You may or may not agree with my thoughts here
http://www.suasnews.com/2012/10/19348/multirotor-hits-skyscraper-and-burns-downtown-auckland-nz/
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
You may or may not agree with my thoughts here
http://www.suasnews.com/2012/10/19348/multirotor-hits-skyscraper-and-burns-downtown-auckland-nz/
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Comments
There's more info on this coming from another forum. That is indeed smoke that came out at 0:58. Supposedly the post-crash analysis revealed a wire tie that had been pulled too tight causing a short (exactly how is not clear), but that is what is being said led to the crash.
Yep, well said.
And I agree with the comments about Trappy. I have defended some of his actions in the past when he was attacked by others. I don't see a problem with him flying over the Grand Canyon and things like that.
But to fly up to Big Ben, and then claim "Well I didn't know"... don't be stupid. Of course you knew. I know you're smarter than that.
That type of flight in a high populated tourist area, with "national security" concerns... you should have known that was a no-go. That little stunt will hurt us.
Well said Martin both in the blog and in Youtube.
I agree with you Peter, my opinion is that this is not smoke seen from the copter at about 57 seconds, it looks like a lens flare or a compression issue on the video not showing the detail correctly, I also can’t think of a way in which smoke could come from that part of the copter and carry on ascending at the rate it did. I’m sure that the only part of the system there that could have made “smoke” would have been the motor; this seems to be operational throughout the brief flight.
I share the opinion of a few previous posts and I have no real comment or concern with the skill level of the person at the controls, he could be a 3D champion or just built the kit that morning and decided to go for his first flight. The whole issue is around the choice of flight position and the lack of any real control of the risks. Flights like this will be more common place in the coming years as we see systems moving in to open new opportunities for aerial photography and video work. It appears that there was no limitation on the risks, even the person shooting the video posted on YouTube was way to close, you can see that other people were there just shooting with their camera phones, these were clearly not “crew”. Life is full of risks and no one can ever plan against all outcomes, however best practice should always be followed to minimise them, and failures and faults be it equipment or pilot will occur, we have watched a video which is a testimonial to this very fact.
I really hope that this video of another person’s misfortune will be viewed more as a learning experience of when things go wrong there can be terrible outcomes, this was a lucky escape in my opinion for both the owner and the spectators. As these systems become more common place someone will be badly injured or killed if there is not proper control of people around these systems, this is the reality of these machines, when they come down they do so hard!
The video of Trappy @ Wired or his flight over some of the world’s most iconic landmarks in London will not help the UK industry or the global community as it is still finding its feet with a constant evolution of regulations, one thing it will do is show a huge amount of new people the way not to operate, where not to fly and in a positive way as the TBS videos are a good watch. This will have a negative effect overall as people will just look to emulate these flights without knowing the true danger or the number of laws they will be breaking, I speak with many new people coming into this arena at both the hobby and professional levels, the majority of people I speak with have no concept of the “rules” and would be breaking many of them through nothing more than ignorance, this is not their fault they need guidance and education. TBS videos are not helping to educate people how to conduct flights in a sensible or responsible way.
Regards
Martin
It's easy for everyone to pop up and say there was smoke at 0:57. Did you notice it with the first watch though? I am 100% sure pilot didn't have a repeat button to see that at the time and say hmmmm theres smoke at 0:57. I ll better bring it down. Things go bad end of story. I don't believe he wasn't experienced. Who buys a 10k platform and flies it in urban location without experience? I will concur that he was lucking some fundamental safety issues which he must look into and improve his safety risk assessments.
And I have some news for you....Like it or not everyone is stigmatized from this video cause we are a portion of few. Do you think the average people will conceive that there was a signal bounce of the GPS or the barometer malfunctioned? They will look at you like they are looking at an alien if you say such things to them. The large portion of people think kinda like this: If a car is crashed they will isolate the event to a stupid driver who was drunk or a speed freak... Doesn't mean all drivers are bad. If a drone is crashed: They will include all of us... These guys will kill us with these noisy flying jigsaws . Let's not pull out our own eyes then and find food on a bad moment that happened to one of us.
I'm still not convinced that, that is smoke at 0:57. I've run it several times over and it looks to me like lens flare from some bright reflection, it appears to go radially out where any smoke would be blown down.
Not constructive to class Kiwi's with bad practices, unfortunately idiots appear to be prolific in all countries! Just look at YouTube!
If someone did that in the UK Not crash, I mean flew as irresponsibly as that, and they were commercial, they would have had their Licence revoked! simple as that. (The pilot is responsible for the flight, regardless!)
Peter
I find it disturbing watching that video. Aircraft, manned or unmanned, big or small, civilian or military, have a history of crashing, as pilots/engineers we have a duty minimise the likelihood and consequence of this.\\
If they were amateurs, they should have never have been there. If they were professional operators they certainly don't reflect the standards expected by licenced operators. There is demand for UAVs to operate in urban environments for commercial operations, and I do not consider the area shown in the video to be a populous area for a multirotor small UAV. What concerns me was the lack of risk mitigating controls.
Things that could have been better based upon my experience.
1. The take off and landing area should have been clear of the public (30m is standard in Australia).
2. Warning signs erected, someone assigned to controlling pedestrian/car traffic.
3. Run-up checks prior to take off (controls correct)
4. Establish a low altitude hover upon take off to check manual controls
5. Test pilot assistance functions (ie position hold, altitude hold) commencing operations
6. No flying directly over people, maintain adequate separation (30m in Australia)
7. First aid kit and fire extinguisher available nearby
Whilst the video shows that the aircraft was constantly rotating on take off (indicating either a failure in the yaw gyro, or the compass), ultimately the pilot should have landed immediately upon take off.
i wasnt accusing him of being a noob, he just looked that way cause of where he was flying and the fact he was checking the chopper when the motors where spinning, running his business for a year doesn't mean shit to me, i know a lot of people who have been running businesses for years and still don't know what the hell they are doing, theres been a few major accidents in nz involving aircraft and people who are supposed to know what they are doing
Wraith, the guy was definitely not a noob. He'd been operating a business for a year. However, he's also been accused before of flying where he shouldn't.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next