OpenAirDocs.org

20240301020189A

Accident · Minor damage
Open the Markdown

FAA accident report · Autel Robotics EVO II PRO V2 · Vernon Hills, IL · March 1, 2024

FAA Aviation Safety Information PortalNTSB investigation search

© OpenStreetMap
Date
March 1, 2024 · 14:30 local
Place
Vernon Hills, IL
Phase of flight
Maneuver
Damage
Minor damage
Aircraft
FA37CM
Reported as
Autel Robotics EVO II PRO V2
People aboard
0
Fatal injuries
0
Other injuries
0

From the FAA’s Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), through its Aviation Safety Information Portal, as reported. The NTSB investigates accidents separately, and its record of an accident is the fuller one. The aircraft is matched to the registry by N-number and event date, checked against the reported make and model; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

What happened

The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.

The greater chicago FSDO contacted the rpic on March 8, 2024, seeking a FAA form 8020-26, personal statement that laid out the events that led to the accident. The rpic responded with an emailed statement of events. The ast requested that a more detailed statement be transcribed to the form 8020-26 and that an estimate cost of the damages to the structure be provided. The rpic agreed to the request and stated that he would complete the documents as soon as possible. The rpic's supervisor later emailed an estimated repair cost document generated by the company that employs the rpic.

The rpic’s supervisor said that this estimate could be used since he would have to check to see if company's UAS insurance provider would furnish the estimate for the cost of repair. The supervisor also commented that the rpic will return the completed statement soon. As of March 13th ,2024, none of the requested documents had been returned. The rpic and the supervisor were both contacted. The rpic’s supervisor sent a reply that the rpic was on leave until the 1st of April.

The rpic was able to eventually complete the statement describing the events that led to the accident but there is still no damage estimate from a third party.

Rpic was reportedly completing a drone inspection of a residential property and taking photos of hail damage. Rpic stated that part of the inspection was an area that was on the 1st floor portion of the roof on the left side of the home. While trying to maneuver the drone into a better position, rpic stated that he positioned the drone below the second floor gutter to try and get a better view. During the inspection of this left side, rpic stated that he was trying to move the UAS slightly forward and that the UAS sped forward and made impact with side of the residence. Rpic claimed he did not notice anything wrong before it happened and that all sensors seemed to be working properly. Rpic stated that he was able to use the drone to complete the inspection, but afterward rpic noticed that the front sensors had stopped detecting being close to an object.

As the FAA filed it

THE GREATER CHICAGO FSDO CONTACTED THE RPIC ON MARCH 8, 2024, SEEKING A FAA FORM 8020-26, PERSONAL STATEMENT THAT LAID OUT THE EVENTS THAT LED TO THE ACCIDENT. THE RPIC RESPONDED WITH AN EMAILED STATEMENT OF EVENTS. THE AST REQUESTED THAT A MORE DETAILED STATEMENT BE TRANSCRIBED TO THE FORM 8020-26 AND THAT AN ESTIMATE COST OF THE DAMAGES TO THE STRUCTURE BE PROVIDED. THE RPIC AGREED TO THE REQUEST AND STATED THAT HE WOULD COMPLETE THE DOCUMENTS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE RPIC'S SUPERVISOR LATER EMAILED AN ESTIMATED REPAIR COST DOCUMENT GENERATED BY THE COMPANY THAT EMPLOYS THE RPIC.

THE RPIC’S SUPERVISOR SAID THAT THIS ESTIMATE COULD BE USED SINCE HE WOULD HAVE TO CHECK TO SEE IF COMPANY'S UAS INSURANCE PROVIDER WOULD FURNISH THE ESTIMATE FOR THE COST OF REPAIR. THE SUPERVISOR ALSO COMMENTED THAT THE RPIC WILL RETURN THE COMPLETED STATEMENT SOON. AS OF MARCH 13TH ,2024, NONE OF THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN RETURNED. THE RPIC AND THE SUPERVISOR WERE BOTH CONTACTED. THE RPIC’S SUPERVISOR SENT A REPLY THAT THE RPIC WAS ON LEAVE UNTIL THE 1ST OF APRIL.

THE RPIC WAS ABLE TO EVENTUALLY COMPLETE THE STATEMENT DESCRIBING THE EVENTS THAT LED TO THE ACCIDENT BUT THERE IS STILL NO DAMAGE ESTIMATE FROM A THIRD PARTY.

RPIC WAS REPORTEDLY COMPLETING A DRONE INSPECTION OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND TAKING PHOTOS OF HAIL DAMAGE. RPIC STATED THAT PART OF THE INSPECTION WAS AN AREA THAT WAS ON THE 1ST FLOOR PORTION OF THE ROOF ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HOME. WHILE TRYING TO MANEUVER THE DRONE INTO A BETTER POSITION, RPIC STATED THAT HE POSITIONED THE DRONE BELOW THE SECOND FLOOR GUTTER TO TRY AND GET A BETTER VIEW. DURING THE INSPECTION OF THIS LEFT SIDE, RPIC STATED THAT HE WAS TRYING TO MOVE THE UAS SLIGHTLY FORWARD AND THAT THE UAS SPED FORWARD AND MADE IMPACT WITH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE. RPIC CLAIMED HE DID NOT NOTICE ANYTHING WRONG BEFORE IT HAPPENED AND THAT ALL SENSORS SEEMED TO BE WORKING PROPERLY. RPIC STATED THAT HE WAS ABLE TO USE THE DRONE TO COMPLETE THE INSPECTION, BUT AFTERWARD RPIC NOTICED THAT THE FRONT SENSORS HAD STOPPED DETECTING BEING CLOSE TO AN OBJECT.