Multirotor, multicopter and quadcopter discussion - The Drone thread
- Thread starter RomanNose
- Start date
Its the 2 week after Christmas, stock at most stores is going to be thin on the ground due to the holiday. Some places won't have been back in until friday other won't have gone back until the 5th. I'd expect the stock levels to climb over the next 7-10 days as deliveries arrive.
Yeah it's utter *&^%, bad move by DJI for sure.
I hope it was out of line of sight and over a restricted area or large crowd too, otherwise he just wasn't trying hard enough.
Going to order a couple more batteries for the 250. I've been using Zippy Compacts 1500mah which seem absolutely fine
Just wondering if it is worth getting a couple of Turnigy Nano-Techs to try? there is a bit of a weight penalty with the nano-techs. Has anyone had experience with them? Are they notably different to a normal battery?
Just wondering if it is worth getting a couple of Turnigy Nano-Techs to try? there is a bit of a weight penalty with the nano-techs. Has anyone had experience with them? Are they notably different to a normal battery?
Depends on what motors/prop combo you are using and the amp draw?
I'm on DYS 1806 motors and 5040 props (actually 5045 now, but haven't got them on yet).
I've got the zippy 1500mah 25c and the Nanotech 35c version of the same.
When I do full throttle punch outs on the Zippys, it trigger my LV alarm, so the battery is sagging below 9.6v but it is pulling about 7 or 8 amps over the rated level....
I'm on DYS 1806 motors and 5040 props (actually 5045 now, but haven't got them on yet).
I've got the zippy 1500mah 25c and the Nanotech 35c version of the same.
When I do full throttle punch outs on the Zippys, it trigger my LV alarm, so the battery is sagging below 9.6v but it is pulling about 7 or 8 amps over the rated level....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER2GxMo0X3E
Shows you on this video soldering of the co-axial cables
Thanks for that. There was that many build guide .
At least after watching that I did the same way of soldering the coax.
This is meant to be direct from CAA -
CAA details on the specific point about defining 'valuable consideration' and whether deriving income from a YouTube channel constitutes aerial work:-
Aerial Work is defined within the Air Navigation Order to mean – any purpose, other than commercial air transport or public transport, for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised for the flight or the purpose of the flight. As is often the case with legal meanings, there is a fair bit of leeway here in terms of the interpretation, but the basic question that needs to be asked is ‘what is the purpose of the (specific) flight?’. Valuable consideration can be more than just a simple exchange of money, it can be anything of value that is given to the pilot or aircraft owner, but it needs to be given in exchange for the flight. Another way to think about it is to ask 'If the money/valuable consideration was not given, would the flight still take place?'
On that basis, we do not regard the posting of videos of private flights on YouTube (or a personal website) as aerial work, whether or not money is ultimately obtained through advertising – it is all about the original purpose of the flight. If however, a company commissioned a specific video from a private UAS operator to use as an advert on YouTube, then the operator would need to obtain permission from us.
The same applies to estate agents and farmers. As they are not getting an income from the actual flight of their UAS, then they do not need a Permission, even though the flight contributes to their commercial activity. In the case of estate agents, however, most will need permission from us to fly in a congested area, or within 50m of a property. If you have any queries please contact [email protected]
This seems to be causing a $%^& storm with BNUC-S people on Facebook (they probably feel somewhat cheated)... and mean the flood gates are well and truly open for lots of people to use UAS for business (as long as money does not directly change hands). Maybe
CAA details on the specific point about defining 'valuable consideration' and whether deriving income from a YouTube channel constitutes aerial work:-
Aerial Work is defined within the Air Navigation Order to mean – any purpose, other than commercial air transport or public transport, for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised for the flight or the purpose of the flight. As is often the case with legal meanings, there is a fair bit of leeway here in terms of the interpretation, but the basic question that needs to be asked is ‘what is the purpose of the (specific) flight?’. Valuable consideration can be more than just a simple exchange of money, it can be anything of value that is given to the pilot or aircraft owner, but it needs to be given in exchange for the flight. Another way to think about it is to ask 'If the money/valuable consideration was not given, would the flight still take place?'
On that basis, we do not regard the posting of videos of private flights on YouTube (or a personal website) as aerial work, whether or not money is ultimately obtained through advertising – it is all about the original purpose of the flight. If however, a company commissioned a specific video from a private UAS operator to use as an advert on YouTube, then the operator would need to obtain permission from us.
The same applies to estate agents and farmers. As they are not getting an income from the actual flight of their UAS, then they do not need a Permission, even though the flight contributes to their commercial activity. In the case of estate agents, however, most will need permission from us to fly in a congested area, or within 50m of a property. If you have any queries please contact [email protected]
This seems to be causing a $%^& storm with BNUC-S people on Facebook (they probably feel somewhat cheated)... and mean the flood gates are well and truly open for lots of people to use UAS for business (as long as money does not directly change hands). Maybe
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,316
- Location
- Bristol
Agree with the YouTube bit, but the estate agents... not so much. That basically means any internal work isn't aerial work? Which even without a definition, it obviously is. Estate agents, construction workers, agriculture, broadcast, film, security etc etc. So long as you're an employee of the company then it's not "work"? 
It quite obviously is work.
"The same applies to estate agents and farmers. As they are not getting an income from the actual flight of their UAS". Erm, yes they are. Why else would they go to the trouble of making the flight?
I think they'll backtrack on that. Having said that, it doesn't sound like it's written by the CAA at all.
It quite obviously is work."The same applies to estate agents and farmers. As they are not getting an income from the actual flight of their UAS". Erm, yes they are. Why else would they go to the trouble of making the flight?
I think they'll backtrack on that. Having said that, it doesn't sound like it's written by the CAA at all.