Convince me to buy the Alta

Discussion in 'ALTA' started by Dave Halton, Feb 2, 2016.

  1. Dave Halton

    Dave Halton Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2012
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    2
    I love the engineering, the quality the whole concept. So why should I invest in it.

    I here different reports of GPS performance, poor or not so dialled in, jumpy etc. I have flown most controllers over the past 6 years from the Gaui to MK, pixhawk to CC, Hoverfly to A2. right now all my machines have WKM and work wonderfully. BUT I need to keep up with the tech or get left behind. All my machines are Aeronavics but they seem to have slipped back with no new product on show or for sale. The Alta says buy me. Will I be happy or disappointed in its flight characteristics? Performance in wind.. I operate mainly in the UK, so it can tend to be a tad blustery.. like for the past month!

    Please help me with the GSP niggles and wind performance worries.
     
  2. Chris Jordan

    Chris Jordan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    16
    The Alta is absolutely not a DJI FC. You need to be able to tune and understand. Sounds like you do since you've flown for 6 years. Once you get it figured out, it's a dream. The buzz alone will get you work. But those 18" props aren't for the faint of heart. NOT the s1000 with plastic props that would cut, but more like dismember or mame... lol
    I fly manual, 100% of the time.
     
  3. Rolf Ableiter

    Rolf Ableiter Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    59
    flying the ALTA is a dream. height hold performance is 100% better than everything i flew before (MK and dji).
    you have to tune the ALTA and the MoVI for your need but once you got it you don't want to fly anything else.
    in manual mode it is a beast. very fast but still leveling (no "heading hold" mode like the manual mode in A2 or wkm).
    If you own a M15 or M5 than you are lucky. You can use the gimbal on the top of the ALTA to get shots no other machine can do.
    GPS flying in windy condition isn't really good but i don't use GPS that much for flying. I use it to nail the ALTA in the air. Flying in height hold is perfect even in hard wind.
     
  4. Steve Maller

    Steve Maller UAV Grief Counselor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,979
    Likes Received:
    807
    Probably the only downside of the ALTA is its payload capacity. But this is only an issue if you see yourself flying at its max weight. Personally, that's not a consideration, and I'm 100% satisfied with mine. I've flown it in very diverse conditions, and found it to be amazingly well-mannered. As others have mentioned, it's not an automatic flier, but if you want that, then hire somebody. That way you can just yell into the intercom and the flight crew will do what you tell them. Well, come to think of it...never mind. :rolleyes: 2015-11-05_10-04-28.jpg
     
    Chris Harrison likes this.
  5. Dave Halton

    Dave Halton Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2012
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    2
    Thanks everyone for your inputs. Unfortunately I only found out last night that it probably will NOT be accepted for a CAOSC here in the UK which is exactly the opposite to what I was expecting and the main reason I was considering it. The last one at the old price in the UK has now gone so it makes it a tad expensive now with the dollar exchange rate as it is. Have a M5 on the ways so I am sure I will be back i that forum but not in this one.
    Again thanks for taking the time to respond to my original post.

    Happy and safe flying

    Dave
     
  6. Andy Johnson-Laird

    Andy Johnson-Laird Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    10,369
    Likes Received:
    1,162
  7. Dave Halton

    Dave Halton Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2012
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    2
    OBTW. This is not a freely issue, OR an issue with FF systems. Its an industry wide one as far as I can gather.
     
  8. Andy Johnson-Laird

    Andy Johnson-Laird Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    10,369
    Likes Received:
    1,162
    From what you say, Dave, the issue is that the CAA insists that, to gain acceptance for a CAOSC, the manufacturer must provide full technical build data to support the application and demonstrate the aircraft is safe. Right?

    Andy
     
  9. Angus Benson-Blair

    Angus Benson-Blair Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    25
    That's just part of it Andy. In short you have to prove the system is safe so having the data from the manufacturer is a great help if not necessarily the whole picture
     
  10. Andy Johnson-Laird

    Andy Johnson-Laird Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    10,369
    Likes Received:
    1,162
    Hi Angus:
    I was thinking of you as one of first (or the first?) UK CAOSC/OSC recipients -- so thank's for posting.

    Has the CAA published any documents that describe what an RPA manufacturer needs to provide? I would imagine FF would be interested in knowing if such documents exist...

    Andy.
     
  11. Dave Halton

    Dave Halton Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2012
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    2

    Yup Angus was the first and probability with the best and most well thought out case for his system.
     
  12. Angus Benson-Blair

    Angus Benson-Blair Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    25
    Hi Andy,

    There are no docs as such nor are there likely to be. The whole point about their approach is that they dont want to be descriptive and thus limit peoples choices (something I fully support). What they want is evidence that the whole operation is safe which includes a safety management system, operational procedures, pilot competence and airworthiness. I did speak to FF a while before the Alta came out and they rather disappointingly seemed rather disinterested. But if they are interested, what ever data they can provide on things like redundancy, power trains etc will really help the operator pull the airworthiness piece together.
     
  13. Andy Johnson-Laird

    Andy Johnson-Laird Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    10,369
    Likes Received:
    1,162
    Thanks for the response, Angus.
    I suspect the major impetus to change will be when aircraft vendors need to get type certification here in USA under FAR 21.17(b) -- albeit in its revised form as currently it does not address sUAV/RPAs.

    Andy.
     
  14. Gary Haynes

    Gary Haynes Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,211
    Likes Received:
    460
    Andy let's all hope that type certification is NOT required. The added cost to any manufacturer will be significant. Simple example. In a single engine aircraft the alternator is typically from Ford or Hartzell . Same as what is in your car. That $100 alternator once it is marked as being for use in an aircraft is $500-600 for a Ford to $1200+ for Hartzell dollars. So that $10000 UAS will now be $50-60K. I don't think any of us want to see that happen. At least for UAS that are line of sight, less than 400ft AGL.
     
  15. Andy Johnson-Laird

    Andy Johnson-Laird Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    10,369
    Likes Received:
    1,162
    Hi Gary:
    Based on the work I'm doing for ASTM International (the standards organization) who are working with the FAA, it is my understanding that the sUAS Rule that is likely to be issued by the FAA in a few months will cover < 55 lbs, VLOS, < 400 feet AGL and thus will not require 21.17(b) Type Cert. As the Executive summary of the NPRM said: "This rulemaking proposes operating requirements to allow small unmanned aircraft systems (small UAS) to operate for non-hobby or non-recreational purposes."

    What I don't know is how the FAA proposes to deal with commercial operations over people, or operations beyond visual line of sight (these were not covered by the NPRM and thus not covered by the Final Rule that should be issued in a few months. I suspect that either (a) they will indeed require type certification but under a revised 21.17(b) or (b) will issue a completely new rule (which, under the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 will require an NPRM, a comment period, etc. etc.).

    Note that anyone can join the ASTM (see astm.org) and volunteer to work on the subcommittees that are drafting these industry "best practices" that are then considered by the FAA. So, if anyone is outraged at the prospect of 21.17(b) type certification, pay the $70/year, join the ASTM and c'mon in and work on the subcommittees as a voting member so that you can help shape what the FAA considers.

    Andy
     
  16. Pete Maughan

    Pete Maughan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2014
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    11
    Dave, I remember seeing on a forum somewhere that Jack at Horizon ap have a CAOSC for the Alta. May have just been a temporary thing.
    Pete
     
  17. Dave Halton

    Dave Halton Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2012
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi Pete. Nope I am pretty sure it was for the Skyjib. They may have applied now with the Alta based on the OSC.
    Dave
     
  18. Benjamin Kenobi

    Benjamin Kenobi New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    5

    They have it on the ALTA. Based on experience rather than the aircraft specs.
     

Share This Page