NTSB Report is out on Phantom4 vs Blackhawk from Sept 2017

[Helihover]

For a community forum, there's not much community spirit going on.
If I write in a similar vein, I apologise.

I don't want this hobby banned or made prohibitly expensive. I'm just wary of governments citing the catch-all 'safety' argument to force through what they want in the face of reasoned opposition. It does happen.

I can't answer your question as I wasn't there. You know that. I know that. Everybody here knows that. So it's kind of unnecessary to ask that question.

The report might state that they found a serial number on the arm and that may be true. It may also be a unique code. I'm not sure as I haven't crashed my drone nor disassembled it. But to say that was the only way they identified the owner would not be correct.

It’s all good.

There are people who still believe the earth is flat too.

Peace and happy flying.

 

[PhamTon]

I have to respectively disagree.. you are simulating a real emergency where you have lost your engine, or there is a fire on board etc.. (most simulations are engine failures though), and it can obviously happen anywhere at anytime - cruise altitude, take off, landing..

I typically simulate a cruise altitude engine failure from between 3-5K feet, but as all CFI's will tell you - it's a simulation and you need to take it down all the way until I give you your engine back, which is usually when they feel you have done everything correctly including the correct choice of field/landing spot, obstacle avoidance such as power lines, large obstacles on the ground (which cannot usually be seen from cruise altitude) wind direction and glide path.

The only thing we don't actually do is land, but in a real emergency you have no choice and if there was a UAV buzzing around I would expect the operator to take collision avoidance action as I don't have power.

I seriously doubt the FAA would cite a pilot for practicing an emergency landing that went below 500' as it was taught this way by CFI’s and accepted by FAA examiners on the check ride.

But Pete, if your student starts their PFL from your lowest height mentioned of 3k feet and at 500' agl have still not made you happy that they know what they're doing regarding their engine failure drills, ability to trim, verbalise what they're looking out for in a field like power lines, plough lines, wind direction, etc. going below 500' to get those points across to you won't change your view of them.

You'd make them do it again. Seriously, you would.

I go back to the point, nothing is stopping you from flying below 500' agl but if you choose to do so and you hit something, you're on your own.

If you fly a drone above 400' BVLOS, you're on your own.

Saying 'I thought it was ok because an FAA examiner once did it to me as a student', won't work. You're now in command. Like the Russian droner and he hasn't a leg to stand on.
He meant well and was honest and didn't try to deny it was him. No different to how you would be after an incident.

All I know is, if I went up with a mate and he levels off at 300' and starts buzzing the trees and trying to land in a field to 20', it'd be a short flight.

There's nothing to me that can justify an SEP pilot hanging around at 80kts or so at less than 500' agl.

 

[PhamTon]

It’s all good.

There are people who still believe the earth is flat too.

Peace and happy flying.

Likewise.

 

[Pete Leare]

But Pete, if your student starts their PFL from your lowest height mentioned of 3k feet and at 500' agl have still not made you happy that they know what they're doing regarding their engine failure drills, ability to trim, verbalise what they're looking out for in a field like power lines, plough lines, wind direction, etc. going below 500' to get those points across to you won't change your view of them.

You'd make them do it again. Seriously, you would.

I go back to the point, nothing is stopping you from flying below 500' agl but if you choose to do so and you hit something, you're on your own.

If you fly a drone above 400' BVLOS, you're on your own.

Saying 'I thought it was ok because an FAA examiner once did it to me as a student', won't work. You're now in command. Like the Russian droner and he hasn't a leg to stand on.
He meant well and was honest and didn't try to deny it was him. No different to how you would be after an incident.

All I know is, if I went up with a mate and he levels off at 300' and starts buzzing the trees and trying to land in a field to 20', it'd be a short flight.

There's nothing to me that can justify an SEP pilot hanging around at 80kts or so at less than 500' agl.

So are you saying that if I had a real emergency with no power at all, and I was setting up to land in a field, then hit a drone on the way down (below 500') that it would actually be MY fault? At that point I would still technically be 'flying' the plane albeit as a glider.
Wow, now that is a bad hair day! As Helihover said - it's all good here mate.. respect.

 

[PhamTon]

So are you saying that if I had a real emergency with no power at all, and I was setting up to land in a field, then hit a drone on the way down (below 500') that it would actually be MY fault? At that point I would still technically be 'flying' the plane albeit as a glider.
Wow, now that is a bad hair day! As Helihover said - it's all good here mate.. respect.

No chance would that be your fault. And the FAA or EASA would be making a mistake if they revoked your licence over it.

We were discussing the thrill of cruising along at 300'agl ready to practice an engine failure due to carb icing when I referred to this. Your example is different though.

 

[BigAl07]

In one of the early reports it stated that the UAS operator (Russian chap) went to the police station and admitted that he suspected it was his UAS that had caused the incident. He said he only knew his P4 did not RTH as expected and he turned over his Tx and his tablet so they could investigate.

 

[andy_k]

Ok Andy since you know something we don’t, tell us how they found the pilot?

Have you disassembled different DJI to confirm your statement?

Tell us what the truth is Andy.

You can buy the motors separately - the places selling them all list the same part/serial number (one each for CW/CCW) - I'm amazed if a company the size of DJI gives every single motor a unique serial number that is somehow linked to a certain drone.

Yes, I've read the report but that doesn't mean I believe every word of it

 

[sar104]

You can buy the motors separately - the places selling them all list the same part/serial number (one each for CW/CCW) - I'm amazed if a company the size of DJI gives every single motor a unique serial number that is somehow linked to a certain drone.

Yes, I've read the report but that doesn't mean I believe every word of it

I think it's pretty unlikely that an NTSB report would contain fabricated false information. Part numbers are not the same as serial numbers of course, and while it seems a little surprising that even motors have serial numbers, it's not at all impossible.

 

[andy_k]

I think it's pretty unlikely that an NTSB report would contain fabricated false information. Part numbers are not the same as serial numbers of course, and while it seems a little surprising that even motors have serial numbers, it's not at all impossible.

If motors (a fairly generic part) have serial numbers then you have to assume that every other individual component does as well. does each motor have just one serial number or does each individual component have it's own unique identifier

Following that loic it means you have to accept that DJI has a data sheet for every drone they sell with every single unique component listed which starts to sound really far fetched doesn't it?

Far more likely would be that DJI could (fairly quickly) identify the drone in the air from flight records on the day.

Who knows though, as you say it's highly unlikely that any official report even if it includes third party data and information.

Normally I'm the first to rubbish 'conspiracy theories' but the only marking I've seen on a P4 motor is the serial number

 

[BigAl07]

If motors (a fairly generic part) have serial numbers then you have to assume that every other individual component does as well. does each motor have just one serial number or does each individual component have it's own unique identifier

Following that loic it means you have to accept that DJI has a data sheet for every drone they sell with every single unique component listed which starts to sound really far fetched doesn't it?

Far more likely would be that DJI could (fairly quickly) identify the drone in the air from flight records on the day.

Who knows though, as you say it's highly unlikely that any official report even if it includes third party data and information.

Normally I'm the first to rubbish 'conspiracy theories' but the only marking I've seen on a P4 motor is the serial number

Keep in mind that Flight Records are only uploaded to the "Server" when you Synch the flights. Since this aircraft was "lost at sea" (presumed by the operator) he may or may not have synched the flight logs.

 

[N017RW]

He turned himself in...

His admitted 'flight plan' corroborates the time/place/event/etc...

The motor's model number matches his aircraft type...

This is the extent of it IMO.

The rest is media being loose with the facts.
(NOT bashing the Media, just a common error)

I acknowledge the ability to inkjet (even UV ink) an s/n on each major component but also find this dubious at DJI thus far... but 'tomorrow'?

 

[andy_k]

the wording of the report is a little vague...
'Manufacturing serial number information inscribed on the motor enabled sales records provided by the manufacturer to aid in identifying the pilot, as the sUAS was purchased directly from the manufacturer. The remainder of the sUAS was not recovered'

'aid in identifying' suggests it was only part of the data used.

Anyway, I'm not backing a conspiracy theory but I don't swallow the unique motor serial number story

 

[sar104]

the wording of the report is a little vague...
'Manufacturing serial number information inscribed on the motor enabled sales records provided by the manufacturer to aid in identifying the pilot, as the sUAS was purchased directly from the manufacturer. The remainder of the sUAS was not recovered'

'aid in identifying' suggests it was only part of the data used.

Anyway, I'm not backing a conspiracy theory but I don't swallow the unique motor serial number story

That is slightly strange wording. I agree that it seems unlikely that they would inscribe a unique serial number on each motor. I'm not going to open up one of mine just to check, but I'm sure that someone can confirm one way or the other.

 

[NYC_PAR]

That is slightly strange wording. I agree that it seems unlikely that they would inscribe a unique serial number on each motor. I'm not going to open up one of mine just to check, but I'm sure that someone can confirm one way or the other.

Image from the report. The entire report including the supporting documents is worth reading.

 

[sar104]

Image from the report. The entire report including the supporting documents is worth reading.

Right - I read it when it was released last week, but what are you concluding from that image? That there is a unique serial number on the motor, or something else?

 

[NYC_PAR]

Right - I read it when it was released last week, but what are you concluding from that image? That there is a unique serial number on the motor, or something else?

I'm saying this is how the NTSB says they traced the drone owner, who had bought directly from DJI. I don't know what unique identifier was on that wreckage, but without it, they would not have been able to trace the pilot.

The report also shows his FAA registration... which was missing fields.

 

[sar104]

I'm saying this is how the NTSB says they traced the drone owner, who had bought directly from DJI. I don't know what unique identifier was on that sticker, but without it, they would not have been able to trace the pilot.

The report also shows his FAA registration... which was missing fields.

Yes - they stated that they traced him via a serial number inscribed on the motor. So you are suggesting that it was actually an identifier on the sticker on the arm of the aircraft? I guess that's possible, although not exactly what was written in the report. I've not seen a label like that on a DJI aircraft.

 

[GadgetGuy]

9/11 was a few guys with pocket knives that had played on flight sims - what's your point?

You forgot to mention you are a pilot btw

They were box cutters, not pocket knives!

 

[GadgetGuy]

In one of the early reports it stated that the UAS operator (Russian chap) went to the police station and admitted that he suspected it was his UAS that had caused the incident. He said he only knew his P4 did not RTH as expected and he turned over his Tx and his tablet so they could investigate.

As has been stated before, by several attorneys specializing in aviation law, in almost every FAA case, without self-incriminating admissions made by the pilot, there is rarely enough independent evidence for the FAA to prosecute, which is why aviation attorneys always recommend exercising your right to remain silent, and to refuse to answer any questions without your lawyer present! Perhaps being from Russia, he didn't realize that he had no legal obligation to incriminate himself, which he apparently did! No serial number on any motor established that he was flying the drone!

 

[GadgetGuy]

He turned himself in...

His admitted 'flight plan' corroborates the time/place/event/etc...

The motor's model number matches his aircraft type...

This is the extent of it IMO.

The rest is media being loose with the facts.
(NOT bashing the Media, just a common error)

I acknowledge the ability to inkjet (even UV ink) an s/n on each major component but also find this dubious at DJI thus far... but 'tomorrow'?

Far more likely is that his fingerprints were on the motor from holding it to attach the prop. However, that still does not prove that he was the pilot that day, without his self-incriminating statements and admissions (that he was flying his drone at that time in that location which did not RTH), which allowed the fingerprints to be matched to him, even if his finger prints were not on file. He convicted himself. Without his voluntarily coming forward and incriminating himself, it is unlikely that there would have been a prosecutable case. Ownership of a car doesn't place you behind the wheel, at the scene of a crime, where the car was used, unless you tell them you were driving!