Can the GPS be turned off manually for the H plus?

[rdonson]

@PatR yep, mine took off at high speed. In some ways I feel lucky it hit the tree I could see rather than fly across the county somewhere.

Anyway, now I’m going to investigate the cost of a FC for the H. I hope I never experience that again.

On the bright side @Steve Carr took me through the telemetry files and explained what happened so I learned a great deal. I’m am indebted to Steve for sharing his expertise and his time.

 

[PatR]

Steve is a very dedicated guy. I hope most recognize and appreciate that as you do.

 

[KEITH KUHN]

Switchable GPS was not available with the initial release of the Typhoon H. It did not become available until about the 3rd of 4th firmware update. As the H Plus uses completely different system code it may take a little time to incorporate selective GPS.

In any event, loss of GPS places the aircraft in a mode essentially the same at DJI’s Atti and APM/Pxhawk’s Stabilize modes. It will hover and drift with the wind but you have to act like a pilot and fly it where you want it to go.

No

What does ATTI mode mean
Thanks
Keith

 

[PatR]

It’s a DJI term for a flight mode that dispenses with GPS but maintains aircraft attitude, and altitude in general. It will not maintain a stationary position in hover when the wind is blowing as GPS is not functional. The operator is totally responsible for aircraft directional guidance, and the aircraft will not maintain an orientation with the controller. It’s hand flying all the way. Left is left, right is right, with all movement relative to the front of the aircraft.

If you were flying an APM or Pixhawk guided aircraft that flight mode would be called Stabilize.

Yuneec used to provide entry of a similar flight mode named Sport. It was not carried over as a mode selection to the H, although the Angle mode we have now acts very much like the old Sport mode when GPS fails or is disabled. For all intents and purposes turning off GPS gives us Yuneec’s version of Atti mode. Control of the aircraft is more lively with GPS disabled as the system CPU is not being used for position computation. This is consistent across DJI, APM, and Yuneec systems.

 

[oliver]

At the next update, the GPS will be detachable, I do not know the date yet, nor the way to cut the GPS.

 

[fottip]

We're at the controls of an aircraft so; acting like a pilot IS admirable to a lot of operators.

I was first certificated as a licensed REAL airplane pilot around 1970...but thanks for the advice.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Wasn't trying to give advice; rather answering your question as to WHY it does make sense to be able to fly without GPS.

Drifting around wherever the wind takes it - that's desirable? Why? "Acting like a pilot" sounds admirable, but defeating GPS stabilization doesn't make sense.

 

[PatR]

Pretty hard to hand fly a localizer or track a radial if you can’t handle a wind correction angle.

The pilots know what I’m referring to.

 

[fottip]

Pretty hard to hand fly a localizer or track a radial if you can’t handle a wind correction angle. The pilots know what I’m referring to.

Yes. This pilot does. One of the 3 instrument approaches I had to demonstrate on my instrument check ride was a VOR-DME approach, followed by an ADF approach. The other was a standard ILS. I aced the checkride, and I'm instrument-rated.

So, what does this have to do with "real airplanes"? A recent post here stated that our Yuneec drones we discuss in this forum are "airplanes". They're not. The fact that FAA had to write new rules for "drones" proves that. "Drones" simply aren't subject to the same rules governing real airplanes - it's just that simple. People need to get a grip - drones aren't "airplanes".

The FAA requirements for licensing pilots to fly real airplanes are way beyond what's being discussed here, and any attempt to equate the two is uninformed. Our "drones" aren't "airplanes", as has been claimed. We're discussing toys here. Expensive toys, yes. Toys that fly, yes. But just because they fly doesn't make them "airplanes". Birds and bugs fly. They're not airplanes, and neither are Yuneec drones.

 

[YuKay]

Yes. This pilot does. One of the 3 instrument approaches I had to demonstrate on my instrument check ride was a VOR-DME approach, followed by an ADF approach. The other was a standard ILS. I aced the checkride, and I'm instrument-rated.

So, what does this have to do with "real airplanes"? A recent post here stated that our Yuneec drones we discuss in this forum are "airplanes". They're not. The fact that FAA had to write new rules for "drones" proves that. "Drones" simply aren't subject to the same rules governing real airplanes - it's just that simple. People need to get a grip - drones aren't "airplanes".

The FAA requirements for licensing pilots to fly real airplanes are way beyond what's being discussed here, and any attempt to equate the two is uninformed. Our "drones" aren't "airplanes", as has been claimed. We're discussing toys here. Expensive toys, yes. Toys that fly, yes. But just because they fly doesn't make them "airplanes". Birds and bugs fly. They're not airplanes, and neither are Yuneec drones.

Ooh, that will be a popular post. According to Wikipedia, "Most airplanes are flown by a pilot on board the aircraft, but some are designed to be remotely or computer-controlled."

There are different regulations for drones only because they can be flown by unsupervised amateurs and because they don't adhere to any third-party flight plan.

 

[PatR]

Interesting post indeed. I need to reference the FAA definition again but I believe “drones” are classified as aircraft and flown by pilots. As one that flew drones professionally for years, drones that were generating many millions of $$ in profits and countless jobs, i know a lot of people that will be very disappointed to learn they were’t flying an aircraft and weren’t pilots. They will be very chagrined to learn there was no need for them to obtain FAA medicals and pass written FAA pilot exams. However, there were a few that didn’t see it that way and always thought they were flying “toys” while being paid a 6 figure income for “playing” with “toys”. I’m sure there’s a few housewives out there that wish they were being given the “real thing” instead of a “toy” but their husbands would certainly argue it was the real thing...

The only difference between our “toys” and more sophisticated “drones” is size and complexity. In fact, some of those drones are small enough to make a micro quad look large. The only reason the small stuff avoids aircraft registration is because they are not viewed as a threat to public safety. Bottom line, if it flies, controlled directly or indirectly by a human, or is programmed to fly autonomously by a human, it’s an aircraft, and all the functions, principles of flight, aerodynamics, and methods of navigating associated with flight apply. As for determining if our toys are or are not aircraft, I think the FAA made that perfectly clear, and they cut us a lot of slack in the operating rules. Personally, I believe that will soon change, with our autopilots being a large part of the cause.

As for how having the ability to fly a wind correction angle or not has relevance to our “toys”, just turn off the GPS and fly a long straight line from a predetermined point A to a similarly established Point B when the wind is blowing. The person that flies a WCA will make the destination. The person that doesn’t will not. If you fly an H the test is easy to do using just the cruise control.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Aircraft /'er,kraft/ an airplane, helicopter or other machine capable of flight. One shouldn't think of our multi-rotors as airplanes but they are defiantly aircraft, at least that's what the FAA says . . .



`

 

[fottip]

but they are defiantly aircraft, at least that's what the FAA says . . .

Wrong again. FAA rules for "aircraft" don't apply to "drones" - they wrote new and specific rules for "drones". How often do you need to have the transponder or altitude encoder inspected on your "drone"? Hmmmm?

But, you really do need to learn the difference between "defiantly" and "definitely". Words mean things.

 

[fottip]

Interesting post indeed. I need to reference the FAA definition again but I believe “drones” are classified as aircraft and flown by pilots.

That's fine - look it up. But the dirty little secret is that "drones" can be classified any way someone wants to - getting into a real airplane and actually flying the damned thing is vastly different from manipulating some little plastic contrivance via a Wifi controller. There's just no comparison. Makes no difference whether people have been using these things commercially for years; the distinction remains.

I hold real FAA pilot certificates, and I also own a Typhoon H+. My point is that I resent all the hubris here where owners of "drones" talk about being "pilots". The equivalency doesn't exit.

 

[fottip]

Ooh, that will be a popular post.

I do "factual". I don't give a rip about "popular". Life isn't a popularity contest, for me, at least. And I don't do "social media" either, which is also a "popularity contest".

 

[rdonson]

Guys, is this argument really going anywhere useful???

 

[NorWiscPilot]

Did anyone else check?

I just looked at my certification card issued by the U.S. FAA. From what I can tell, it looks official. That is until I see it says “...has been found to be properly qualified to exercise the privileges of Remote Pilot”.

From this conversation, guess those holding such cards need to send them back for editing.

 

[PatR]

As another that holds FAA pilot certificates; commercial, multi, instrument, instructor, 107, and even a 30 year AOPA member. I view it more as an arrogance/superiority thing. Sort of like how an ATP looks down on a Private Pilot, or the rich looking down on the poor.

Sure, the full scale guy worked hard to get his ratings and his life is on the line when he screws up. If he wanted to give it a go I have a few 35% and 40% fixed wing models here I’m willing to bet he could not fly despite his FAA certificates. The people that have been consistently the most difficult to teach RC aviation have always been full scale pilots. They think they already know how to fly but it’s a lot different when you’re butts not in the plane. It takes years to become good with them.

I suppose free balloon, powered parachute, and ultra light pilots aren’t real pilots either. There are different rules for different types of aircraft.Sure, we don’t have transponders or ADS-B but if he’s flying in uncontrolled airspace he doesn’t need them either, and that airspace is what most model flyers are restricted to. Modelers have to obtain FAA waivers accompanied by a long list of risk mitigation factors to fly in controlled airspace. For most ATA’s all he needs to do is get a response to his radio call to a tower.

For us the conditions will be getting tougher. 336 and 107 were just methods to put us under the beginning level of control, rules, and ops practices. More are coming but the FAA has always been slow.

A reality check here; what we fly is not as difficult or as expensive (most of the time) as full scale but full scale pilots have a lot further to fall, metaphorically and physically. Modelers are just a different class of pilots. Drone pilots to be specific. Just to be a chit, if the guy has an autopilot in his full scale guess what he becomes when he engages it[emoji4]

Ron,

This is fun, and for some will be educational in learning how they are perceived by “pilots”. We do need to become better versed with the full scale world though.

 

[PatR]

Speaking of the AOPA, the Airplane Owners and Pilot’s Association, a group that has been promoting and protecting General Aviation since the 1930’s. Late last year they recognized “drone pilots” as the largest, fastest growing group of aviators in the United States, a group that could benefit from guidance and some of the services that have been provided to full scale pilot’s as they’ve been developed. They also have an online news letter for drone pilot members and are members of the Drone Advisory Council at the FAA and have been actively engaged in lobbying our government for laws that protect our airspace to assure fair access for all, with their efforts beginning shortly after the regulation of our airspace was initiated.

AOPA has been tracking the number of General Aviation (GA) pilots in the U.S. for decades and understand General Aviation has been on a rapid decline since roughly 1990. To retain our airspace access GA has to be expanded and to do so requires the constant addition of newly licensed pilot’s to generate the strength of voice necessary to carry any weight in government negotiations. They recognize the cost of full scale aviation, from the cost of new aircraft, fuel, parts, training, and other related necessities, has grown far faster than the rate of inflation, making GA cost prohibitive for many. The U.S. needs thousands of new pilots added to the roles every year to just keep up with the number of retiring and aging pilots, and locating new candidates is not an easy task. In understanding those things the AOPA is finding ways to to keep the costs of learning to fly a little more affordable, and is working with flight schools to assist with improving student retention rates, and with the FAA to develop better training standards. They see the severe need to find future GA pilot candidates and entice them into learning how to fly full scale, understanding that GA cannot survive if it will only be open to the rich, a group with no need to be cost conscious. A natural source of such people is found with aero modelers and military drone operator personnel leaving the service. Those people have already been bitten by the “flying bug” and found it excited and suits them. For them the progression to becoming a full scale pilot is a natural one. The AOPA chose not to alienate them with derision and disdain, instead welcoming them as a new class of pilots to help them build and assure the future of General Aviation. To maintain the old ways and attitudes is an assured path to extinction.

 

[NorWiscPilot]

Excellent post, Sir Pat!

We all need each other for the benefit and survival of all. Cooperation and respect is paramount. Anything less will be detrimental.

Jeff