Special notice from DJI. Matrice inflight power loss.

[Dougcjohn]

Not at all good when police drones have issues and it would be most difficult to blame the operator in these cases.

You'd like to think so... and the pilots I would agree. But as mentioned in above post... their Tech Shop within Dept may have not performed any FW updates yet. Sometimes it's practice not to update a fleet for extended time and that may have indirectly caused a FW issue.

But overall, I'd tend to agree with your comment.

 

[PatR]

Here in the U.S., most legal agencies operate their drones under the rules of a CoA, and required their operators to be 107 certified. They have their own regulatory development agency and all share a common set of operating rules (SOP’s) to standardize operations, almost exactly as the military does. It stands to reason that U.K. agencies function similarly.

For those that have worked under military style SOP’s you know that virtually everything you do has some section written in a manual describing how and when it can or will be done, and that maintenance practices require one or more levels of sign offs before something can be put in or returned to service. Service bulletin compliance is always mandatory.

Using the above me thinks the CAA notice referenced what has to be done to be compliant with DJI firmware updates but does not positively identify what the actual problem is, nor does it return authorization to operate close to people or structures once battery firmware is updated.

In short, they might be saying a battery update might be the problem, but they are not sure so remain clear of people and structures until they know for certain.

 

[Dougcjohn]

Here in the U.S., most legal agencies operate their drones under the rules of a CoA, and required their operators to be 107 certified. They have their own regulatory development agency and all share a common set of operating rules (SOP’s) to standardize operations, almost exactly as the military does. It stands to reason that U.K. agencies function similarly.

For those that have worked under military style SOP’s you know that virtually everything you do has some section written in a manual describing how and when it can or will be done, and that maintenance practices require one or more levels of sign offs before something can be put in or returned to service. Service bulletin compliance is always mandatory.

Using the above me thinks the CAA notice referenced what has to be done to be compliant with DJI firmware updates but does not positively identify what the actual problem is, nor does it return authorization to operate close to people or structures once battery firmware is updated.

In short, they might be saying a battery update might be the problem, but they are not sure so remain clear of people and structures until they know for certain.

All very accurate... but the SOP compliance may be 6 -?? months behind official release of FW pending evaluation new version has no negative effect. I personally am aware Computer OS updates were often 12-18 months older than release date pending SOC / NOC approval. Not knowing what cause is yet, but I haven't found reference to other incidents outside this Police CT Unit.

 

[PatR]

Two others have been mentioned in the Plus forum. They had a singular owner though.

I agree with computer OS and software upgrade delays. The schedule you mentioned is almost lightning fast compared to where I was.

 

[Dougcjohn]

Two others have been mentioned in the Plus forum. They had a singular owner though.

I agree with computer OS and software upgrade delays. The schedule you mentioned is almost lightning fast compared to where I was.

Something “smells” in the whole matter... not sure in which direction... if it’s as described in notices, it’s a lot of over reaction which generally indicates aligning the stories. If it’s more, maybe major contracts are involved needing shielding... but with media now on it, something will surface.

 

[PatR]

If there’s anything to “sniff out” I suspect it will show up in a very cynical and sarcastic sUAS News editorial.

Something we need to face is that every corporate, legal, law enforcement, military, and government are never what they portray themselves as so full disclosure never, ever happens.

 

[Dougcjohn]

If there’s anything to “sniff out” I suspect it will show up in a very cynical and sarcastic sUAS News editorial.

Something we need to face is that every corporate, legal, law enforcement, military, and government are never what they portray themselves as so full disclosure never, ever happens.

Spot on! Precisely stated. Apparently attended same class @ HKU (HardKnock Univ).

Overall, due to size this won't dent company's armor much, but will supply talking points and it'll shine on something hidden by one of them.

Still amazed how this has grown out of the publicized initial minor issue that should have been an SOP memorandum updated per factory notice.... if accurate, very avoidable.

 

[PatR]

That part of this is not that big of a deal. As long as their are zero baseline equipment performance standards we should anticipate a continuous series of defects from all the current players. Having no quality standards means the only thing consistent will be failures. So quality standards have much greater significance. The problem with that is the creation of quality standards will raise prices and make consumer participation unaffordable for many.

 

[PatR]

Perhaps of interest is how much the issue has been down played by a few a DJI supporters at another forum, with the usual blaming of the users for not following system protocols, that a new issuance of the CAA airworthiness directive was issued on 10/31/18 noting M200, M210, and I2 systems as being affected, and suggesting battery firmware status as not always correcting the issue. DJI did not notify their customers of the problem until after the CAA notices were released.

It seems DJI is a company of “firsts”. First to have a unit parked on the White House lawn, first to have a confirmed collision with a manned aircraft, first (thus far the only named) company to have governments declare their systems a security risk and prohibited from military infrastructure use, and first systems to experience issuance of emergency airworthiness directives.

 

[Steve Carr]

The Inspire 2 has been added to the list:

https://www.suasnews.com/2018/11/dj...XPaIWrApjCbZ_ru9d8DVk45W9U40NaKCxbzsVlNoXhVoQ

 

[PatR]

I’ll just lay this at the feet of the “smart battery” concept...

 

[Dougcjohn]

Steve, Thanks for posting the follow-up on the TB50 and the I2.
Tis an interesting series of events... looks like this is developing into a bit more FW involved.
On Positive side, no injuries or incidents and sounds like an improvement in FW will be outcome.
Some one mentioned earlier, and I'd agree... the DJI forums aren't discussing this notice.
I posted a comment to a 1 post thread on this notice and it hasn't received any traffic over last few weeks.

I do find it interesting, all other DJI Battery models have a cap top that can be removable (not intended but possible) providing access to the balance micro connector. Making a custom balance lead to attach to the battery directly, bypassing the logic board and allowing you to connect to a standard LiPo HV Charger and perform common maintenance: Balance, Discharge, slow charge & discharge, etc.

The TB50 & TB55 are fully sealed cases with built in self heaters. A long press on the "On" Button turns on the internal heater and the LED board gives an indication heater is active. I wonder if this additional circuitry as added to the FW issues. I've even attempted to see what was involved to cut or release the case tangs to access the balance connector on a premature failure TB50... resulted in a destroyed case. The fully sealed case DJI claimed was for weather resistance, but the TB50 for I2 has a different cover than the weather built M210, it's TB50's has a water tight secondary seal over button & lights separate from the case seams.

Another reason to continue the use of the I1v2 and M600's... I've often corrected a battery that reported failure on DJI smart circuit; once corrected via LiPo charger with balance leads the battery would report correctly through smart circuit and provide service for months forward without issues.

 

[Dougcjohn]

Along the subject of NOTICES... the I2 platform had a reported motor dislodge issue months after initial release of the I2 involving multiple occasions in USA & UK. At a much higher incidence ratio than this battery issue has reported. The adhesive holding the I2 motors onto the carbon booms wasn't secure causing the motors to either twist during a strong maneuver or come fully off the boom arm... both resulting in a strong crash. So much so that a few 3rd party shops developed arm braces. Recently entertaining the "need" to get this "kit", I was checking if the adhesive issue was recalled and what serial number the issue was resolved thinking my I2 was probably after the problem. I have not found any reference to the correction and minimal indication of the actual problem.

I reached out to the 3rd party brace manufacture to see what production units were effected and they indicated the problem has not be addressed. Ultimadrone Inspire2 Safety Solution by Atellani Note: shows "pre-order" because they make a production run, sell out of inventory and more units are requested, this is their 5th production run. Very nice Italian designed hardware kit @ $200, looks OEM but amazed this hasn't become an "official notice" and "recall" program since their were multiple failures and projected many more but due to crash not directly identified as fault.

 

[Dougcjohn]

The news release from DJI says a small number of cases, but it is obviously significant enough to be a problem.

DJI Reviewing Reports Of Power Issues With M200 Series Drones

DJI has issued a Firmware update to address the TB50 TB55 battery issue sited within the UK Notice.
DJI Issues Firmware Updates For TB50 And TB55 Batteries

 

[PatR]

But has it worked?

To admit they have any issues at all is an admission of a defect. Something abhorred by product liability insurance carriers. I don’t know about you but I’ve watched as a manufacturer and a customer dragged legal teams to business meetings for the sole purpose of defining what constitutes a defect in order to assign a problem as a defect or to avoid being found to have one.

 

[Dougcjohn]

But has it worked?

To admit they have any issues at all is an admission of a defect. Something abhorred by product liability insurance carriers. I don’t know about you but I’ve watched as a manufacturer and a customer dragged legal teams to business meetings for the sole purpose of defining what constitutes a defect in order to assign a problem as a defect or to avoid being found to have one.

I'd agree... the Legal Console Tables have been busy and will continue... major $$ to be generated.

The discussions on the DJI forums is positive toward the FW update, since it addressed a few other issues too.
Knowing if it fixed the problem, is loose since it was minimal that even had the problem to determine... BUT... DJI says it's been fixed and we believe that blindly correct?

All Fixed... We'd like to think so... but as in all FW logic... it may have an effect elsewhere... hopefully not a greater negative! But on the upside, this prior issue before the FW update, had effect on a percentage not even .5% of the base, and the chatter on the DJI side, the business UAV shops didn't show a concern; the majority of businesses continued normal running since it wasn't a mandatory grounding.

This whole matter as I stated initially was an over step for 1-3 incidents... primarily 1 shop. Compared to other issues; DJI admittedly acknowledges the I2 motor adhesion issue and blows it off as no concern with many expressing the ill-effects... so much so that 3rd party had time to develop counter measures. Yuneec is aware of H520 failures with no major concerns and a few others from DJI to boot. When all these issues have had a larger impact and greater percentage to the base without the slightest warning notices. This matter was FW from the get go, and suspected unique to the 1 shop's operations. The updated FW primarily addresses the 1) forced no-fly until updates performed... that in itself would have probably corrected the initial issue since the other 99.5% didn't experience the problem and 2) Steps to safeguard from Temperature issues... actually something all LiPO's have as a safety concern.

I found it amusing, the negative chatter was greater on our Yuneec thread than on the 3 threads on the DJI forums... essentially the ones operating business didn't acknowledge it as a major concern and continued normal operations... especially in USA & Non UK.

I still ponder the Govt & Politics involved in this ordeal, the notice was issued after 1 failure. Something smells more of CYA than anything.

Optimistically, I do hope it has a positive effect, the concerns become managed more through controlled maintenance SOP and the Outcome is overall positive for the Industry. But I AGREE, the Council tables have been busy and will continue to be busy.

On a similar channel... there's a senseless volley of smart battery vs vanilla LiPo debates and the issues of smart batteries. I do hope the smart batteries get better with each advancement, and I do think the days of vanilla are fading due to increasing legal and requlatory requirements. I doubt the primary power source is going to be allowed to be non-managed for aerial crafts much longer, it'll probably get a lot more complicated in FW for all RC aerial.

No one imagined the position of the automotive industry in computerization 15-20 years ago. It used to be stated to rule out a drivability problem simply pull the electronics as a test.... return it to basics. Well, on modern engines it won't run without electronics: distributorless, crank sensors, fuel patterns, Cam lift & duration computer generated, air, brakes, etc and extremely tight monitoring of voltage usage and generation. With the advancement in electronics, it'll no longer take 15 years to push designs, we''ll probably see a major change in power requirements easily within 5 years since the Govt wheels are already turning.

Even my large Tattu 22,000mAh LiPo's now have electronics.... kinda mini-smart, but helpful for storage & Hi/Low Temps. Ya... we'll all be fussing with advanced electronics for RC soon and again the one with the most experience when the requirements get "pushed" down to us will most likely have the edge.

 

[PatR]

Pretty hard to enter a debate with your last, and I agree a certain passenger jet manufacturer is facing much larger issues than we encounter with multirotor batteries. It may well be that a reliance on smart batteries instead of monitoring voltage as well is a weak point in our operational procedures. A similar reliance on computerized fuel flow estimators induced more than a few fuel exhaustion events after people discarded the use of known rate of fuel consumption values obtained from averaging a number of different flights.

Technology is great but to depend on it completely might not be the best idea. Murphy will always be Murphy and when chit happens we need to be prepared to take positive command of the situation.

 

[Dougcjohn]

agree on technology and it's growing pains!
What we call manual... a short time back was technology. When the car or bicycle was introduced... it challenged the horse. Gun powder to bow... ball pen to quill.

 

[Steve Carr]

I don't share the minimalist view regarding the battery issue. One to three failures??? Um. I seriously question that assumption. I also don't see a migration to smart batteries. Adding layers of complexity often results in less reliability. My car has no smart battery and I'm good with that.

 

[PatR]

I don’t buy the failure count either. It had to be more but knowing how things work leaves me to think more have been concealed. Our FAA won’t issue an AD for only a small number of failures, unless they occur in paying passenger aircraft. But the European folks are a lot more controlling of the aviation sector.