Is there a PArachute FTS System available For Mavic 3E that complies with EASA UAS.2512-01 MOC and can also work with RTK or other accessories attached?

->
FLYFIRE parachute for Mavic/Phantom series (motosports.lv)
Kit homologation S2 pour drones DJI Mavic 3 (studiosport.fr)



*Search results may vary by region.
*Dear customers thanks for reaching us, we do not recommend using third party accesories...

LV_Forestry Posted at 12-19 02:48
[view_image]

Thanks for your reply, we are currently using this parachute and its very good unfortunately it does not conform with EASA UAS.2512-01 as far as I am aware, we also use Parazero which does comply with this regulation but does not allow room for ancillaries such as RTK module to be connected.
We use various models for all our ranges from the M350, M300, M210, M30 and Mavic's.
It seems the market can't keep up with these changes EASA are making and EASA Can't keep up with the technology changes.

Andrew025 Posted at 12-19 02:53
Thanks for your reply, we are currently using this parachute and its very good unfortunately it does not conform with EASA UAS.2512-01 as far as I am aware, we also use Parazero which does comply with this regulation but does not allow room for ancillaries such as RTK module to be connected.
We use various models for all our ranges from the M350, M300, M210, M30 and Mavic's.
It seems the market can't keep up with these changes EASA are making and EASA Can't keep up with the technology changes.

I strongly recommend that you get in touch with this company :

https://www.abot.fr/

LV_Forestry Posted at 12-19 03:06
I strongly recommend that you get in touch with this company :

https://www.abot.fr/

Thanks for the advice have just emailed them.

LV_Forestry Posted at 12-19 03:06
I strongly recommend that you get in touch with this company :

https://www.abot.fr/

I have received word back and they don't have parachute/fts for Mavic3E/T/M with EASA MOC

Andrew025 Posted at 12-19 07:40
I have received word back and they don't have parachute/fts for Mavic3E/T/M with EASA MOC

I affraid that it will be hard to find it. Because in the category of weight, parachute isnt requeried instead of FTS.

Regulations aside, I see a parachute on the M3E causing more of a safety issue than anything. False deployments, added weight, less aerodynamics, GNSS interference etc.  My use obviously doesn't speak for everybody, but with 80.5 hours of airtime my M3E has never had the need for this attachment. It really seems kinda silly.

Johnnokomis Posted at 12-19 10:11
Regulations aside, I see a parachute on the M3E causing more of a safety issue than anything. False deployments, added weight, less aerodynamics, GNSS interference etc.  My use obviously doesn't speak for everybody, but with 80.5 hours of airtime my M3E has never had the need for this attachment. It really seems kinda silly.

I agree with your point of view, but for certain specific scenarios the EASA imposes measures on us to mitigate the "risk". It is a calculation which is made according to a procedure which gives a level of risk, which makes it possible to determine at what level the decision to authorize the flight or not will be taken. A parachute is a big factor reducing the risk according to the method.

Requests are studied on a case-by-case basis, it is therefore possible to defend your opinion by documenting it.

The parachute must comply with ASTM F3322−18, something that comes straight from the FAA I believe. Thank you so much

LV_Forestry Posted at 12-19 10:21
I agree with your point of view, but for certain specific scenarios the EASA imposes measures on us to mitigate the "risk". It is a calculation which is made according to a procedure which gives a level of risk, which makes it possible to determine at what level the decision to authorize the flight or not will be taken. A parachute is a big factor reducing the risk according to the method.

Requests are studied on a case-by-case basis, it is therefore possible to defend your opinion by documenting it.

Agreed, the regulation is one thing but if there isn't something suitable on the market to comply with EASA regulations what do you do.
I think the only option is to continue to use Manti 3 until something comes, at least it's an attempt to comply.

Andrew025 Posted at 12-19 11:29
Agreed, the regulation is one thing but if there isn't something suitable on the market to comply with EASA regulations what do you do.
I think the only option is to continue to use Manti 3 until something comes, at least it's an attempt to comply.

I'm not sure, but is the ASTM standard mandatory? Because it seems to me that I have already asked the question to the CAA and the answer was that the important thing is to show that the system is there and that it is operational. Manufacturers generally make demonstration videos. Once again, category specific, everything is possible, you have to negotiate.

LV_Forestry Posted at 12-19 11:37
I'm not sure, but is the ASTM standard mandatory? Because it seems to me that I have already asked the question to the CAA and the answer was that the important thing is to show that the system is there and that it is operational. Manufacturers generally make demonstration videos. Once again, category specific, everything is possible, you have to negotiate.

Good advice and thanks for the input, also yes UAS 2511 and 12 is now adopted by EASA

On a heavier drone like an M350 or M600 I could see where a parachute might have a use. Their larger size, heavier weight and impact with the ground after a freefall would be totally different than that of a Mavic. Is this regulation in regards to public safety or just protecting the drone/payload in case of an accident? I'm not up to speed on laws outside of the US but I'm pretty sure flying over people is against the law in most countries anyways.  
If I have my M3E powered off in my hand and a gust of wind (even small) catches the props, they spin fast enough to hurt a finger if caught in them. If a sudden loss of power happened during flight would this not create an auto rotation effect similar to what a helicopter creates in the event of an engine loss? Or would the Mavic just roll and tumble to the ground? Anyone care to try this out themselves? Not it.

Johnnokomis Posted at 12-20 09:54
On a heavier drone like an M350 or M600 I could see where a parachute might have a use. Their larger size, heavier weight and impact with the ground after a freefall would be totally different than that of a Mavic. Is this regulation in regards to public safety or just protecting the drone/payload in case of an accident? I'm not up to speed on laws outside of the US but I'm pretty sure flying over people is against the law in most countries anyways.  
If I have my M3E powered off in my hand and a gust of wind (even small) catches the props, they spin fast enough to hurt a finger if caught in them. If a sudden loss of power happened during flight would this not create an auto rotation effect similar to what a helicopter creates in the event of an engine loss? Or would the Mavic just roll and tumble to the ground? Anyone care to try this out themselves? Not it.

Yes, it’d just tumble based off pretty much the last attitude for which it had achieved. A guy did this with the first Mavic Pro years ago and put it up on YouTube. It actively takes all 4 corners to micro correct every split second to remain stable… don’t discount what the electronics are actually doing.

As for the parachute, the marketing has you believe it’ll work. But a true BRS (ballistic recovery system) ‘shoots’ the parachute open. Waiting for the chute to fill with air in some sort of stable attitude/phase of flight is not a realistic situation; especially with these electronic drones… they have NO manual reversion or way to control them without your input on a functional drone.

Where’s the video simply showing the chute’s effectiveness then? Where’s the data?

This is EU law and more in relation to specific category operations or commercial operations, we also use everything from M350 to Mavics to Elios 3, parachutes for larger drones aren't an issue it's Mavic when using accessories like RTK module and parachute together there doesn't seem to be anything on the market with complies with regulations, the para zero complies with regulations but is mounted over the fixing points for accessories

DRONE-flies-YOU! Posted at 12-20 10:36
Yes, it’d just tumble based off pretty much the last attitude for which it had achieved. A guy did this with the first Mavic Pro years ago and put it up on YouTube. It actively takes all 4 corners to micro correct every split second to remain stable… don’t discount what the electronics are actually doing.

As for the parachute, the marketing has you believe it’ll work. But a true BRS (ballistic recovery system) ‘shoots’ the parachute open. Waiting for the chute to fill with air in some sort of stable attitude/phase of flight is not a realistic situation; especially with these electronic drones… they have NO manual reversion or way to control them without your input on a functional drone.

Yep you were right. I ran a bird strike scenario through my 100% legit physics flight simulator. The results were shocking. It still leaves me questioning what triggers the parachute to first deploy? A set G force upon impact? What stops the chute from being deployed while upside down?

https://www.droneworksireland.ie ... airenterpriseautel/

My OM passed muster with this.

Autorotation is impossible with a fixed pitch prop.