Phantom 3 fell from the sky and crushed the roof of a moving car

eaglegoaltender · Apr 2, 2016

GoodnNuff said:
The philosophy of "I have not experienced this, therefore it must be false" is some pretty faulty logic and lacks common sense.
Members here at one point argued that a spinning Phantom prop could not possibly cause any harm, let alone a laceration. Then photos started cropping up showing exactly what a spinning prop can do to flesh.

Members here used to get in heated arguments about whether a falling Phantom could hurt anyone. Steve Mann used to argue that it would cause the same damage that a nerf ball would cause on impact.
Then we started getting reports of people who were hit with Phantoms and of course the damage was nothing like a nerf ball...

A few weeks ago a couple of forum members reported that they were contacted by the FAA via social media - they were branded liars by quite a few here, until they got the follow up letters from the FAA showing that indeed, they had been approached on social media sites.

So yeah, seems to be a significant number of members here who deny the possibility of any truth outside of their own realm of experience. They further blind themselves by patting their own backs, proud of the "common sense" they are convinced they have employed to arrive at their conclusions.

Very well said - especially the first and last paragraphs - bang on!

Denial is the first step towards accepting what is real and making adjustments to do so - there is still hope GoodnNuff!

pounder35 · Apr 2, 2016

I just wonder what would have made the drone drop like that. I really don't see how it could have caused the damage shown in the photo.

sar104 · Apr 2, 2016

pounder35 said:
I just wonder what would have made the drone drop like that. I really don't see how it could have caused the damage shown in the photo.

From the sudden onset of spinning in the video, the most likely cause was either a motor failed or it lost a prop.

I agree that, especially at first sight, the damage looks somewhat improbable but, with a 50 mph impact of a 1.5 kg mass, I would not rule it out as impossible.

N017RW · Apr 2, 2016

GoodnNuff said:
The philosophy of "I have not experienced this, therefore it must be false" is some pretty faulty logic and lacks common sense.
Members here at one point argued that a spinning Phantom prop could not possibly cause any harm, let alone a laceration. Then photos started cropping up showing exactly what a spinning prop can do to flesh.

Members here used to get in heated arguments about whether a falling Phantom could hurt anyone. Steve Mann used to argue that it would cause the same damage that a nerf ball would cause on impact.
Then we started getting reports of people who were hit with Phantoms and of course the damage was nothing like a nerf ball...

A few weeks ago a couple of forum members reported that they were contacted by the FAA via social media - they were branded liars by quite a few here, until they got the follow up letters from the FAA showing that indeed, they had been approached on social media sites.

So yeah, seems to be a significant number of members here who deny the possibility of any truth outside of their own realm of experience. They further blind themselves by patting their own backs, proud of the "common sense" they are convinced they have employed to arrive at their conclusions.

Yea, the 'argument from incredulity' is Logical Fallacy.

Then there's the need to appear to know something nobody else does.
This is like 'Flat Earth-ers' & Moon Landing Hoax proponents.

They provide no explanation on what SHOULD have happened only that what is presented is wrong.

Gotta respect those who have tried to apply math, etc. to at least see what the reasonable conditions might be.

LOPAKALOLO FLYER · Apr 2, 2016

Amazing, I did not know a Phantom could actually lift whatever made that impact? I want that upgrade so I can fly my Great Dane around the island> Such BS?

Jojoned · Apr 2, 2016

Wow, after reading through this 'stuff' my 'ignore' list is growing.

Monte55 · Apr 2, 2016

Here's the thing. We all have the right to express our opinion. And that is without someone else calling you names which happens a lot here. Many here are very new to their new Phantoms. They may work in an office daily or flip burgers. Doesn't matter except many here have been involved in mechanics, flying real or RC craft all their life for many years as I have. Its not hard to tell the difference between the two by their uneducated responces to many of the threads. How do I know they're new? By their own admissions. Some of us have real world experience with mechanics. Not just reading other threads of what people think. A person with actual knowledge of mechanical things will always question bs. That's not to say we never accept others view but it's quite easy to see the math does not add up and will say so. I'm that guy. I do my best to tolerate it but if someone bashes me for my thoughts, I will not stay silent. I'm sure a moderator will delete many of these posts probably. Remember this is a discussion. ...not a reason to lose your mind . Some people here are very smart. That comes from experience. Some have no clue but want to spout out about things they have no knowledge of. If you want to disagree. ..ok. Just don't be an *** about it. If you don't like my opinions or think I have any idea of what I'm talking about...don't read my posts. ...or just block me from your view. Simple. I already know who the smart ones are by their posts. Do I question everyone that doesn't make sense or is just wrong. No I don't. I know what I know. If you don't believe me, I don't care. These discussions should be kept friendly.

Monte55 · Apr 2, 2016

Jojoned said:
Wow, after reading through this 'stuff' my 'ignore' list is growing.

No one really cares

Air Ontario · Apr 2, 2016

It certainly appears that the drone fell impacted the roof of that car based on the crush pattern, dents, cuts, scrapes, etc.

I'd like to know more. Was the car moving?
Was it supposed to be a frontal impact or a side impact. In other words where did the drone come from? The front or the side?

I have seen snow load and falling ice damage(like sliding off a house roof and landing on car) like that, even damage from a deer that didn't quite clear a car from the side.
However the cars were parked/stopped in those specific cases.

To really re-construct and therefore resolve the question, you need data on pre-impact, impact and final rest of the two objects.

Doesn't have the appearance of straight vandalism, they generally have a definite pattern. So it's not too believable is was damaged pre drone impact but subjective with no more info than just the pictures.

Regardless it does appear the drone damaged it and so Occam's razor.

Wally Bird · Apr 2, 2016

On page one of this thread the OP has two pictures of the flight records from this flight. According to the flight time, one is 5 seconds later than the other. Look at the line indicating the battery level. Particularly note the red line and the yellow line. The critical and low battery levels are NOT the same for these two flight records. These two flight records are obviously NOT from the same flight.

pomonabill220 · Apr 2, 2016

It amazes me that there are SOOOO many haters the LOVE to jump all over posters here!!
This is a VERY violent forum!

gunslinger · Apr 2, 2016

Okay... Today ALONE I've gotten five separate reports on activity in this thread. ONE MORE... and this thread is closed and one or more people will be taking a vacation from this forum. Please!!! Let's cut the personal attacks and sarcastic remarks. There are plenty of forums out there that allow you to vent this crap. This is NOT one of them...

sar104 · Apr 2, 2016

Wally Bird said:
On page one of this thread the OP has two pictures of the flight records from this flight. According to the flight time, one is 5 seconds later than the other. Look at the line indicating the battery level. Particularly note the red line and the yellow line. The critical and low battery levels are NOT the same for these two flight records. These two flight records are obviously NOT from the same flight.

The H point, separating green and yellow, is calculated on the fly based on battery required to return to the home point. In the second screen shot, since the aircraft has just descended from around 100 m without using the expected amount of energy, the point has moved lower, and the yellow/red transition has also moved, which it sometimes does if H moves to the right during flight. Everything else looks consistent to me, so I think that your conclusion is not supported.

Wally Bird · Apr 2, 2016

Red and yellow lines will not move. They are set at a percentage of the total battery time. The percentages are set in the DJI GO app, they will not change during the flight unless you change them yourself.

sar104 · Apr 2, 2016

Wally Bird said:
Red and yellow lines will not move. They are set at a percentage of the total battery time.

I'm sorry - but they do move. I just replayed some of my flight records to confirm that.

pomonabill220 · Apr 2, 2016

Monte55 said:
These discussions should be kept friendly.

First you say this, then your VERY NEXT POST is a sarcastic bash! Boy you need to re-read your post and do as you say!

sar104 · Apr 2, 2016

Wally Bird said:
Red and yellow lines will not move. They are set at a percentage of the total battery time.

And just to elaborate, the DJI Wiki for the Phantom 3 confirms that the H point - the green/yellow transition, is calculated as the point with enough battery remaining to return to the home point. Obviously that is not a fixed point. It moves around much more than the yellow/red transition point, but that can move too - as I said - I have flight records showing it moving.