1. Background and Context
The crash on 02/14/2026 involved a Believer DAB10 which was flown by Anestis Tsagris(PIC), Ryan Shurtleff(Aircraft Launcher), Trigg Strawhorn(GCS), Erik Krellner(VO). They were testing the flight characteristics of the Believer, for training purposes, at the Purdue ASREC area. Once released from Ryan’s hands the accident occurred during launch of the aircraft. The aircraft immediately nose dived into the ground. Anestis was PIC on the DATX and Ryan was launching the aircraft and Trigg was on the GCS. Anesti had planned the mission prior to flight and wanted to immediately switch the aircraft into auto once flight was achieved. They were using Ground Control and the metar data for that time was 0kts of wind with 10SM visibility and clear skies.
2. Root Cause Analysis
We came to the conclusion that the primary cause of the crash was failure to perform proper launching technique. This was ultimately the result from changing the launch angle for 20 degrees to less than 20. As depicted in the pictures there was too much upward force on the tail, which resulted in a nose dive and caused the aircraft to crash! The team was flying in really good weather with 10SM visibility and 0KTS of wind. This clearly indicates that it wasn’t a weather issue but was based on human errors for failure to perform proper maintenance and mechanical failures of the part.
3. Crash Dynamics
This crash was definitely something special, to say the least! To a normal viewer, it would be easy to distinguish that Ryan, the drone crusher, applied too much upward force on the tail, resulting in a downward flight path that was impossible to deviate from and has led to an intense investigation across the team! Fortunately for him, we were on the case and have come to a different conclusion than the prior flight analysis! If one were to analyze the charts below with the different RC and CTRL inputs, it would explain what the actual problem was. The main point that we’d like to draw your attention to is the pitch input in relation to the launch and the crash. Again, to the normal viewer, it may look normal, but luckily for you all, you have some of the most qualified private investigators on the case! According to our skillful deductive reasoning, there was no pitch or elevator input until the aircraft was already on a collision course with the ground. Was it sabotage, or was it due to the fact that it was supposed to be launched at 20 degrees and not tipped toward the ground?! Our professional opinion, as we wrap up this case, is that even if Ryan did launch the aircraft correctly, it still would’ve crashed because there weren’t any elevator inputs either from the onboard data or visually that would’ve prevented this fate!!! So, the logical conclusion is that the real culprit of this unfortunate crash was none other than the RPIC pilot, Anestis Tsagris.
Flight Controller Attitude
RC Controller Inputs
4. Post-Crash Response and Consequences
The PIC filled out the proper crash report for both UAS and SATT, no crash report for the FAA was required. The VO did video the crash which helped a lot in our analysis. The believer was severely damaged with an entire foam chunk coming off of the fuselage and the props braking. The battery also fell out during the crash and could have been damaged. The believer had to be properly repaired, and the battery needed to be inspected for damage. Due to throwing being the main cause of the crash, large foam rollers were purchased so that we could practice launching the aircraft.
5. Recommendations
I would recommend adding on something similar to the rudders on the believer to the training foam rollers so that people know how high they need to hold it when throwing. I would also like to go over proper control inputs when launching the believer and if things like elevator should be used.