Have 'Flyaways' been solved?

[The Editor]

Contentious title I know and I don't want to tempt fate but......................

Since the introduction of v4.02 Naza firmware the plethora of reported 'flyaways' seems to have dried up! Even if you trawl through YouTube etc the flyaway videos/reports all appear to be dated months ago. There is virtually nothing in recent times and I can not find anything documented/recorded with a v4.02 flyaway.

It IS possible that DJI found something causing problems in their firmware and changed it in 4.02 but of course that would remain forever under the Chinese Official secrets act and punishable by death if it ever leaked out :lol: ........ They would NEVER admit to that fact.

It does seem curious though that so called 'True Flyaways' appear to be a thing of the past...........

 

[chrisc]

have you ever heard of tempting fate?

I think I might fly mine tethered today!

 

[The Editor]

have you ever heard of tempting fate?

I think I might fly mine tethered today!

I know, I know... I shouldn't have opened my big mouth but....... it does seem to have gone very quiet on this subject.

 

[Marc70]

Never say never. Phantom 1.1.1, + 75 flights, so knew all the right procedures, then one day it just took off. Found it 3 days later, now it's in for repairs.

 

[Shrimpfarmer]

I think the risk is much less than the fear. Also having Naza mode enabled and practicing flicking into ATTI mode makes the risk even less. I used to be really worried about it but not now. I am still worried about engine failure though, thats still with us for sure.

 

[Paladin27]

Have you seen this video? Colin Guinn (CEO-DJI NA) talks about the fly away issue and beyond the usual things to check, he discusses how they have modified the latest firmware to account for potential fly away issues. It's a good listen.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Vje8ogD74[/youtube]

 

[ElGuano]

Since the introduction of v4.02 Naza firmware the plethora of reported 'flyaways' seems to have dried up! Even if you trawl through YouTube etc the flyaway videos/reports all appear to be dated months ago. There is virtually nothing in recent times and I can not find anything documented/recorded with a v4.02 flyaway.

Flyaway scares come and go in waves. They were quiet for a long time, but there's been a rash of activity on RCG and other groups recently. Mostly one or two people post, and a huge dogpile of instigation and insinuation begins. Other than fixing the ringfence bug, I don't think 4.02 has any documented "flyaway protection" added (and please don't say RAP or that Colin/Mick video).

I also don't think any single root cause has been identified in the last six months. Everything still runs the gamut from no-information to pilot error to tx failure to possible stuck accelerometers/rf interference. The way the news comes and goes is really much more like public scare than consistent public hazard imo.

 

[Marc70]

I think the risk is much less than the fear. Also having Naza mode enabled and practicing flicking into ATTI mode makes the risk even less. I used to be really worried about it but not now. I am still worried about engine failure though, thats still with us for sure.

What's "naza mode" enabled?

 

[Shrimpfarmer]

Use the enhanced search function in my signature, you will find plenty of info there.

 

[thongbong]

Honestly, I think DJI did fix the flyaway problem or dramatically reduced it, but will never admit there was a problem to begin with. Too many folks with the original Phantom had a flyaway for it to be user error as DJI would have you believe. If they did admit it they would have to pay so much money for recalls. The folks who will tell you most flyaway on original Phantom were user error are the folks who never owned an original Phantom and never had a true flyaway.

I feel good about the P2, I don't lose Tx signal when I go behind a house as I did with the P1. The range is greatly increased. This should tell you alot about the quality of the new Tx. The old Phantom was prone to alot of outside interference. It wasn't just a firmware problem, it was mechanical.