Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by JohnET, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Mar 14, 2017, 03:43 PM
KI7CBF
xtrmtrk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rups63
A model you have full manual control of can have a mechanical, or electrical, or receiver malfunction and go down in a populated area as fast as an autonomous model. If you think you have a full-proof rock-solid radio control link that can't fail for any reason and will keep your model from crashing, you are wrong.
Exactly right.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Mar 14, 2017, 03:49 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rups63
Have you ever flown through a camera? It would be difficult to see, let alone avoid, an aerial collision (despite the mathematical improbibility of this situation even happening), even if you were in manual mode.

A game we'll play when we get together with our group is cut the streamer. One person tapes a streamer to their combat wing and flies LOS circuits, while others fly fpv chasing and trying to cut the streamer. It is darn hard to find the plane with 30 feet of streamer behind it through an fvp camera (and we'really looking for it, mind you, to chase it).

You will not see an oncoming aircraft flying fpv (despite the mathematical improbibility of ever being close to an aircraft passing through) until it would be too late, even if you were flying in manual mode, because at the speeds it would be flying you simply wouldn't see it until it was on top of you, if you ever saw it at all. This is assuming it was in front of you. If the other aircraft was coming up from behind, you wouldn't see it all as it would be out of your cameras field of view.

So, I wonder if you've even flown fpv, or if you're just stirring the pot...
As ever, you are entitled to your views.

For the record I regularly fly fixed and rotary wing fpv, with and without osd. I can say with confidence that I have spotted full size aircraft (helicopter and light aircraft) on more than one occasion through my fpv feed. And processed that information to inform my flight.

Far from "stirring the pot" I am being restrained in not openly expressing my personal opinion on flying knowingly without control. I don't feel it would be right to impose the view of an individual on others. Rather I am trying to encourage some hopefully useful and positive discussion.

Having flown for many years, I am seeing the march of more and more restrictions on a range of flying imposed across Europe. Much of this appears to be provoked by the fear around "drones" (some of which actually have no autonomy therefore isn't really a drone). The use of a Vector in most circumstances makes our model a true drone. We will be branded as dangerous reckless crazy's by many. And our actions are under the spotlight. I wouldn't want there to be any additional ammunition that could be used against the use of products like the Vector.

As I've said before. IMHO.

sj
Mar 14, 2017, 04:07 PM
s'like freakin' NASA in there.
Jmel's Avatar
Also, eagletree, as I'm quite sure, has no interest in being a party to a lawsuit.
Mar 14, 2017, 04:10 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtrmtrk
If you are going to fly model aircraft fully autonomously without any direct, immediate control, please be sure to have your FAA UAS registration number clearly marked on your plane. Adding your AMA membership ID would also be good.

A lot of us have spent considerable time and money trying to fight back local laws and regulations which would prohibit flying hobby R/C aircraft. Dozens of states and most cities are pushing hard to make flying R/C a severely punishable crime. I don't think many members of this community understand just how tenuous the legality of our hobby is today.

If an unpiloted, autonomously flying plane goes down in a populated area and isn't clearly identifiable and registered, the fall-out will have consequences for the whole hobby and community, at least in the U.S. There will still be a lot of problems if the registration is marked, but at least it won't be viewed as a terrorist attack. If you think this is hyperbole, I suggest you have a chat with a local lawmaker.

If you believe you have a totally fool-proof autonomous flight controller/auto-pilot in a plane that can't fail for any reason, you are wrong.
Your concerns sound similar to some of mine, seeing what is proposed across Europe.

Our toys or far from failure proof. I've dealt with several types of failure over many years. Hopefully I've learnt from them all. I'm confident that my human interaction has saved models, or at least reduced damage and ensured that I have tried (and fortunately succeeded) to keep a partial disabled model away from hitting people.

Of course I accept that we cannot be sure that we won't get a radio failure, it would be terrible if that caused an accident. But as a pilot, you would know that you had done everything you could to maximise the control of your model and minimise the likelihood of incident.

I'm not questioning the ability of the tech here. More my concern of knowing shutting out our ability to react to a problem.

sj
Mar 15, 2017, 10:27 AM
Registered User
Most agriculture drones and mapping drones don't even have an RC controller or FPV, just a tablet to program take off, flight path and landing.

Fully autonomous flight is already here guys, the train has left the station. The focus now is how to incorporate features to make these things work better for us, like operating multiple types of imaging systems while in flight and relaying real time data. Not if it is safe to fly.

Let's get back to making ET better and not pissing about whether autonomous flight is "acceptable" or not. Take that discussion elsewhere.

Take a look at the opening video to the Ag Eagle web page, do you see an RC TX anywhere? http://ageagle.com/
Last edited by Willyspu; Mar 15, 2017 at 05:34 PM.
Mar 16, 2017, 06:55 AM
Registered User
evo101's Avatar
one can get the vector to fly waypoints with the radio off if you wanted to use it for mapping on a farm etc, but sounds like this discussion is not for most people here.
Remember dont blame the "gear" its the operator that holds all the responsibility.
Mar 16, 2017, 07:04 AM
I'd be mad without a Taranis!
Quote:
Originally Posted by evo101
one can get the vector to fly waypoints with the radio off if you wanted to use it for mapping on a farm etc, but sounds like this discussion is not for most people here.
Remember dont blame the "gear" its the operator that holds all the responsibility.
How is this done? The Vector will initiate return to home if the rssi is lost and exit waypoint mode.
Mar 16, 2017, 07:23 AM
Registered User
evo101's Avatar
just set your failsafe switch to waypoint mode
Mar 16, 2017, 07:39 AM
Registered User
Vector no safety mode
You have to work the rest out your self.
Last edited by garris2; Mar 16, 2017 at 07:44 AM.
Mar 16, 2017, 07:58 AM
I'd be mad without a Taranis!
Quote:
Originally Posted by garris2
Vector no safety mode
You have to work the rest out your self.
I understand how that can work. But, I would still like a failsafe safety. I just want that the waypoint mission will continue if rssi is lost, rather than RTH triggering. If I'm not flying a waypoint mission, I would still want RTH to engage if rssi is lost.
Mar 16, 2017, 08:00 AM
I'd be mad without a Taranis!
Quote:
Originally Posted by evo101
just set your failsafe switch to waypoint mode
If rssi was lost, RTH would still engage. Unless you meant to turn off any failsafe mode, like garris2 indicated.
Mar 16, 2017, 11:21 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rups63
I understand how that can work. But, I would still like a failsafe safety. I just want that the waypoint mission will continue if rssi is lost, rather than RTH triggering. If I'm not flying a waypoint mission, I would still want RTH to engage if rssi is lost.
Get something like an EZUHF, Scherrer, Dragon link long range system and good antenna's and you can fly for miles without loosing RSSI and engaging RTH. You will still have full RTH capabilities. With "most" (I know there are some longer range versions now) 2.4 RC systems you are limited to about a mile.

However, even with a long range system, with the Vector you will still need to maintain line of sight (not visual) to transmit/receive at least the RC (RSSI) signal, so it is not fully autonomous like a PixHawk or APM system. That is now how ET designed the Vector but that is the basis for how t the RTH system works. You could turn off the RTH system and set your RCrx fail safe system to circle and bring you down slowly if a failure occurred or get a parachute system but I think that's about it.

This may be a case where you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Mar 16, 2017, 11:32 AM
I'd be mad without a Taranis!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willyspu
This may be a case where you can't have your cake and eat it too.
This is the case, with the Vector, in its current state.
Mar 17, 2017, 04:38 PM
ChrisI
I subscribed to forum because I love my two Vectors and on my QAV540G it now gives me capability to take excellent pictures/video. I have 20 min. flying time now and UHF for control so can reach out some if wanted. This discussion has somehow gone to merits or not flying fully autonomous with no control. I sincerely hope nobody from FAA cherry picking comments made here as they serve as excellent ammunition for additional regulation. As a hobbyist I cannot justify or support flying long range autonomously. It may be very possible but equipment we are using is not intended for this and one is taking huge risk doing it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Mar 17, 2017, 04:42 PM
I'd be mad without a Taranis!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCLs
I subscribed to forum because I love my two Vectors and on my QAV540G it now gives me capability to take excellent pictures/video. I have 20 min. flying time now and UHF for control so can reach out some if wanted. This discussion has somehow gone to merits or not flying fully autonomous with no control. I sincerely hope nobody from FAA cherry picking comments made here as they serve as excellent ammunition for additional regulation. As a hobbyist I cannot justify or support flying long range autonomously. It may be very possible but equipment we are using is not intended for this and one is taking huge risk doing it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If you say so. I feel differently, and we will have to cordially disagree. Let's move on past arguing who is right or wrong - people will do what they do, and the technology we have access to makes it possible for autonomous flights to occur, and they occur every day.


Thread Tools