A couple days ago we took a DJI Phantom 2 and flew it straight up into the air over Charleston, SC to test its "range". The video, although interesting, was not fully thought out and we decided to pull the video.
Many of the commenters who disliked our "test" were quick to point out that we shouldn't be flying our chopper "in public areas." Personally I feel like this argument isn't legitimate as 95% of interesting drone footage comes from populated areas. Nobody is buying these things to film fly-overs of woods.
Of course the chopper could malfunction and fall out of the sky but I could make the same argument about flying real helicopters or planes over public places as well. Ours would cause far less damage if it malfunctioned. Here's a shot that a Phantom captured today in NYC in a massively populated area.
Learn more about this story here.
We've created a few videos with the Phantom and every single one of them had been in a public, populated place and nobody has been upset. It seemed like the only difference in this situation was how high we went. After doing a bit of research, I am estimating that the Phantom went about 1000 feet into the sky. If the Phantom fell from this height I'm sure it could cause some serious damage but I doubt it would cause more damage than if it fell from a more normal 200 feet.
One commenter made a fantastic point about the dangers of our Phantom and low flying aircrafts like the Medivac helicopter on the top of one of our hospitals downtown. This was a very good point and I could see how our little drone could be a huge problem for an aircraft like that. Most aircraft must stay above 500 feet and our helicopter did go into their airspace.
We love the DJI Phantom and we would never want to set a bad/dangerous example of how to use them. We also would never want to do anything that could limit the use of personal drones later on. We decided to delete the post and the video and in the near future we may attempt the same test again in a safer area with less potential air traffic.
That's why people are not allowed to do stuff like "how fast can this car go" on public thoroughfares. There are rules of the road, licensing, and insurance requirements to set up guidelines, controls, and liability coverage for people driving ir/responsibly.
So, again: don't fly irresponsibly.
Insurance does not protect you from damage, it just may help you pay for it if it happens. Keyword is may. Insurance as limits and it isn't always enough to cover the damage.
Certainly. But there are state-mandated minimum requirements for liability insurance. And there are state-mandated traffic regulations to minimize unsafe operation. And our society has agreed we all need to collectively accept a certain amount of risk because we've all agreed we need to have personal automobiles traveling on public thoroughfares.
In contrast, Lee didn't operate his RC copter in a way that minimized chance of an accident. He actually tempted an accident, relying on the auto-return/landing function to cover him in the event of control signal loss and assumed it would land properly without incident if signal were lost.
And nobody underneath his flight path had any warning that they were subject to any risk resulting from failure or mistake in his test/operation.
And he didn't need to. He chose to.
And right now, society and the law have not mandated regulations on these aside from the height restrictions.
Things fall. When was the last time you thought about the telephone and electrical wires that you walk and drive under falling down? You probably haven't ever thought about it, but the risk for it to happen is there. When they do fall, there probably isn't a warning to the person.
The RC is designed to land on it's own. Just like the wires are designed to stay on the pole. But they don't always work as designed. Nothing does.
It just seems that there is a whole lot of "OMG something could have happened if this product did something that it was designed to do doesn't work!", which could apply to almost everything in society.
You should stop now...you're making our arguments for us! to your point. shit happens....so........go fly in a field somewhere if you want to push the limits. if shit happens then no one is at risk. Except your dumb ass!
What I'm saying is that operators should seriously consider how to minimize risk. I am not saying that there is a way to completely eliminate risk. And I am saying that safe practices should be followed even if there are no government regulations to force it.
I don't understand your objection to that.
I don't have objections to trying to be safe.
I have objections to people losing their mind over something that didn't actually happen. Especially when that thing is designed to do something to prevent what some people are losing their minds over.
The whole "what if the failsafe fails" stuff.... if that is something we are so worried about, we should all just wear pillow body suits and never leave the house.
Chester....Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
You are an imbecile! No I can't guarantee that, that's why I have insurance. so you see smart ass the risk is not irresponsible. Now did you learn how dumb your post sounds?
Insurance doesn't protect someone else from being harmed. Next time just walk.
And yes, I was being a smart ass because the post you made was just as silly. The device has systems in place to keep it from being such a hazard, just like a car. But things happen with cars that still lead to damage, injury, death, etc.
Loved the video guys, sorry to see it go. Really sick footage. Im sure everyone on here that knocked the video has gotten permits to shoot everywhere they have taken photos. Everyone knocks the people in the spotlight. I am glad you guys have some thick skin and continue to make this blog awesome!
Comparing a drone to a real helicopter. Not regulated at all vs. HIGHLY regulated. That's where I stopped reading.
WOW. You guys knocking this really need to find a more productive way of using your time than anally criticizing the people flying these. People will continue to use them wherever they like until there is a law saying they can't. It's that simple.
As I was one of the commenters saying that the video wasn't a good idea, I'll point out the reason I said so.
1. Until less than a week ago, the FAA had a "rule" in effect that said you couldn't fly for commercial usage and you had to obey RC rules (stay under 400 feet, etc.). These were deemed not to be a law and only an internal memo, so they aren't in enforcement right now.
With that said, if we keep seeing people do these "tolerance tests" in populated areas and such, it only takes one wrong accident when the signal is interrupted and it fly away crashing into something to really bring a spotlight and have the government slap some harsh rules into place as an emergency stopgap.
2. When you get up above 400 feet, it is quite possible that signal interference in the US could render you're controller useless and take over control. That interference could cause it to go flying somewhere you don't want or come flying back down extremely fast. The auto home feature is great, but only if the Phantom realizes it has lost connection. There are other signals that can mimic the control signal. (This is why you don't run the Phantom with a Go Pro's wifi on. The 2.4 ghz signal can interfere with each other.)
3. Having one of the most popular photography websites showcase a video like that isn't the problem. It's people who will see the video and assume that they can go do the same thing and not do any research into the rules and guidelines that are commonplace. With some simple googling, you can find the FAA guidelines that say to stay under 400 feet, away from populated areas, etc. Even those these aren't enforceable for the moment, they are good common sense. These Phantoms aren't toys. They can easily injure someone.
4. Even while it seems like you guys have taken time to be better acquainted with these since flying the first one, you have an article about how you crashed the first Phantom on this website. That doesn't make me totally confident in seeing you send one up a 1,000 feet or more.
5. It's also a good suggestion to not launch these from a parking garage btw. The concrete, rebar, etc can cause signal interference and it is possible that when it auto lands, it hits the ground harder than you'd really like.
I love this website and would love to see more stuff on the Phantoms but just in a manner that is safe and promotes common sense and careful use to everyone. In that vain, there are several DJI Phantom user groups on Facebook. They have a ton of valuable information and can answer questions also!
*smh. Remember the good ol days when people weren't such wussies and didn't worry about anything that "could" go wrong? F'ING millennials ruined this world. We are a society of lawsuits and kids afraid of doing stuff kids are supposed to do because of lack of self accountability and being raised in fear. I think I'm gonna go ride my skateboard off my neighbors roof just because. Man up.
While I'll agree the US has become wussified this is wrong logic. There are tons of inept people in this world(just look at how many car accidents there are) and we don't need to add drones to the mess.
By your logic anyone should just be able to build a space-shuttle launchpad in their own backyard without any restraint.
I hear ya, but we need to get over this society of people being afraid of how humans evolve. I can't go outside every day worried about people in cars hitting me or my family. Or getting on an airplane and the whole GOD DAMNED thing goes missing. Or walking down the street and slipping on something wet and breaking a bone. Or going to a movie theater and worry about getting shot. I would say a tiny 12" x 12" drone is the LEAST of my worries. If we worried about EVERY. LITTLE. THING. we would drive ourselves batty and never leave home.
And to directly answer your question - YES, if someone is able/capable of building a space shuttle launch pad, then GO FOR IT. It helps thin the heard a little bit...
I'll leave you with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-yjgGHm_5o
I strongly agree.
...however, in the UK, helicopters flying over cities must be twin-engine - in case one fails.
oh please *ROLLS EYES* any fool can buy these things and fly them wherever they damn well want, AND THEY WILL! This video will not affect that either way. More liberal PC'ness. Next they gonna be saying these drones are racist bcus they are white.
On probably the same day, there were a couple of guys testing a similar unmanned vehicle at a public park here in Central Texas (Harker Heights, to be exact). They took it as high as it would go, annoyed some dogs at the nearby dog park by flying it right in their faces, and generally had fun with it. They stayed away from the kids on the playground and the cars in the parking lot, but otherwise put it through its paces.
My only complaint about them is that they were smoking upwind from us.
Lee, I'm an airline Captain with 1000's of hours, a photographer and I have had many 'discussions' about the Phantom (quadcopter..not a drone), and frankly this whole topic (in general) is full of mis-information, opinions not based upon current FAA regulations etc.etc.etc. Like belly-buttons, everyone has an opinion.
Until such time as the FAA get's it act together regarding these quads, the only sensible thing to do is use a ton of common sense. Don't endanger anyone, don't fly where you could hit an airplane and don't listen to the pundits!
Pulling the video was a good idea. Why show you testing the Phantom in a situation that could be construed as dangerous to persons or property?
The only comment I have about the your operation of the Phantom, is using the wi-fi on the GoPro at the same time as flying the Phantom! They both use the same freq (2.4) and that's asking for trouble. DJI clearly recommends (strongly) that you do not do that. There is a good reason for that. It's called crashing!
I'm waiting to see how the FAA finally deals with this. When they do, at least we will now have the proper guidance for operations and not speculation.
Fly Safe
They will prob ban them outright, what else can they do?!
I doubt that! Look at an X4 from Hubsan. A quad that's 2" long and weighs about 4 oz. No, what they will probably do is difficult to predict. It's the FAA we are dealing with and remember the FAA Motto
"We're not happy until you're not happy" !
I am member of the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) and have been flying and building hobby aircraft for quite sometime. I am just now getting into fpv quads. These aircraft are amazing for what they can do and could assist people in other ways. Always do a pre-flight inspection of your craft.
As long as you use your head and follow what guidelines have been set or hopefully soon to be set. Keep line of site, have a spotter, do not fly near active airports and don't fly above 400ft into full size aircraft's airspace etc.
As posted Chester A. Arthur above.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.PDF
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/560.pdf
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf
Banning them is not the answer.
Phantoms are on a 5.8ghz not 2.4, The first ones where on 2.4.. Thats why the new visions are 5.8ghz and the vision camera is 2.4ghz so they don't cross each other.
The Phantom VISION is on 5.4 for the controller. The Phantom II (non vision) is on 2.4. Please look it up so you don't post the wrong info.
interesting cause mine is not the vision and im on a 5.4ghz
http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-2/spec
Not sure why you think that? Above is the link to the DJI specs for the Phantom non Vision
Thats the same link I found, maybe they just screwed up on my order and had the wrong stuff installed.
Somehow I doubt that. How did you check the frequency to determine exactly what the controller is transmitting/receiving on? You could open up the Phantom and see exactly the receiver chip in the quad-by part number and then know for sure. Or attempt to put a FPV on it (they all run at 2.4) and see if you get interference. Lots of ways to check.
I found out it was a 5.8 when I bought a 5.8ghz Fatshark downlink and it kept taking over my phantom.. I then took it apart to find there is a 5.8 transmitter inside. I also bought mine new... not second hand used or anything.
Strange to say the least!
I'm not complaining lol... ill take it as is.
Drones hacking drones. The WiFi band is full of noise and lots of of the shelf stuff to do bad or interesting things http://hak5.org/episodes/hak5-1518
I don't think it matters where you fly a Multi Rotor Arial Vehicle, Populated or not, the reality of the matter is if you lose control of the craft, it could potentially go anywhere (hence you not having control) I could be out in a small suburb thats 10 min from the city and if I lose control or signal, there is a chance that the craft could take off and fly away over the city, or populated area.... The video was to show you How the "failsafe" DJI put in place works, so these crafts are not flying away and falling out of the sky.
The other thing people need to understand is there are guides and safety regulations that DJI and NAZA know about... In fact you can set a Range and Height limit on your NAZA inside the DJI so the Craft can only go so high or out so far from you, Once it reaches those invisible boundaries it will stay in that area, If you try to push it beyond that point on purpose the remote will become inactive and it will Return to home, as demonstrated in the video F-Stoppers pulled.
For all those who commented on the last video, Worry more about being in a car accident then a 5.6lbs Multirotor landing on you. Cars are just as unpredictable but we drive those everywhere.
we have insurance for cars.. The fact is, Phantoms DO fall out of the sky and fly away regularly. The whole point is, you can increase the odds of safety if you don't do risky things in and around the general public. The test was to see how high it could go. once you say that, you are admitting you are going to push it to it's limits. any machine pushed to it's limits will react unpredictably. Just use common sense and think before you act. every phantom comes with instructions that tell you not to fly over 400 ft. that's not because they don't want you to or it can't, it's because ALL radio controlled aircraft are restricted to a 400 ft ceiling. Especially in a city. They flew it over 1000 ft. that is helicopter airspace. Read a little before you ramble on.
Do you really think you are unlucky enough to hit a person with a 12x12" object? The most populated city in the world has what, 50k people per sq mile? At best 10% of them are outside at any given time? Somebody smarter than me can calculate the odds, but if your Phantom dropped out of the sky and actually hit somebody I would be shocked. The only reckless thing would be to purposely fly over large crowds (think a Marathon starting line, etc)
the point is: why take that chance if you don't have to. You would be shocked and also in court with a law suit at best. this was reckless
what laws did he break, There are non in place for this...
He broke FAA rules by going above 500 ft ceiling into restricted airspace. The court reference was the lawsuits he might incur if he had lost control and caused some damage.
Ok, obviously quads are meant to fly which is why you set out to "range test" it vertically. However, range works in all directions. Why don't you take the Phantom out to some beach or park and test the line-of-sight distance at which you can still control it? Doesn't even have to leave the ground, just a power-up command every 50 feet or so. That way, we'd get an actual measured distance instead of just high-flying footage. Disclaimer: I didn't catch the actual video before it was pulled, so apologies if you performed some triangulation method (a la model rocketry) or counting the # of floors up in a building in your initial experiment. I'm actually very curious to know the true range.
1) It's not strictly illegal to fly above 400 feet.The FAA's Advisory Circular 91-57 ( http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.ns...$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf ) outlines voluntary guidelines. That said, they're pretty good guidelines for a reason.
2) Not only are the pilots not licensed (which is fine, you're not flying a 777), but the craft aren't engineered and tested to anywhere near the standard of a manned aircraft. 777's rarely fall out of the sky for no apparent reason, and when they do it's a major international incident and investigation-- they're that safe. Phantoms are nowhere near that level of reliability. On that note, the self-landing feature is not bulletproof. GPS or compass interference and it's goin' somewhere else.
3) My opinion: Lee you're doing yourself a disservice by pulling the post and saying you'll "do it somewhere safer in the future" but then continuing to defend your actions here. It wasn't the brightest thing. That's cool. I've done much dumber things in my life. Pulling the post is probably a good idea. No one was hurt. Fess-up. Let's learn from it and move on.
That's my $0.02.
-Kevin (the "Weapons of Mass Production" guy)
Just saying, I would buy one to take shots flying over woods
Kids dont climb trees, cause they might break an arm,... we are slowly but surely being enclosed in our ridiculous little bubbles
I honestly don't see why a few detractors would give reason for pulling a video made with no malicious intent, but I do respect your sense of responsibility.
Lee, I've owned a Phantom 2 Vision for several months now and must admit that I've also done several "tests" to learn the limits of the aircraft. I've also crashed it several times, a couple times most definitely due to pilot error, but more times due to wind and/or flight characteristics of the Phantom. I'm learning quickly why pilots tend to be conservative when it comes to flying! I'm still flying trying to capture some interesting video and stills... I'm just more careful about where and when. I'm also tired of buying props! Good call on pulling the post.
You said "Nobody is buying these things to film fly-overs of woods". Well, not entirely true. Here is a good example of what you can come up with using a quadrocopter coupled with pilot skills and not flying over populated areas.
http://vimeo.com/83438199
"Of course the chopper could malfunction and fall out of the sky but I could make the same argument about flying real helicopters or planes over public places as well."
I hope you do realize that the chance of a drone falling out of the sky is infinitely higher than that of a real helicopter or plane crashing for a whole host of reasons.
Coming in from Canada here, where not only are we legally allowed to fly drones, there's a pilot course for drones.
Here's the problem with flying drones over populated areas, versus, say an airplane or a full-sized helicopter.
1) Any mechanical device has many failure points. But unlike your car, which will usually continue rolling, or worst case scenario, dragging along the ground, when those failures happen in the air, things start falling.
We recognize that potential in planes and helicopters. So every system in a plane or helicopter has a backup and a multiple failure plan. Control wires are run twice over in case a wire fails. They have detailed maintenance manuals and planned replacement guides that must be adhered to to remain flightworthy. And both planes and helicopters have the ability to land themselves under no power—that's another reason why the minimum altitude is 500 feet for aircraft, and it's often 1000 feet over cities. Single-engine planes often won't fly over large bodies of water for fear of failure, and it's why small helicopters with piston engines can be so unsafe.
But most drones have few redundancies, if any.
A Phantom motor goes out? Best case scenario it spins to the ground for a hard landing, but it's also very likely that it flips out and just falls. Any wireless problems, the craft will land itself (its one saving grace). But electrical problems, a huge PoF in multi rotor craft (because there are 4-8x everything) can send the craft to the ground. Computer glitches and battery failure (especially with single battery craft) are also significant risks.
One of the things that scares the FAA and TC the most is the craft going rogue and entering the flightpath of a full-sized aircraft. An errant drone could cause millions of dollars of damage and destroy hundreds of people's lives. I know this happened once in Vancouver (the rogue drone, not crashing a full-sized craft). I also know of another incident in Canada where a drone entered into the airspace of a fighter jet that was taking off.
Because of these risks, Transport Canada takes extreme caution when issuing SFOC's in potentially crowded areas. Flying at 500 feet in a city is almost never a go (too much room for the craft to go rogue and crash outside of our controlled area). You can NEVER fly over an uncontrolled scene, and we are discouraged from flying overhead shots of people participating in our shots. We also must be completely aware of airspace—we have an aviation radio for shots that take place in controlled airspace and in case the craft goes rogue and disappears into the ether.
When the FAA finally gets their act together, I can guarantee you that flights like the one posted above will be out of the question for commercial users, and they will most likely adopt the definition of commercial use as "any flight made for gain", which can pretty much include anything.
I don't mean to be the killjoy, but I feel that people don't properly realize the risks that come with things that fly. Even a DJI falling from 100 feet could seriously injure or kill someone, and you never really know if it's going to die or not. Better to fly in safe space than risk people's lives.