Litchi: Another Thread for DJI Quad Owners

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazerjock

Having a Part 107 License has its pros and cons.

If you plan to fly for money then you definitely need it.
There are rare locations I am able to fly under my 107 that I can't as a recreational pilot......legally.

---

Exactly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazerjock

Then there is the "I didn't know that" scenario. Sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. When you have a 107 you are held to a higher standard even when flying recreationally.

---

You must mean like this flight from Hungry Mother State Park this morning:
Attachment 56807

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec-faphB5Q4

I have to say, it's nerve wracking to lose signal a few minutes into a thirteen minute flight and just hope that all the careful flight planning/on-the-ground terrain verification works out as planned. This is countered somewhat by the elation of regaining signal as it works its way back to you.

-David

Nice! I think what would be most nerve wracking on this flight is a) if it's too close to water, the system that identifies whats below the bird takes over from GPS and if it can't find identification references, you risk a flyaway and b) when it loses signal, it maintains it's speed and altitude through the remainder of the mission so your elevation at the end of the flight might not happen. At least that's my understanding. Losing signal in general presents a need for clean underwear if you ask me. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bradfo69

Nice! I think what would be most nerve wracking on this flight is a) if it's too close to water, the system that identifies whats below the bird takes over from GPS and if it can't find identification references, you risk a flyaway and b) when it loses signal, it maintains it's speed and altitude through the remainder of the mission so your elevation at the end of the flight might not happen. At least that's my understanding. Losing signal in general presents a need for clean underwear if you ask me. :)

---

Thanks, Brad!

I've done a lot of flying close to the water - as low as the 4-5 foot range - and have only received one or two warnings indicating that the ultrasonic sonar is having problems with understanding it's distance to the ground. I believe that only happened when I was flying manually and possibly without view of enough satellites (like a creek in the woods). The Litchi flights remember all their waypoints locations and altitudes as well as their camera focal points (albeit there were issues with loss of camera focal point transitions without signal for a while). The only concern I'd have is if you were flying in conditions where you lost GPS for a long time such as over water covered by thick tree cover or flying under a large bridge like the Golden Gate. In those situations, I'm not sure how the bird reacts. If it does what you describe in case b, I certainly agree that would be a good time to be wearing brown pants!

-David

David I love the video, especially the single kyaker.
How much did you have to pay the actor to get such a great shot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dkumpula

I've done a lot of flying close to the water - as low as the 4-5 foot range - and have only received one or two warnings indicating that the ultrasonic sonar is having problems with understanding it's distance to the ground. I believe that only happened when I was flying manually and possibly without view of enough satellites (like a creek in the woods).

flying under a large bridge like the Golden Gate. In those situations, I'm not sure how the bird reacts. If it does what you describe in case b, I certainly agree that would be a good time to be wearing brown pants!

---

I though you may have seen my video when you said this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13JM...ature=youtu.be

I flew manually under a bridge at Mill Creek Park in Ohio with roughly 3 ft clearance. There was a log under the bridge that I didn't see until I was under the bridge. The craft seemed to loose GPS and started drifting left and right badly since it was over water and didn't have a good surface for the downward looking camera to hold position. I fought it to keep from running into the log.

When I got out the other side I realized there was a fair amount of tree coverage and I couldn't ascend safely. Right at that moment my battery alarm went off. If I didn't land soon the Mavic would have taken over climbed to minimum safe altitude (about 150 ft) right through the branches trying to go home.
My choices were:
Go under the bridge again.
Go over the bridge, but there were cars and a lot of branches.
Run like Forest Gump until I could see enough to climb through the branches and land along the creek side.

I chose number 3 and was successful. This time.

Not one of my shining moments, but no one was hurt, no property damage including the drone.
I learned from it and maybe someone else can learn from my mistake.

In flight school we are taught there are a minimum of 3 mistakes made prior to an accident.

In my case:
1. I didn't do a good enough flight plan which led to
2. I flew beyond the limitations of the equipment which led to
3. I didn't have enough power for return flight and
4. I didn't have alternative landing site.

This was a crash waiting to happen.

Chris

Hey Chris!

Ah, no I hadn't seen this one previously. I really enjoyed the 'fall' off the dam.

Obviously, manual flight was the only option for that terrain and certainly highlights the potential issues we discussed. As long as your bird was the only thing significantly at risk, I'd still advocate for taking the occasional risky flight in order to capture such great video. In my case, an error where I lost my drone is only a US$620 replacement cost for a used one on FleaBay. Not that such a cost wouldn't hurt, but its not enough of a monetary risk to avoid flights that I believe I planned and scoped out adequately.

When I've flown really low over water (e.g. 5 feet) that's all manual even when its a wide open river or lake. The chance of a way-point flight hitting someone paddling along is unacceptable. Even if flying more than 10 feet over potential watercraft, is unpalatable as many people get anxious with spinning props overhead. Myself included. In my last video, I thought I was the first one 'on the water' that morning and was obviously wrong. While I was still more than 15 feet over the fisherman's head, I would have avoided him altogether or at least had flown higher if I had known he was there. If I encountered the gentleman in person later that day, I would have apologized to him.

-David