Again, agree to disagree. Maybe I did not make myself clear but if the quad is flying latterly at someone and you have little to no control, your best option is to shut down and as fast as you can. Multiple steps would just make that harder. As for the helicopter comment, are you a helicopter Pilot? If so we did not go through the same training because a good 25% of the flight school is how to handle an emergency when you are in one. They are not always preventable. As most of the people here can agree (accept you I guess, not hating, just saying) there are no reasons to use such odd, full inputs. We should rarely use full inputs as it is never mind in such a strange combination.
I guess I can agree there should be a different option for people who do not like it. I, however, would not have it any other way.
Mazz, I respect your right to disagree,and honestly this is the farthest from a personal attack as it could be, however I have yet to hear an ounce of logic that supports your view to maintain the ability to shut down an aircraft using only operation of the primary flight controls.
This is ALL about
UNNECESSARY risk!
I am indeed a helicopter pilot, having had my PPLH for almost 15 years and yes I was trained in emergency procedures and have done numerous autorotation landings and two full on emergency landings. So I am as familiar with the process as I would like to be.
To quote you "not always preventable" well it is important to prevent what we can ...... There are a number of documented CSC shutdowns that were not deliberate. These were preventable .... simply by software code checking whether the aircraft is moving on any axis before permitting the aircraft to shutdown.
In your scenario where "the quad is flying latterly at someone and you have little to no control, your best option is to shut down and as fast as you can" and trying to execute CSC would be unnatural, while the aircraft has power you would naturally work to do everything you could to regain control. An aircraft moving in any direction whether in control or not has by virtue of the fact it is travelling some degree of lift. The moment you remove power you remove lift. The moment there is no lift there is no control over direction or speed save for the fact that your 2.5 kilo brick will accelerate to up to terminal velocity.
Give me whatever lift is available and let me try to regain control in an emergency. By all means offer me the ability to hit RTH three times, say a hail Mary and throw salt over my left shoulder then shut down the motors.
When you state "We should rarely use full inputs as it is never mind in such a strange combination. " your actually helping my argument. That fact that something is rare, or strange does not mean it doesn't or cannot happen. It has never happened to me but I am often concerned that during some manoeuvres it could happen and more importantly it HAS happened to others. It is preventable.
As for the merits of not having the props rotating on impact. The props are so light and have such little inertia that the damage they can inflict upon a full impact is minimal in comparison to the damage inflicted by 2.5 kilos travelling at any speed. it doesn't take much to stop the props when the aircraft has hit something solid.
If your happy flying with the possibility that you can shut down your bird and turn it into a brick accidentally then maintain your opinion. If you would rather eliminate unnecessary risk then come over to the light side! LOL