Inspire 1 V2 (incl Pro) Reliability Survey

[Eyeup Aerial Solutions]

I would like to get an idea or the airworthiness of the Inspire 1 airframe. So I propose a short survey for all interested parties. I understand that it won’t be scientific as it’s a self-selected sample but it may be the best we can get. Please take part even if you have never crashed your Inspire as this is useful data too.

This data may be useful to anybody looking at FAA or CAA manuals where an airworthiness case is being made. It is anecdotal and I may be wrong but I get the feeling there are relatively few instances where an Inspire just drops out of the sky when it was being used within its design parameters.

I definitely don’t want to include instances where a pilot just flew into something and crashed as this is obviously pilot error. I do want to include instances where the airframe and its systems appeared to contribute in some way (so to start off, I have had 1 crash where the Inspire drifted into a shed due to a faulty flight controller – replaced under warranty with no quibble). In this case the root cause was pilot error as I shouldn’t have been testing a new UAV in a complex environment but lesson learned – one step up from me was a fault with the aircraft.

Please provide a brief explanation of your crash plus hours flown so I can do some deeper analysis. It would also be good if you were happy for me to contact you separately to define details.

I don’t want this to become a thread to diagnose individual crashes – set up separate threads for that. This is about collecting and analysing some information that may be useful to the Inspire 1 community as a whole. After I have had this running (and assuming we get enough responses to make it worthwhile – I am more than happy to publish the results to anybody who is interested (with highlights on the forum, naturally.

If we can break it down into systems I guess it would look something like:

Mechanical failure (prop/airframe/solder joints)
Electronic failure (component fault e.g. failed ESC)
Firmware failure (there were some of these a few versions ago when the Inspire gave some very strange responses to stick inputs)
Battery Failure (only want to know if the battery was being used within its standard use parameters)
Signal failure

So, who’s in?

 

[The Editor]

I would like to get an idea or the airworthiness of the Inspire 1 airframe. So I propose a short survey for all interested parties. I understand that it won’t be scientific as it’s a self-selected sample but it may be the best we can get. Please take part even if you have never crashed your Inspire as this is useful data too.

This data may be useful to anybody looking at FAA or CAA manuals where an airworthiness case is being made. It is anecdotal and I may be wrong but I get the feeling there are relatively few instances where an Inspire just drops out of the sky when it was being used within its design parameters.

I definitely don’t want to include instances where a pilot just flew into something and crashed as this is obviously pilot error. I do want to include instances where the airframe and its systems appeared to contribute in some way (so to start off, I have had 1 crash where the Inspire drifted into a shed due to a faulty flight controller – replaced under warranty with no quibble). In this case the root cause was pilot error as I shouldn’t have been testing a new UAV in a complex environment but lesson learned – one step up from me was a fault with the aircraft.

Please provide a brief explanation of your crash plus hours flown so I can do some deeper analysis. It would also be good if you were happy for me to contact you separately to define details.

I don’t want this to become a thread to diagnose individual crashes – set up separate threads for that. This is about collecting and analysing some information that may be useful to the Inspire 1 community as a whole. After I have had this running (and assuming we get enough responses to make it worthwhile – I am more than happy to publish the results to anybody who is interested (with highlights on the forum, naturally.

If we can break it down into systems I guess it would look something like:

Mechanical failure (prop/airframe/solder joints)
Electronic failure (component fault e.g. failed ESC)
Firmware failure (there were some of these a few versions ago when the Inspire gave some very strange responses to stick inputs)
Battery Failure (only want to know if the battery was being used within its standard use parameters)
Signal failure

So, who’s in?

Not me.

The Inspire 1 has proved itself already as a reliable platform and is a mature UAV being in the market for over two years!

Additionally, no air worthiness certification is required or mandated for a sub 7kg RPAS.

 

[Eyeup Aerial Solutions]

I hope that doesn't stop it being an interesting question? "Proven" is an interesting word to use. Can you point me at your statistics or are DJI sharing their failuredata somewhere I haven't seen? Whether the CAA require an airworthiness cert or not, it may be nice to have Some data rather than none when putting forward an OSC for a specific or general relaxation of a permission.

 

[The Editor]

I hope that doesn't stop it being an interesting question? "Proven" is an interesting word to use. Can you point me at your statistics or are DJI sharing their failuredata somewhere I haven't seen? Whether the CAA require an airworthiness cert or not, it may be nice to have Some data rather than none when putting forward an OSC for a specific or general relaxation of a permission.

Do you hold PfCO? If so you will know that the CAA do not require air worthiness certification for sub 7kg RPAS.
You are extremely unlikely to get any relaxation on standard permissions from the CAA on a quad. The levels of redundancy on the Inspire are insufficient to give the CAA a warm fuzzy feeling for any OSC submitted. Save yourself the aggrevation and submit one on a hex or octo.
Even with arresting devices fitted and kinetic energy calculations the CAA will almost certainly not grant relaxed stand offs for a four prop airframe.
With regards to 'Proven', we have 21,000 members on the forum, the Inspire 1 has been released for two years now, I am a beta tester for DJI and think we would have seen a 'trend' if things were going horribly wrong!
Not sure how much data you are after but in my world a machine that has been used all over the planet for 24 months in all environments and with differing levels of competence has pretty much well proved itself.
However, I hope your survey is of use to you but remember, anything you get on here is likely to give skewed results in as much as people generally only visit forums when they have an issue/problem/question.
For every issue aired on here there are probably 4, 5, 6 times that that are experiencing no problems whatsoever and therefore never feel the need to seek help.

 

[AeroMirage]

All collisions that I have ever had were pilot error / learning curve. The AC is awesome.
Only weak link is the yaw pivot of the X5 gimbal.

 

[Eyeup Aerial Solutions]

Do you hold PfCO? If so you will know that the CAA do not require air worthiness certification for sub 7kg RPAS.
You are extremely unlikely to get any relaxation on standard permissions from the CAA on a quad. The levels of redundancy on the Inspire are insufficient to give the CAA a warm fuzzy feeling for any OSC submitted. Save yourself the aggrevation and submit one on a hex or octo.
Even with arresting devices fitted and kinetic energy calculations the CAA will almost certainly not grant relaxed stand offs for a four prop airframe.
With regards to 'Proven', we have 21,000 members on the forum, the Inspire 1 has been released for two years now, I am a beta tester for DJI and think we would have seen a 'trend' if things were going horribly wrong!
Not sure how much data you are after but in my world a machine that has been used all over the planet for 24 months in all environments and with differing levels of competence has pretty much well proved itself.
However, I hope your survey is of use to you but remember, anything you get on here is likely to give skewed results in as much as people generally only visit forums when they have an issue/problem/question.
For every issue aired on here there are probably 4, 5, 6 times that that are experiencing no problems whatsoever and therefore never feel the need to seek help.

I couldn't agree more with you about what a fantastic design the Inspire is. I also think it is reliable with the huge majority of crashes down to pilot error. I also realise how unscientific a self-selected population is, statistically speaking. I am just fascinated to try to put some figures to the feelings. No, the CAA may not require airworthiness certification and the numbers from this survey wouldn't constitute such but I still believe the data to be useful.

 

[lake_flyer]

Not me.

The Inspire 1 has proved itself already as a reliable platform and is a mature UAV being in the market for over two years!

Additionally, no air worthiness certification is required or mandated for a sub 7kg RPAS.

You guys are lucky. For our PfCO (called ROC here) we have to spend over 2000 Euro (in the Netherlands) to have our Inspires (or even a Phantom 1) completely unassembled until the last screw. The Dutch Aerospace Laboratory is approved for doing this and they are not exactly the most cost effective organisation, although they're nice chaps with a big heart for anything/one that/who flies. They take a picture of every step in the process. After that they assemble it again and seal every screw, bolt and connection with red lacker. Then they perform a couple of tests and you get your special proof of airworthiness (SBVL), which take the NL-CAA at least 9 weeks to print out and mail.
We could also fly them under the sub 4kg rules which means we don't have to have all this. But that would mean we can't fly under our ROC with it. We could not use it for any of the special exemptions we obtained.

 

[Eyeup Aerial Solutions]

You guys are lucky. For our PfCO (called ROC here) we have to spend over 2000 Euro (in the Netherlands) to have our Inspires (or even a Phantom 1) completely unassembled until the last screw. The Dutch Aerospace Laboratory is approved for doing this and they are not exactly the most cost effective organisation, although they're nice chaps with a big heart for anything/one that/who flies. They take a picture of every step in the process. After that they assemble it again and seal every screw, bolt and connection with red lacker. Then they perform a couple of tests and you get your special proof of airworthiness (SBVL), which take the NL-CAA at least 9 weeks to print out and mail.
We could also fly them under the sub 4kg rules which means we don't have to have all this. But that would mean we can't fly under our ROC with it. We could not use it for any of the special exemptions we obtained.

Lake_flyer. That's a scary cost but if it gives you an advantage over other operators it may be worthwhile? Not sure about the benefits of taking a proprietary, manufactured product and dis/re-assembling it though. I'm sure they're good at what they do but presumably they've been provided with accurate torques for all the fasteners etc. Are DJI happy and do they honour warranty after this process?

 

[lake_flyer]

Lake_flyer. That's a scary cost but if it gives you an advantage over other operators it may be worthwhile? Not sure about the benefits of taking a proprietary, manufactured product and dis/re-assembling it though. I'm sure they're good at what they do but presumably they've been provided with accurate torques for all the fasteners etc. Are DJI happy and do they honour warranty after this process?

Yeah, since the ROC-Light (sub 4kg) rules came in place less people take the slow, very expensive, and incredibly bureaucratic route to get a full ROC, so I hope being kind of exclusive will pay out some day.
I don't think that the NLR cares about warranty. But there is also a more complex way where we can take it to Droneland, they can do the (dis)assembly under warranty (the route we took) and take all the pictures. But the testing and approving is done by NLR (used to be EuroUSC but not sure if they still have the accreditation) unless there's another organisation accredited in the mean time.

 

[lake_flyer]

I would like to get an idea or the airworthiness of the Inspire 1 airframe. So I propose a short survey for all interested parties. I understand that it won’t be scientific as it’s a self-selected sample but it may be the best we can get. Please take part even if you have never crashed your Inspire as this is useful data too.

This data may be useful to anybody looking at FAA or CAA manuals where an airworthiness case is being made. It is anecdotal and I may be wrong but I get the feeling there are relatively few instances where an Inspire just drops out of the sky when it was being used within its design parameters.

I definitely don’t want to include instances where a pilot just flew into something and crashed as this is obviously pilot error. I do want to include instances where the airframe and its systems appeared to contribute in some way (so to start off, I have had 1 crash where the Inspire drifted into a shed due to a faulty flight controller – replaced under warranty with no quibble). In this case the root cause was pilot error as I shouldn’t have been testing a new UAV in a complex environment but lesson learned – one step up from me was a fault with the aircraft.

Please provide a brief explanation of your crash plus hours flown so I can do some deeper analysis. It would also be good if you were happy for me to contact you separately to define details.

I don’t want this to become a thread to diagnose individual crashes – set up separate threads for that. This is about collecting and analysing some information that may be useful to the Inspire 1 community as a whole. After I have had this running (and assuming we get enough responses to make it worthwhile – I am more than happy to publish the results to anybody who is interested (with highlights on the forum, naturally.

If we can break it down into systems I guess it would look something like:

Mechanical failure (prop/airframe/solder joints)
Electronic failure (component fault e.g. failed ESC)
Firmware failure (there were some of these a few versions ago when the Inspire gave some very strange responses to stick inputs)
Battery Failure (only want to know if the battery was being used within its standard use parameters)
Signal failure

So, who’s in?

I think you should take the Go app also in account. That's also a part of the system. If GO messes up, the flight controller gets the wrong information about your controller settings. I had that once. Had to reinstall GO to have my settings back. The Inspire happily followed the mixed up settings without any warning (in GO). Expos were 100% reversed. Gains were all over the place. During the flight GO suddenly decided that my controller needed an update. I managed to land within seconds (I had it close) and immediately after touchdown my controller lost its binding and started beeping. Lucky that I always (have to) fly VLOS. Never trust the app to be just a slave. Ever since they implemented that GO can update and change your controller firmware it poses another serious liability in the whole system. The good old Pilot app was a lot less destructive.

And yes, I do perform a hover check before every first flight of the day, that's why I kept it from crashing in the first place.

 

[emtea]

Where's the pilot error option?

 

[licensed pilot]

Not me.

The Inspire 1 has proved itself already as a reliable platform and is a mature UAV being in the market for over two years!

Additionally, no air worthiness certification is required or mandated for a sub 7kg RPAS.

The only value of such information is informal and for curiosity sake. Not a scientific study and no validation of the survey "within known statistical measures" thus unlikely to be used in any official document or report. Just my 2 cents. I think if you catalog your request "for non-official purposes only" and "not validated" you may get more responses. Your real name may also help.

 

[Eyeup Aerial Solutions]

The only value of such information is informal and for curiosity sake. Not a scientific study and no validation of the survey "within known statistical measures" thus unlikely to be used in any official document or report. Just my 2 cents. I think if you catalog your request "for non-official purposes only" and "not validated" you may get more responses. Your real name may also help.

Licensed pilot - I couldn't agree more. I'm truly interested to see what this survey will bring up. I'm extremely pleased with my 2 Inspires and P4P and have absolutely no axe to grind with DJI who have been fantastic with me in all dealings I've had with them. My name is Graham Degg, I started a small aerial business last October and I'm very much located in the UK. Do a google on Eyeup Aerial Solutions and I also hope you'll find me easily enough (or at least my fledgling company). I'm not sure if this adds to the sum of human knowledge or just leaves me open to online abuse but if it helps...

Like everybody on the forum I'm here to learn and to be honest I'm a bit taken aback by a slightly defensive attitude. I really did think that it would be a useful think to have an idea of reliability base don numbers and not just a "feel" that can be influenced by looking at all the scary posts that sometimes appear here and on other sites. The great thing about this forum is the tenacity with which a lot of problems get analysed down to their root cause [usually pilot error ] and this analysis is the key to improving safety. I thought that a numerical summary of all of those little incidents would allow some level of analysis - to whatever statistical accuracy - and that this would probably give newcomers a very positive message - that the Inspire airframe and system is overall a really good, safe design. We know it isn't perfect and we probably have an idea of what isn't so great but this will probably be based upon our own experiences - and a population of 1 really isn't the way to go statistically speaking.

If people really aren't interested and don't want to provide some data that's fine - I'll find another way to work it out or give up and go flying. But one way or another it may help some people.

Should I just change the name to Reliability Survey? Would that help?

Have I earned a vote from licensed pilot now?

 

[Eyeup Aerial Solutions]

Do you hold PfCO? If so you will know that the CAA do not require air worthiness certification for sub 7kg RPAS.
You are extremely unlikely to get any relaxation on standard permissions from the CAA on a quad. The levels of redundancy on the Inspire are insufficient to give the CAA a warm fuzzy feeling for any OSC submitted. Save yourself the aggrevation and submit one on a hex or octo.
Even with arresting devices fitted and kinetic energy calculations the CAA will almost certainly not grant relaxed stand offs for a four prop airframe.
With regards to 'Proven', we have 21,000 members on the forum, the Inspire 1 has been released for two years now, I am a beta tester for DJI and think we would have seen a 'trend' if things were going horribly wrong!
Not sure how much data you are after but in my world a machine that has been used all over the planet for 24 months in all environments and with differing levels of competence has pretty much well proved itself.
However, I hope your survey is of use to you but remember, anything you get on here is likely to give skewed results in as much as people generally only visit forums when they have an issue/problem/question.
For every issue aired on here there are probably 4, 5, 6 times that that are experiencing no problems whatsoever and therefore never feel the need to seek help.

The Editor. How do I change the name of the post to Inspire 1 V2 (incl Pro) Reliability Survey? I accept entirely that no airworthiness certificate is required for under 7kg but I do believe that an understanding of known failure modes and their relative probabilities is useful to all pilots.

For skewed results they're looking quite good at the moment with over 90% of pilots having avoided a crash so if this is looking on the pessimistic side it shows just how good the Inspire is!

 

[licensed pilot]

Licensed pilot - I couldn't agree more. I'm truly interested to see what this survey will bring up. I'm extremely pleased with my 2 Inspires and P4P and have absolutely no axe to grind with DJI who have been fantastic with me in all dealings I've had with them. My name is Graham Degg, I started a small aerial business last October and I'm very much located in the UK. Do a google on Eyeup Aerial Solutions and I also hope you'll find me easily enough (or at least my fledgling company). I'm not sure if this adds to the sum of human knowledge or just leaves me open to online abuse but if it helps...

Like everybody on the forum I'm here to learn and to be honest I'm a bit taken aback by a slightly defensive attitude. I really did think that it would be a useful think to have an idea of reliability base don numbers and not just a "feel" that can be influenced by looking at all the scary posts that sometimes appear here and on other sites. The great thing about this forum is the tenacity with which a lot of problems get analysed down to their root cause [usually pilot error ] and this analysis is the key to improving safety. I thought that a numerical summary of all of those little incidents would allow some level of analysis - to whatever statistical accuracy - and that this would probably give newcomers a very positive message - that the Inspire airframe and system is overall a really good, safe design. We know it isn't perfect and we probably have an idea of what isn't so great but this will probably be based upon our own experiences - and a population of 1 really isn't the way to go statistically speaking.

If people really aren't interested and don't want to provide some data that's fine - I'll find another way to work it out or give up and go flying. But one way or another it may help some people.

Should I just change the name to Reliability Survey? Would that help?

Have I earned a vote from licensed pilot now?

We all participate in surveys here all the time. We know they are just for general knowledge, fun, and non-scientific. I got off the boat on "This data may be useful to anybody looking at FAA or CAA manuals where an airworthiness case is being made. It is anecdotal and I may be wrong..."

 

[Eyeup Aerial Solutions]

We all participate in surveys here all the time. We know they are just for general knowledge, fun, and non-scientific. I got off the boat on "This data may be useful to anybody looking at FAA or CAA manuals where an airworthiness case is being made. It is anecdotal and I may be wrong..."

Perhaps you should have read and understood the rest of that sentence ..."but I get the feeling there are relatively few instances where an Inspire just drops out of the sky when it was being used within its design parameters." This is the bit that is anecdotal and I may be wrong about it. However, it looks from the limited data so far that I'm not wrong. There are relatively few instances where an Inspire drops out of the sky for no reason. In fact so far it looks as though there are few instances where an Inspire drops out of the sky at all...so all good news there.

Hey - here's an idea. If we got together a whole load of people who fly Inspires for pleasure and money and collected their experiences in a survey then we could turn those anecdotal "feelings" into some numbers. They may not be the most accurate numbers in the world but in the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.

 

[licensed pilot]

"Perhaps you should have read and understood the rest of that sentence" No need to get insulting. We are done here.

 

[Eyeup Aerial Solutions]

"Perhaps you should have read and understood the rest of that sentence" No need to get insulting. We are done here.

Licensed pilot (presumably not your name)

Insulting? You came up with a couple of objections to the survey. I answered what I could and even gave you my name which apparently was important to you as some sort of proof of goodwill? Who knows, but I gave it anyway. I'm also trying to get the post name changed to meet your exacting requirements. Then it turns out you're not interested in taking part in the survey anyway. So just yanking my chain then.

Not a problem, hopefully others will see the value and be more forthcoming.

Cheers mate.

Graham Degg (there I go again)

 

[The Editor]

The Editor. How do I change the name of the post to Inspire 1 V2 (incl Pro) Reliability Survey? .....

Done.

 

[lake_flyer]

The I1 is rock solid. Indeed, when flown inside the operating specs.
Never crashed it once.

But the app and firmware updates are tricky. DJI always gave little or no info on what really changed in a new firmware (just the teasing stuff like 'less no fly zones' or that insanely stupid 3 second CSC delay the 'Public' seems to be glad about). I can't even explain it in my Operational Manual. Not trying to. I just got news from NL-CAA that after every firmware (aircraft and/or RC) update we MUST have our birds tested again by an accredited testing and certification company. That's lots of cash going down the drain.

I never mentioned the fact (to NL-CAA) that our 'beloved' GO app, which is an important part of the ground station, providing the telemetry and warnings (the rest is really not interesting), updates about once a week (without ANY notice of relevant changes, I don't care about Director or all the other useless funny stuff). Meaning that the lay out of the telemetry information on the screen (relevant because it is described in my OM) is often also changed without prior notice, just because the Chinese happen to like it differently all of a sudden. Meaning that I would have to have my ground station officially checked as well. No thanks.

I try not to update GO. But every now and then a new update sneaks in or just forces itself in. Having it on both Android and IOS devices doesn't help as well. Yesterday the Android GO app demanded me to download and install an update before it even would let me go past the (insert a capital F word here) Mavik screen. No way Jose. Not doing it if I can help it.

Operating professionally with a consumer toy (even if it is a pro design like the I1) is almost impossible so it turns out. If only DJI gave pro users the option to lock out firmware updates (and stop the nagging as well) and apps (and get rid of the fun stuff).......I feel the F word comes to mind again, sorry.