Lost my P3A in the drink!

[Wessex]

I give up. I could agree with you but then we'd all be wrong. Shielding the top of the A/C with your hand will block UHF Radio signals. However Mike's A/C top wasn't covered.

The point is, and this has been agreed, the reduced satellite count was not the cause of the crash. So let it go.

Sent from my STV100-4 using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[m0j0]

Wow.. just wow..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Numone]

Any comment on this:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Qh67vcf/0/640/i-Qh67vcf-640.mp4

It appears not, no...
But having said that, its 04.46 here in Blighty so Most people are tucked-up....

 

[Meta4]

I give up. I could agree with you but then we'd all be wrong.
Shielding the top of the A/C with your hand will block UHF Radio signals. However Mike's A/C top wasn't covered.

The GPS antenna has shielding on it's underside - but when the Phantom is upside down that shielding and the battery are now between the antenna and the satellites - just the same effect as covering the top.
My video demonstrates this elegantly. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Qh67vcf/0/640/i-Qh67vcf-640.mp4

 

[pwsl100]

Just out of curiosity, are any of the cranes used along the pier electromagnetic lifters or electric driven? If so could the magnetics or electrics alter GPS signals or RF frequency used on the bird or controller?

Sent from my XT1585 using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Meta4]

Just out of curiosity, are any of the cranes used along the pier electromagnetic lifters or electric driven? If so could the magnetics or electrics alter GPS signals or RF frequency used on the bird or controller?

There is one wharf that is for loading scrap steel onto ships.
They load with a conveyor but may use electromagnetic grabs in the yard behind the wharf.
BUT that is 1.3 miles east of the crash site and would not affect GPS.

The container cranes may have electric motors but would not be expected to have any effect at that distance from the Phantom.

 

[HitFactor]

At least we agree on something. However I didn't post that comment.

Peter

Sent from my STV100-4 using PhantomPilots mobile app

I didn't make this up - Counter-UAS Technologies

 

[Meta4]

I didn't make this up - Counter-UAS Technologies

But something like that would be illegal to deploy and despite there being several hopeful makers advertising similar things, they aren't deployed in places like Oakland port.
You just aren't going to encounter things like that.

 

[cdronefly]

No ... I've already explained this.

When the top of the Phantom is facing up, it has a good view of the sky but when it's down or half way, it's can't see as many sats.
There's no need to make up extremely unlikely scenarios like a massive case of electro interference.

Strange - I'm been into radios (advanced class HAM) for 40+ years and I would definitely put emi into the first couple of possibilities in a situations like this!

Heck, my Mavic throws off all kinds of errors when I set it on concrete with rebar in it (these are compass errors).

It's well known that water - especially smooth water - along with vast (millions of tons!) of metal wreck havoc of all types with weak RF and GPS signals.

I remember one of the first P3's that went down was over the Charles River in the middle of Boston - a somewhat similar zone (different, but similar in many ways) where there exists thousands of various signals of all sorts. To expect a low power toy RF device to function perfectly in such an environment seems to be asking a little much.

I think the usual applies here - which I follow myself almost daily. When I fly out over water - especially a distance and near a number of other objects - I prepare myself beforehand (mentally) for potential loss of my craft.

If people don't want to believe in that (count up the crash threads here and on other forums and see, even anecdotally, how many are over water), well...that's their prerogative.

I'm going to continue to believe in the owners manual.

 

[cdronefly]

We have no idea what kinds of other systems are at that world-class harbor:
Giant electromagnets to moor ships

Just the electric hookups to each of these cranes can be 10,000 plus watts. Some have generators (magnets!) powering them which may be located on the cranes themselves.

 

[folp]

So what you guys are saying is that I shouldn't try the same route when I get my P4P

 

[Meta4]

So what you guys are saying is that I shouldn't try the same route when I get my P4P

Why not?
No-one has come up with any credible reason that indicates where you flew was the problem.
I've been there so I know the location (that's my pic in post#15) and I'd happily fly there all day.

 

[Meta4]

I would definitely put emi into the first couple of possibilities in a situations like this!

We have no idea what kinds of other systems are at that world-class harbor:
Just the electric hookups to each of these cranes can be 10,000 plus watts. Some have generators (magnets!) powering them which may be located on the cranes themselves.

I have a pretty good idea what is operating in a port like that (I took the photo in post #15 which is right at the crash site).
Electromagnetic mooring systems mentioned in that item from 2003 never caught on and ports all over the world still use hawsers and bollards.
Electrical systems in cranes and ship's equipment may produce some interference just like you see in urban environments and unless you want to get in very close will have no effect on your Phantom.
At worst, it might make your signal a bit fuzzy which you fix by moving away a little but nothing electrical or electronic would have caused the OP's Phantom to fall from the sky
About half of my flying is around ships and ports and over water ...

Instead of guessing and putting forward fanciful suggestions .. maybe this ... perhaps that, I can speak from considerable experience and say that none of those are likely to have been a factor here.

It's well known that water - especially smooth water - along with vast (millions of tons!) of metal wreck havoc of all types with weak RF and GPS signals.
If people don't want to believe in that (count up the crash threads here and on other forums and see, even anecdotally, how many are over water), well...that's their prerogative.

I'm going to continue to believe in the owners manual.

And to that I'd say that there is nothing about flying over water that is any more dangerous than flying at your local park.
Millions of tons of metal (steel) mean nothing unless you get very close to it.
I'd go further and suggest that over water is safer - there's nothing to hit.