aaaaand it's gone - update: RECOVERED! :)

[Seahorse]

Re: aaaaand it's gone

Seeing lights is easier, judging distance is not. The good news is you found it and have another lesson added to your memory...

 

[FC40 Pilot]

Re: aaaaand it's gone

just found the phantom pretty much exactly 2000 meters from my home point according to google maps.

It had cleared the woods slightly and (crash) landed in a nearby new big school grounds, bit of the case looks popped out of place, gopro mount has snapped off completely and spironet antenna case has popped off but been recovered.

Don't know about electronic damage as it's been raining pretty much non stop for the past 15 hours where it's been lying, however i am hopeful.

Could not be happier. Just glad i've even got the GoPro back.....

Lets just say i won't be flying Beyond LOS again

I forgot to mention hitting a kid as well!

Glad you found it.

 

[ElGuano]

Re: aaaaand it's gone

just found the phantom pretty much exactly 2000 meters from my home point according to google maps.

Glad you found it! That's one of the rare recoveries.

I've not heard of problems with the ringfence in 4.02, but if you do intend to keep using it, I'd say it's a good idea to understand moving forward how it works with your RX range and flight plan, and test out the behavior and RTH in closer, more controlled environments. You are not the first person to fly at night testing limits, unknowingly hit the ring fence, think they completely lost it for good, and ended up finding it later.

 

[Big Ben]

Re: aaaaand it's gone

Glad to read you have your beloved pet back. Let's hope the damage is limited. Interesting it might have been at the 2000m geofence edge. Might help others in similar situations to go look for their lost birds along that particular perimeter line.

You should edit the topic title to something like: "aaaaand it was gone... but thankfully found again"

I have been using the geofence feature a lot with firmware 4.02 and have never experienced any problem. It suggests control link was not broken since it last was actively controlled and it held at that edge or was able to return to it against the wind at lower altitude when autolanding due to low battery. If control was lost it should have tried to return to the home point. An active geofence indicates the existence of a correct and active HP. It would be less likely it would have landed exactly at the 2000m limit and not somewhere closer to the HP if it was doing a RTH at battery end.

 

[davemcm]

Re: aaaaand it's gone

just found the phantom pretty much exactly 2000 meters from my home point according to google maps.

It had cleared the woods slightly and (crash) landed in a nearby new big school grounds, bit of the case looks popped out of place, gopro mount has snapped off completely and spironet antenna case has popped off but been recovered.

Don't know about electronic damage as it's been raining pretty much non stop for the past 15 hours where it's been lying, however i am hopeful.

Could not be happier. Just glad i've even got the GoPro back.....

Lets just say i won't be flying Beyond LOS again

I forgot to mention hitting a kid as well!

Glad you found it.

As explained previously it was 2am and I was flying over an empty area, basically not one person would have been in the area, let alone a kid. But thanks for your concern.

 

[davemcm]

Re: aaaaand it's gone

just found the phantom pretty much exactly 2000 meters from my home point according to google maps.

Glad you found it! That's one of the rare recoveries.

I've not heard of problems with the ringfence in 4.02, but if you do intend to keep using it, I'd say it's a good idea to understand moving forward how it works with your RX range and flight plan, and test out the behavior and RTH in closer, more controlled environments. You are not the first person to fly at night testing limits, unknowingly hit the ring fence, think they completely lost it for good, and ended up finding it later.

I haven't heard of any problems either and after reviewing the gopro video it would appear to be mostly pilot error (thinking I was facing back home when I fact I wasn't) and then maybe a strong headwind as it looks as if it's responding to commands by tilting etc but doesn't look like it's going anywhere.

Aaaand wouldn't ya know it, the gopro video stops at 8mins when I'm basically directly over the recovery site. I would have loved to see the crash / landing as the phantom is pretty scratched cracked and basically chibbed up on various different points, it must've been doing some crazy stuff on the way down.

Will upload the video later and document the damage although once I've taken it apart and put it back together everything looks to be fine.

Actual items broken: 1 phantom gopro mount

Anything else is just damaged scratches or scuffs and a couple of cracks. Will probably get a new shell if it's all ok on the inside. Maybe a p2 she'll.
The screws stayed in the body and the plastic broke around them

 

[2trickpony]

Re: aaaaand it's gone

just found the phantom pretty much exactly 2000 meters from my home point according to google maps.

It had cleared the woods slightly and (crash) landed in a nearby new big school grounds, bit of the case looks popped out of place, gopro mount has snapped off completely and spironet antenna case has popped off but been recovered.

Don't know about electronic damage as it's been raining pretty much non stop for the past 15 hours where it's been lying, however i am hopeful.

Could not be happier. Just glad i've even got the GoPro back.....

Lets just say i won't be flying Beyond LOS again

I forgot to mention hitting a kid as well!

Glad you found it.

As explained previously it was 2am and I was flying over an empty area, basically not one person would have been in the area, let alone a kid. But thanks for your concern.

But there might have been doggers in that carpark at that time :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[davemcm]

Lol that would have been a sight for the recovered gopro video lmao

 

[DanCH]

Re: aaaaand it's gone

I haven't heard of any problems either and after reviewing the gopro video it would appear to be mostly pilot error (thinking I was facing back home when I fact I wasn't) and then maybe a strong headwind as it looks as if it's responding to commands by tilting etc but doesn't look like it's going anywhere.

Well done on recovering it!

I'd like to make 3 suggestions if I may (and not coming from loads of experience so feel free to disregard )

Firstly I use a GPS tracker. No guarantee it would help me, but it might and it only cost be 30 quid including the prepaid SIM.

Secondly, you said you thought you were flying towards yourself. What may help next time, is to turn on IOC if you haven't already and use Home Lock mode. This way regardless of which way you are facing it will fly back to the home lock point if you pull back on the right stick. You could face it towards yourself, and have the FPV view of coming back even. I've tested this myself and will be using it next time I get disorientated while FPVing.
edit: Just saw you saying in another thread that you are going to use HL in future, so scratch this

Thirdly, a mini IOSD will really help you to avoid having this problem at all. I don't have one yet, but it's my next upgrade for sure. For the battery voltage level mostly, but home lock heading, distance and altitude are all quite useful.

 

[Big Ben]

Re: aaaaand it's gone

I haven't heard of any problems either and after reviewing the gopro video it would appear to be mostly pilot error (thinking I was facing back home when I fact I wasn't) and then maybe a strong headwind as it looks as if it's responding to commands by tilting etc but doesn't look like it's going anywhere.

If it was at the geofence and facing in some outward direction you indeed wouldn't have seen (much) movement. Maybe an initial tilt followed shortly after by a perhaps less noticeable leveling. If that was happening you probably wasn't aware of that effect at the time. Easy to forget at such a moment. Switching to Atti would have 'lifted' the geofence and would have confirmed the effect. When you switch to Atti you can move outside the geofence. As soon as you switch to GPS mode again it returns to within the geofence perimeter causing a temporary perceived pseudo loss of control possibly causing you to draw the wrong conclusion and making you do things that only make things worse. This will be much more noticeable in FPV flying than from 2km away. When you were switching between modes this might have contributed to your disorientation.

The video will be interesting to analyse and learn from.

 

[davemcm]

Re: aaaaand it's gone

I haven't heard of any problems either and after reviewing the gopro video it would appear to be mostly pilot error (thinking I was facing back home when I fact I wasn't) and then maybe a strong headwind as it looks as if it's responding to commands by tilting etc but doesn't look like it's going anywhere.

Well done on recovering it!

I'd like to make 3 suggestions if I may (and not coming from loads of experience so feel free to disregard )

Firstly I use a GPS tracker. No guarantee it would help me, but it might and it only cost be 30 quid including the prepaid SIM.

Secondly, you said you thought you were flying towards yourself. What may help next time, is to turn on IOC if you haven't already and use Home Lock mode. This way regardless of which way you are facing it will fly back to the home lock point if you pull back on the right stick. You could face it towards yourself, and have the FPV view of coming back even. I've tested this myself and will be using it next time I get disorientated while FPVing.
edit: Just saw you saying in another thread that you are going to use HL in future, so scratch this

Thirdly, a mini IOSD will really help you to avoid having this problem at all. I don't have one yet, but it's my next upgrade for sure. For the battery voltage level mostly, but home lock heading, distance and altitude are all quite useful.

Looking to do all 3, the iosd mini is out of stock but was part of the datalink package i bought, so just waiting on that coming in, definetely gonna look at homelock a lot more, and also been thinking of a cheap gps tracker, however not wanting to add anymore considerable weight so looking for a small one.

Was also thinking like one of those things you get for your keys, you whistle or clap your hands and it beeps loudly to alert you to where the object is, not sure it'll do much, but very cheap, small, light, no gps, no need for sim card etc, and if you've got a general idea where it went down it could help narrow it down.

 

[davemcm]

Re: aaaaand it's gone

I haven't heard of any problems either and after reviewing the gopro video it would appear to be mostly pilot error (thinking I was facing back home when I fact I wasn't) and then maybe a strong headwind as it looks as if it's responding to commands by tilting etc but doesn't look like it's going anywhere.

If it was at the geofence and facing in some outward direction you indeed wouldn't have seen (much) movement. Maybe an initial tilt followed shortly after by a perhaps less noticeable leveling. If that was happening you probably wasn't aware of that effect at the time. Easy to forget at such a moment. Switching to Atti would have 'lifted' the geofence and would have confirmed the effect. When you switch to Atti you can move outside the geofence. As soon as you switch to GPS mode again it returns to within the geofence perimeter causing a temporary perceived pseudo loss of control possibly causing you to draw the wrong conclusion and making you do things that only make things worse. This will be much more noticeable in FPV flying than from 2km away. When you were switching between modes this might have contributed to your disorientation.

The video will be interesting to analyse and learn from.

Hmmm that kinda throws off my theory then, as I would have been in atti mode when I thought I had hit the geofence, i'll upload the video shortly and you guys can give your take on it.

 

[CJ31]

I forgot to mention hitting a kid as well!

I'm getting so tired of people saying that you are lucky in a crash not to have hit anyone. For now, most places on the earth are very sparsely populated. In 5000 years maybe it will be an issue, but not now. Even in big cities. Take a look at any city in google earth. Try to estimate the % of land covered up by a person in the photo and the % that is not. Parts fall off airplanes every single day. Could it hit someone, of course. And I could hit the lottery as well. Are there any documented cases of a phantom hitting a random person in a crash?

Still think it's an issue? Here's a real world experiment. Go out right now to wherever you would fly. Close your eyes and throw a basketball into the air as high as you can. Did it hit anyone? No. Experiment over. Sorry, but if you hit someone in a crash, you are the unluckiest person in the world.

Sorry had to say that. Rant over. Glad you got your quad back.

 

[av8inglife]

I'm getting so tired of people saying that you are lucky in a crash not to have hit anyone. For now, most places on the earth are very sparsely populated. In 5000 years maybe it will be an issue, but not now. Even in big cities. Take a look at any city in google earth. Try to estimate the % of land covered up by a person in the photo and the % that is not. Parts fall off airplanes every single day. Could it hit someone, of course. And I could hit the lottery as well. Are there any documented cases of a phantom hitting someone in a crash?

Still think it's an issue? Here's a real world experiment. Go out right now to wherever you would fly. Close your eyes and throw a basketball into the air as high as you can. Did it hit anyone? No. Experiment over. Sorry, but if you hit someone in a crash, you are the unluckiest person in the world.

Sorry had to say that. Rant over. Glad you got your quad back.

I think you are too focused on the verbiage of the phrase "you are lucky you didn't hit someone".

No one honestly cares about or is focused on the luck and It doesn't matter squat about any individual persons luck or lack-of luck. The "you are lucky..." statement is usually made in these situations because the incident in question occurred following a series of poor decisions or bad judgement calls and the person responsible is in fact fortunate that something worse did not happen.

Here is an experiment for your own argument. Look back into many of the occasions you have read or heard some one utter the phrase "you are lucky that......" Its is very likely that the entire situation could have been avoided and the phrase you hate ever so much would have never been spoken, had the person being told they are lucky, used better judgement or stayed within their limits or whatever the situation may have been.

Step off the soapbox and think about it as if it was yourself. If you were to loose your Phantom for some reason and have it fly off and crash into a playground with kids around..or plaster the ground near a law enforcement member...or have a low pass go bad and someone nearly takes one to the head...or have yourself or your loved ones be the people who almost get hit....are you really going to still think your argument for small percentage of land covered by human beings argument is going to hold water? Are any of those people going to care about your unrealistic basketball scenario?

Your arguments against object having the potential to hit people are narrow minded and can be dangerous.

The "awe who cares" and **** Happens attitudes 100% DO NOT mix with aviation. Manned or unmanned, Full Scale to Mini. R/C or not.

And even before you get your feelings hurt and reply to me all caps internet rage....Pick up an Aviation Safety book or a Human Factors book and read. These are all concepts unfortunately proven through the blood of others.

 

[CJ31]

So you missed the entire point of my post. The verbiage "you are lucky not to have hit someone" is exactly what I'm focused on and the sole point of my post. You're talking about what led to a crash in the 1st place. Yes generally bad judgements many times lead to a crash. I'm talking about when a crash does unfortunately occur, the chances of hitting someone are so remote that it's ludicrous to say they were lucky not to. I would say you have a much better chance of hurting someone with you car driving to the location where you plan to fly given the proximity you are driving with so many other cars. When I get there, are you going to say I was lucky not to have gotten in a car accident?

I'm obviously not advocating a cavalier attitude while flying and not worrying about safety. I didn't even come close to saying that. It's everyone's responsibility to be cautious about how and where we fly. I'm simply saying that stating someone was "lucky" that they didn't hit anyone when a crash does occur is not at all accurate.

 

[gen3benz]

Kick ***! Glad you found it mate!
Did you power it up yet?

 

[FC40 Pilot]

Re: aaaaand it's gone

But there might have been doggers in that carpark at that time :lol: :lol: :lol:[/quote]

HAHA!!!

 

[FC40 Pilot]

I forgot to mention hitting a kid as well!

I'm getting so tired of people saying that you are lucky in a crash not to have hit anyone. For now, most places on the earth are very sparsely populated. In 5000 years maybe it will be an issue, but not now. Even in big cities. Take a look at any city in google earth. Try to estimate the % of land covered up by a person in the photo and the % that is not. Parts fall off airplanes every single day. Could it hit someone, of course. And I could hit the lottery as well. Are there any documented cases of a phantom hitting a random person in a crash?

Still think it's an issue? Here's a real world experiment. Go out right now to wherever you would fly. Close your eyes and throw a basketball into the air as high as you can. Did it hit anyone? No. Experiment over. Sorry, but if you hit someone in a crash, you are the unluckiest person in the world.

Sorry had to say that. Rant over. Glad you got your quad back.

?? What sort of comment is this?? Where do you live? Desert?? Honestly , its this kind comment that dismisses any regard for safety. Speechless!

 

[av8inglife]

So you missed the entire point of my post. The verbiage "you are lucky not to have hit someone" is exactly what I'm focused on and the sole point of my post. You're talking about what led to a crash in the 1st place. Yes generally bad judgements many times lead to a crash. I'm talking about when a crash does unfortunately occur, the chances of hitting someone are so remote that it's ludicrous to say they were lucky not to. I would say you have a much better chance of hurting someone with you car driving to the location where you plan to fly given the proximity you are driving with so many other cars. When I get there, are you going to say I was lucky not to have gotten in a car accident?

I'm obviously not advocating a cavalier attitude while flying and not worrying about safety. I didn't even come close to saying that. It's everyone's responsibility to be cautious about how and where we fly. I'm simply saying that stating someone was "lucky" that they didn't hit anyone when a crash does occur is not at all accurate.

I got your point exactly and I still see it in this post.
Somehow you believe that people aren't "lucky" when they have an incident with their Phantom and no one on the ground gets hurt, based off of the use and application of metrics that don't really apply or give credence to the fact that anything can happen and it is beyond our control.

Unless someone has been airdropped into the center of the Sahara Desert and they fly their craft there, if they then lose control of it and it goes to the ground...fine have it your way...no need to say they are lucky...because its a DESERT thousands of miles around, well outside of the range of travel for the Phantom, and no human being is out there just randomly walking around waiting to be hit.

More often than not though, these quote "fly-aways" and other crashes people are having are not taking place in extreme remote areas which would make sense for your percentage argument. Instead they are in major cities across the world, at the local park, from their back yard, at the school baseball field.
30 seconds of critical thought and 1 minute of youtube videos about phantom crashes proves it.
These people are lucky Dammit.
To think otherwise is leaving the door open for a mindset where people believe that their actions don't/won't result in the harm of others.

 

[CJ31]

Ok again I'm not at all advocating unsafe or irresponsible flying. Obviously safety is the #1 priority we should all have in mind when flying. And if my post is being read that way then I apologize. I really didn't think I said that but I maybe stated it a little too emphatically (sorry it was late )

To better illustrate, I looked at a google image of Times Square. I roughly estimate about 400-500 people visible in the photo that is about 200 yards x 250 yards. So if I assume each person is a square yard then that gives less than a 1% chance if hitting someone and a 99% of not hitting someone if I'm flying in Times Square and crash. Of course you cannot fly in Times Square and no reasonable person would if you could because it's way too dangerous. I'm just saying it's still unlikely that you would hit someone even if you crashed in a populated area.

Most of us are flying in areas that are 1/100 to 1/10,000 as populated as that as the OP stated he was. I am very cautious and only fly in unpopulated areas and I never fly over people. Again, I totally agree that responsible flying is paramount. And actually hitting someone would be an absolute disaster and needs to be considered and avoided at all costs. I apologize if my post is being perceived as irresponsible. Sorry for hijacking the thread as well.