No Original Thought
Second Officer
Flight distance : 1364209 ft
United Kingdom
Offline
|
Labroides Posted at 2-19 17:30
How do you know he had good GPS lock?
For a start, you can see it in his flight data.
Second, even if he launched prematurely, he would have acquired satellites quickly since he was flying out in the open.
Oh dear, here we go again, the mighty, all knowing Labroids berating another forum user...
Let's see now.
In post 1 nubbix reports a problem (RC<->Drone disconnect and RTH). There is no mention of where the flight takes places, only that it is in what may possibly be considered 'low light' conditions. The attached photo shows that there are buildingas and a marina/harbour in the vicinity. There is no mention of the flight being "out in the open".
In post 2 Hoarfrost asks if nubbix had a good GPS lock at the time of the incident. (Hoarfrost also correctly points out that the low light warning would not trigger an RTH).
In post 3 DJI confirm that the low light warning would not trigger an RTH.
In post 4 Labroids makes four statements in his usual tone, one of which contains two assertions. Only one of these statements is known to be true (low light not causing RTH), and that point has already been made by Hoarfrost and DJI Tony.
Labroids claims that it is hard to see the relevence in the questions regarding GPS lock may be true in Labroids case. Maybe he does find it hard to see the relevence, but that is a Labroids problem. I can see the relevence, although it may not be for the same reasons Hoarfrost asks the question. Knowing the GPS status could help diagnose where the issue originated, for example loss of GPS at the same time as loss of RC<->Drone comms /could/ indicate interference at the drone location. Loss of RC<->Drone comms while the GPS status was still good /could/ indicate intererence at the RC location. Neither of which is conclusive, but with the minimal information in the original question, gathering this kind of info helps drive an investigation forward.
Labroids then claims that nubbix was flying in the open and so of course had good GPS. Well, we don't know that he was 'in the open' as such. We do not, at this point, know the location of nubbix and the RC. He could have been stood directly beside a large EM emitter for all we know at this point in the discussion.
Conclusion: Labroids made some assumptions, but dressed them up as absolute fact - as his is way of responding in this forum.
It is not until post 21 that nubbix learns how to retrieve the log files from his RC. This is the first point that _anyone_ has access to data regarding whether there was good GPS lock at the time of the error and RTH or not. This was almost 12 hours after Labroids post 4. It is at this point that the anyone other than nubbix knows exactly where the flight took place and where it was controlled from (although some may theoretically recognise the view in the photo).
In post 25 Hoarfrost asks Labroids how he knows nubbix had good GPS at the time - quoting Labroids post 4.
In post 26 Labroids claims that he knows because it is in nubbix' flight data. Labroids also claims that nubbix would have acquired satellites quickly as he was flying in the open.
Oh boy... Labroids, you DID NOT know anything about the GPS status from the flight data when you made that claim in post 4 because NOBODY, not even nubbix, had seen the flight data at that point. Assuming nubbix is not auto-uploading to AirData or something and that you do not have access nubbix; AirData account you had not seen the flight data and could no have known this. Secondly, in post 4 you are assuming that the flight is in the open. Thirdly, even GPS receivers 'out in the open' can encounter trouble with or delays acquiring GPS lock for myriad reasons - local EM interference from, for example, marine radios (!), solar radiation, etc etc.
Labroids then goes on to claim again that knowing the GPS status 'is a waste of time'. As previously mentioned, it is not. The GPS status may not have caused the RTH, but it does give us more infromation about the environment in which the drone was flying at that moment.
In this case it appears that the GPS lock was, in fact, good. This tells us that at the time and location of the drone when the incident occurred there was no widespread radio intereference. There may still have been interference within the frequency band that the RC and Drone communicate on, but at least we have ruled out one possible cause.
And on the last point in post 26 Labroids completely misses the point being made. That did make me chuckle.
For avoidance of any doubt, in post 31 Labroids asserts again that he KNEW about the GPS lock and claims he has "pointed out a few ways" that he knew these things.
No, Labroids, you did not know. Unless time works differently for you, the information that allowed ANYONE to know about the GPS lock was not available until almost 12 hours after you posted your claim. Nubbix did not reply until post 7 that he believed he had '27 satellites present' - three posts after your claim.
You did not know. You made a guess. In this case that guess was correct, but it was a guess and could just have easily been wrong.
You present your guesses as irrefutable facts. and your manner is abrasive. And when you are challenged on things I have to agree with Hoarfrost, you are a bully. Discussion always turn unpleasant when you join them, which is a shame as burried in your vitriol there is sometimes useful information - sadly in this case the only useful information had already been posted by others.
|
|