Loose or missing prop warning 2500 feet from launch.

[photojunky]

I had a scare today. I was flying my Phantom In The Hills hoping to get a time-lapse of the fog coming over the mountain when I received a warning on my screen telling me I had either a loose prop or missing prop. Well, since my drone did not tumble to the earth, I knew it wasn't a missing prop It would not respond to the controller except for the return home command. Luckily I was able to take over when it was directly overhead or it may have landed in a tree or on my roof.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Deleted member 62848]

I had a scare today. I was flying my Phantom In The Hills hoping to get a time-lapse of the fog coming over the mountain when I received a warning on my screen telling me I had either a loose prop or missing prop. Well, since my drone did not tumble to the earth, I knew it wasn't a missing prop It would not respond to the controller except for the return home command. Luckily I was able to take over when it was directly overhead or it may have landed in a tree or on my roof.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Wow yip that's a scare,shells are pretty cheap,good rainy day job,,good luck and take care

 

[Fly Dawg]

I received a warning on my screen telling me I had either a loose prop or missing prop.

This can happen, but I would watch this closely. It could be an ESC issue. Take a good look at your flight logs and do a comparison check. Usually it actually is a missing prop when you get that message, but as I mentioned it could also be the ESC. Just something to bear in mind.

 

[photojunky]

Well, the motor mounts do have cracks every where so I will start with the shell.

 

[Deleted member 62848]

Yeh I'm thinking under power it's torque twisting making motor pitch change which gave that error,,,,this just a guess but with arm moving like that I'm surprised it still conected

 

[photojunky]

Yeh I'm thinking under power it's torque twisting making motor pitch change which gave that error,,,,this just a guess but with arm moving like that I'm surprised it still conected

That is exactly what I am thinking.

 

[Martin_W]

Lucky guys those Kiwis, 2,500ft ? Whichever way you crunch that number you'd be breaking the law in most countries ?

 

[Deleted member 62848]

2500ft=762 mtrs which is under 1km..1km=1000m,,,,your maths bad my friend,,,that still be line of sight,,,,post not say 2500ft up,,says from take off point,,,,

 

[photojunky]

Lol, I was flying far out and not at 2500ft altitude. I wasn't even above the peaks in the valley. 2500 feet is about 1/2 a mile. I did lose site when it was directly over head for a moment although I heard it.

 

[photojunky]

Lucky guys those Kiwis, 2,500ft ? Whichever way you crunch that number you'd be breaking the law in most countries ?

You are misunderstanding.

 

[Martin_W]

2500ft=762 mtrs which is under 1km..1km=1000m,,,,your maths bad my friend,,,that still be line of sight,,,,post not say 2500ft up,,says from take off point,,,,

Hmm.Very disappointed to see such a unconsidered response. There are two main points here, and to avoid further confusion let's talk metric (I believe NZ changed to this system in 1969, following the UK?):
1. Lots of countries struggle to define what VLOS actually means. The FAA in the USA are fundamentally behind this because they appear unable (or unwilling) to define a VLOS distance. The UK CAA however do define a distance for VLOS , it being 500m. So, ignoring your insult regarding my mathematical prowess (which, for your information I have a degree in applied mathematics.. my friend!) my point is valid. Perhaps the issue here is that people are left with the opportunity to pick and choose, fundamentally because some countries are unable to decide who is leading the argument ?
2. The second point is that (unfortunately) there are too many irresponsible individuals operating (piloting) drones who feel that it's OK to cherry pick the 'rules'. We're in the Phantom forum here, where most of the drones are coloured white. I defy anyone who says they can properly see their drone (visually, i.e. using their own eyeballs, even in clear conditions) beyond 500m.
Finally, and as a qualified and experienced commercial drone pilot, I question why anyone should need to be flying a drone beyond a few hundred metres of the pilot. It is simply the rule breakers that are creating much of the bad press that us responsible pilots have to endure.

 

[Deleted member 62848]

Ha you guessed i not go to school,,sorry I did not mean any insult,,I totallyagree with the line of sight thing,,yes drones can be seen but you take eye off it you never pic it up again with eyes,,,,I myself like to keep things on a leash,,I have no reason to fly into the sunset due to risk involved,me I'm between airports so I have to behave,,once again I meant no offence to your maths,sorry

 

[photojunky]

Same here, I meant no offense to anyone. Irresponsible drone owners drive me crazy. I feel like every time I take off, people are looking at me as if I am one of them. I especially hate when morons make the news for flying near airports. Personally, I think if you are flying in the path of a jumbo jet, you should do a year in prison. When I fly in my neighborhood, I always raise it over 300 feet which is legal by the way. The rules are kind of vague when it comes to flying over people's heads, you're not allowed to but you are allowed to fly over people's houses as long as you are above I believe 305 feet or something close to that, and not higher than 400 of course. Anyway, I always try to fly where there are no people, although I am guilty of flying several times in San Francisco at 5 in the morning when the light is good during some of the longest days of the year. The streets are almost deserted. Actually, most of the time I have flown in San Francisco has been over the bay looking at San Francisco. I think I have flown above deserted city streets at 5 in the morning twice.