purposed. All private property and persons have rights pertaining to when and where their images can be used without written permissions. Those operating as amateurs that elect to record and publish images of someone on that persons property without permission are subject to whopping fines and jail time. Our Honorable? Dianne Feinstein tried real hard to make that even worse but thankfully her proposed bill failed.
It's interesting to note the State of Michigan actually has given considerable protection to UAV owners. Basically it allow any operation that complies with FAA regs. It even prohibits cities and counties from creating their own regs. Rather amaziing.
Sec. 5. (1) Except as expressly authorized by statute, a political subdivision shall not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.
259.311 Operation of unmanned aircraft system; person authorized by Federal Aviation Administration. Sec. 11. A person that is authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to operate unmanned aircraft systems for commercial purposes may operate an unmanned aircraft system in this state if the unmanned aircraft system is operated in a manner consistent with federal law. History: 2016, Act 436, Eff. Apr. 4, 2017.
259.313 Operation of unmanned aircraft system; manner. Sec. 13. A person may operate an unmanned aircraft system in this state for recreational purposes if the unmanned aircraft system is operated in a manner consistent with federal law for the operation of a model aircraft
Sec. 5. (1) Except as expressly authorized by statute, a political subdivision shall not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.
259.311 Operation of unmanned aircraft system; person authorized by Federal Aviation Administration. Sec. 11. A person that is authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to operate unmanned aircraft systems for commercial purposes may operate an unmanned aircraft system in this state if the unmanned aircraft system is operated in a manner consistent with federal law. History: 2016, Act 436, Eff. Apr. 4, 2017.
259.313 Operation of unmanned aircraft system; manner. Sec. 13. A person may operate an unmanned aircraft system in this state for recreational purposes if the unmanned aircraft system is operated in a manner consistent with federal law for the operation of a model aircraft
Flushvision, thank you for your comments. Please bear in mind that I approach these questions from the point of view of a hobbyist. For business, I think it is quite right that you can show paying clients that you are competent, regulated and insured to provide your services.
I apologise to all forum members for ranting but I don't believe in the Nanny State.
I am more concerned as to where the proposals are going especially since there is a trend to classify all model craft as aircraft under the regulations. Will this mean that a person who has built from scratch their first fixed wing glider must then register it and sit a test before their first attempted flight? Some modellers may build two or three planes a week - control-line combat for example.
Justification for these regulations may be based on mis-represented statistics. The UK Airprox Board shows many reports of incidents involving drones even though some of these reports are doubtful. A Cessna 150 pilot reports a model aircraft incident over open countryside at a height of 50 feet? A number of reports include drones at altitudes of 10,000 to 14,000 feet? How will the proposed laws find the pilots involved in such incidents? An unenforcable law is bad law.
Many hobbys and pastimes involve risk far more than our hobby - some involve regular serious injury or death. Should all hobbies be regulated?
Stop restricting freedoms.
End of rant.
FlushVision
Premium Pilot
No need to apologize, Dilly Joat. Not to me anyway. And, yes, an unenforceable law is a bad law. This would be the case if everyone needed to pass some sort of test before even buying a drone. Some people will find ways around it by either building their own, or buying second hand and flying them without taking any sort of test. So, only the law abiding and careful pilots would be affected. In such a case those who are prepared to take to the air illegally, come what may, will have a field day (and will be pretty much untraceable unless caught red handed).Flushvision, thank you for your comments. Please bear in mind that I approach these questions from the point of view of a hobbyist. For business, I think it is quite right that you can show paying clients that you are competent, regulated and insured to provide your services.
I apologise to all forum members for ranting but I don't believe in the Nanny State.
I am more concerned as to where the proposals are going especially since there is a trend to classify all model craft as aircraft under the regulations. Will this mean that a person who has built from scratch their first fixed wing glider must then register it and sit a test before their first attempted flight? Some modellers may build two or three planes a week - control-line combat for example.
Justification for these regulations may be based on mis-represented statistics. The UK Airprox Board shows many reports of incidents involving drones even though some of these reports are doubtful. A Cessna 150 pilot reports a model aircraft incident over open countryside at a height of 50 feet? A number of reports include drones at altitudes of 10,000 to 14,000 feet? How will the proposed laws find the pilots involved in such incidents? An unenforcable law is bad law.
Many hobbys and pastimes involve risk far more than our hobby - some involve regular serious injury or death. Should all hobbies be regulated?
Stop restricting freedoms.
End of rant.
Intent was a minimal post just to throw in my 2 cents of prespective... maybe too small to communicate fully... My example above wasn’t focused on “skill set”, but more on young having “ability or right” flying and learning, based on expressed discussion of new stronger reg’s and wanting to limit to only qualified certificate holders as a over-reaction to a minimal number of accidents of the aerial craft... if new reg’s where in place requiring pre-requirements before able to purchase or fly. Same rational applied to bikes, used as example if reg’s were being proposed based on accidents, privacy, etc the bicycle was a example as well as photo... point was new reg’s often limit more than intended and used to justify additional reg’s.
Last edited:
PatR
Premium Pilot
That changes perspective completely. I completely misunderstood the intent of your previous post. This reply will likely be long as what we are discussing has a lot of social-economic-political factors that are influencing what is happening.
I believe there are distinctions within our Constitution that provides a right for everyone to fly as opposed to being a privilege like obtaining a driver's license. We have to accept that with rights come responsibilities and how we address those responsibilities (safety of those not directly involved in our activities for example) can impact how narrowly those rights might be interpreted or encroached upon. We have an extreme example of that currently in play in the national media with the hue and cry to take firearms away from the public.
As you brought up a good point earlier I should mention I've been flying model aircraft since I was about 8 years old, starting with control line stuff, so I've observed the progression/transformation of model aviation over a relatively long period of time. The advent of FPV, auto pilots, and almost fully automated flight systems changed the complexion of model aviation forever. Some of those changes have negatives that can and do easily offset the positives.
I firmly believe everyone should be able to obtain and fly model aircraft, with some limitations, but until fairly recently, say up until ~15 to 20 years ago, participating in model aviation required those having a desire to get involved to develop both knowledge and flight skills. That knowledge provided the foundation for the construction of structurally sound aircraft, the function and use of flight controls, principles of flight, and flight safety. Initiates spent time with others having more knowledge and experience that were teaching them things necessary to successfully participate in the hobby. Those new to the hobby were more often than not overseen in their initial attempts at flight by others much more skilled to show them how to control the aircraft, prevent crashes, and continue educating initiates of safe operational practices. The vast majority of model aviation activities were usually conducted well away from the general public, population centers, and airports. Even back in the day when people flew model aircraft at area parks and school grounds there were safety protocols in practice to limit risk to others. Lacking such oversight and instruction newbies typically crashed and destroyed their aircraft within seconds of departing the ground. Because of that there was little threat to others in the immediate area. In a manner of speaking model aviation was a community where many came together at various locations to share common goals. They did not have auto pilots and self flying air vehicles available to them that allowed the uneducated, unskilled, and in some cases, moronic, to fly any serious distances by simply tapping a screen or pushing a button, nor could they launch their aircraft from their front porch, back yard, or middle of a busy shopping center. The controllable range of their aircraft was pretty much restricted to how far they could see it, which provided a "built in" distance limitation.
As all of what has gone before has changed significantly it may be reasonable to impose built in distance restrictions for "training" aircraft. Someone just getting started does not "need" to fly further than they can see. They may want to but their knowledge and ability level does not justify an ability to harm or violate the privacy of others. Those factors are what is being used by the media (and I dare say our government) to shape public perception against us. Might some form of pre-purchase knowledge/educational requirements assist in the promotion of flight safety? Might incorporation of a restrictive flight control system that limits functionality until users master various skill levels be helpful? None of that needs to be a regulatory process. It could be incorporated by manufacturers of flight systems. That will not happen because flight safety, operator training, or extending the life of the model are not things manufacturers care about. Their only concern is sales volume and anything that reduces that interferes with their generation of profit. That was a segue for the next item in play.
Perhaps a much greater impact on our hobby is the expansion of corporate revenue generation. Aerospace and governments learned through war time applications that UAV's can be extremely profitable, and that UAV applications may well be nearly infinite in scope. Back in 2006 the corporate aviation would initiated the first ARC committee, one intended to form the groundwork for how our airspace would be divided up for their benefit going forward. That first association of ARC members has expanded tremendously to encompass a very large segment of commercial and corporate aviation by becoming the FAA Drone Advisory Council. We, the hobby level users, have only DJI as representation in this group and DJI has demonstrated their primary concern is expansion of products and services that best align with ATC/airspace privatization, a system that would quickly force us out of the sky. So called UAV advocacy groups like the AUVSI that led people to believe they existed to best serve all of the unmanned aviation community. That was not true as their mission was to defend and promote UAS for corporations and governments. The little guys like us were and are disposable, useful only for capturing membership revenue, and have no representation. Pretty much the same is applicable to The Small UAV Coalition, a group created to protect and promote rights and government access of select sUAS developers and manufacturers.
The business of drones is BIG money, and the corporate world loves nothing more than big money. Corporations for all intents and purposes "own" our governments and regulatory processes. They lobby the government to write laws and regulations that favor them, providing them a means to effectively control whatever they desire. For that reason they are the ones that populate the FAA's Drone Advisory Council. Our airspace rules are being manipulated to provide corporate America to operate UAS beyond line of sight. They have already demonstrated their intent to target package delivery, photogrammetry, agriculture, inspection, and surveillance markets. They only way they can accomplish their market strategies is to have control of the airspace. To obtain that they need to develop and implement equipment certification specifications, maintenance, flight training, incident reporting, and process improvement programs that will vastly exceed what people like us will be able to afford. If you want to participate you will have to comply. Once they have completed that process we will be forced out of the sky, or at best limited to extremely short range low level operations. It's all about the money.
So we have the right to fly, along with the responsibility to do so safely. At least for the moment. Unfortunately we are doing nothing to promote or preserve those rights. We are generally apathetic towards involvement in the political processes necessary to preserve our rights, have not created any groups dedicated to promoting and defending our activities, while often being more concerned with who's products are better. Very few take any time to review what is happening within the UAV industry and government regulatory processes but many are quick to complain when they see their rights or "access" being restricted. If we want to continue flying we will have to develop some type of entry educational programs to demonstrate we share the public's concerns over their safety and privacy. Lacking that we will still have a right to fly, but be prevented from exercising that right through regulatory compliance burden. We will maintain a right to fly but not have the ability to utilize it.
Last edited:
yes sometimes the typhoon H can be unpredictable you never know when something is going to go funny on it
I'm very late to this party by the looks of it but I too know what OP means. The drift on landing thing affects me maybe every 6 or 7 flights or so. Often enough that I have a system now: My sticks are a tiny bit drifty sometimes.
First I pre-empt problems by checking hardware monitor before the flight.If that's OK I fly.
Then, if drifting happens when landing...
1. Stir right stick gently, then release both, wait to see if drift will stablise, if so, throttle down gently.
2. If it's still drifting, raise up to 60 ft, release sticks, wait for stabilise and throttle down again
3. Still drifting ? - try again with 1 and 2 as many times as you can be bothered / have battery for.
4. Last call - position 2 ft above head height, get as stable as possible, chase, hand catch, red button hold.
First I pre-empt problems by checking hardware monitor before the flight.If that's OK I fly.
Then, if drifting happens when landing...
1. Stir right stick gently, then release both, wait to see if drift will stablise, if so, throttle down gently.
2. If it's still drifting, raise up to 60 ft, release sticks, wait for stabilise and throttle down again
3. Still drifting ? - try again with 1 and 2 as many times as you can be bothered / have battery for.
4. Last call - position 2 ft above head height, get as stable as possible, chase, hand catch, red button hold.
it scares me to death to fly with no GPS I've done it a couple times but I hate the way the thing drifts around and I know darn well you sure better keep it in line of sight.
Keith Kuhn
FlushVision
Premium Pilot
I understand your fear of flying without the aid of GPS but, in my view, all pilots of these things should at least get some practice in to add it to their skill set should the need arise to call upon it.
Choose a day with only light winds and take off with GPS switched on. Once you are in sable flight with the aircraft pretty close to you switch GPS off and gently maneuver around compensating for the drift so that you get a feel for how the aircraft performs without GPS. Do it for about 5 minutes or so. Then switch back to GPS for he remainder of the flight. Doing this once every few flights will quickly allow you to build confidence and will give you the skills to call upon should you ever need to call upon them.
Note: Important to take off with GPS switched on so that the aircraft has a fix on the position of the ST16. With this positional fix the aircraft then has the ability too return to that position even if the GPS is switched off!
This thread has multiple lives... resurfaced & good discussion!
I'd agree with FlushVision, it's a skill set that has benefit.
A No-GPS condition is a little similar in comparison to RC Heli's normal condition. The Drone continues to remain very flyable & stable. The Gyro stabilization, optical or sonic features normally remains operational and the AC will continue to fly very stable. It brings the drone closer to the flying skills of an RC Heli, although the Heli is much more unstable in good condition than the drone is even without GPS. The more flying skills acquired without computerized circuits, the better for the Pilot's baked in reactionary skills.
Wow - didn't know that ! Is it definitely right ?! That would be very cool if it was. Anyone got a video link that shows that happening by any chance ?
FlushVision
Premium Pilot
Yes and proven. A pilot using a TH wishing to go commercial in the U.K. must actually demonstrate this ability during his operational assessment before applying for the PfCO.Wow - didn't know that ! Is it definitely right ?! That would be very cool if it was. Anyone got a video link that shows that happening by any chance ?
Remember that when switching off the GPS on a TH you aren't actually switching it off...you are just telling the aircraft to ignore the GPS information. Very important, though, that the GPS was active at the start of the flight.
Similar threads
