Jay28

Hi Guys,   Thanks to everyone that voted for me in the Dragonlink competition. The voting ending in a tie so there is now a tie breaker poll between my FPV Easystar - Dogfight video and another.   Here is the link should any one like to vote:-   http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1341451   Many thanks   Jay.            

That's very plausible Eck.    Popular short hand for the EasyStar is EZ* or EZS, which is the most commonly used FPV airframe, so that does make sense. @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); @import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); @import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); @import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); @import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);     No problems Phil, It's the brand name of the GPS system I use,   Here's a quick demo I did using the telemetry data with google earth , It's not the best in the world because the google earth data was added after the flight and not live, so many packets of data where lost during the DVR compression and recording processes which makes it a bit jumpy, nether the less it does provide an insight into what is possible.   EDIT: For some reason I can't get the video to display correctly, you may have to watch in full screen mode.   Edited By Jay28 on 12/11/2010 16:41:07

Phil,    Yes I do have more information available than most fliers.   I forgot to mention a very valuable feature of the EzOSD it also provides live telemetry data, down the left audio channel, which can be used for various applications such as:-   Antenna tracking (something I intent to take up after the expenses of Christmas) where a telemetry receiver tracks the exact location in the sky of the aircraft. The video antenna is automatically moved on pan & tilt servos to follow the aircraft's exact location in the sky, providing the best possible video reception. If you see this set up in action, it really does look like a gadget from James Bond movie, fairly simple to do though.   Live Google Earth tracking, where the telemetry data can be received by a lap top or portable device (such as iphone) which then displays the aircraft's location on google maps along with other gps data. This information could be over layed to the pilot or used by the ground crew. I have done this previously again very james bond style!    Long./Lat. cords.etc from telemetry could also be used for various other applications.   The EzOSD also shows a flight report once the aircraft is landed which display summaries of the information gathered. total dist. flown, max alt. etc. etc.   To be fair you could use this with LOS flight and have access to all the same data, people just choose not to bother.    Yep,  Article 166 (3) of the ANO does not apply for free flight models,    Thanks for the enthusiasm!        @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

@import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); Phil,    I use the EzOSD made by Immersionrc which is a GPS / On Screen Display system. This was my choice of product because it only shows vital information leaving the screen uncluttered, so I am am to enjoy the view. There are other systems on the market that have many more bells and whistles, however I prefer this simple and uncluttered approach.   The systems comes in two parts that can be split or used together the GPS & the current sensor.   On the top of my screen, the GPS information is displayed, from left to right:-   Speed - this I'm afraid is only ground speed and not air speed, the system uses gps data for the calculations so is much more easier and accurate to do. For the types of aircraft normally associated with FPV, slow light weight motorised gliders,  this is sufficient. Displayed in either KM or MPH   Distance - this is the ground distance from home. Displayed in either ft or m   Compass - The arrow on the compass points to home/take off point, not north.   Altitude -  Displayed in either ft or m   At the bottom of the screen the current sensor data can be displayed, from left to right:- Battery Voltage, Current Draw (amps) , Mah used.   Additional information can also be shown just above the current sensor data, these are   Call Sign - Designed for ham ops   RSSI -  received signal strength indicator. This is an advanced feature that gives an indication to you the integrity of the radio link, it's not for the faint hearted because it does require opening your rx, finding the RSSI voltage chip (different for different rx brands) and soldering a wire to it, as well as to a ground point, it can then be connected to the current sensor. Once connected it needs to be configured properly for safety reasons, for example, a 0% RSSI reading should be the point as which the servos start to twitch and not loss of radio signal. RSSI is purely an indication of signal strength and sure be treated as no more.   Warning alarms can be set for all data.   It can also be connected to a spare channel so the display can be turned on/off (auto on in the event of an alarm being triggered).   For more info the manual can be found here           Edited By Jay28 on 12/11/2010 15:12:20

Richard,   Liar- Apologies, no you didn't call me a liar but my point is, in some aspects of this debate you will have to take word for it. You do sometimes come across as a bit pedantic though.   Children - I was referring supervised children within the family that we have sometimes taken to watch. They know they are not even allowed to approach a landed bird until she is completely powered down. If they wish they can join in by viewing the FPV flight on a separate DVR screen. I only take them rarely as i'm sure you'll agree, kids can get bored pretty quickly.   Location - I've have flown in more than one location, reasonably isolated places, to clarify "miles away" as it's a figure of speech, I was referring to long away from any major built up areas such as towns & citys in model aircraft terms, yes there might be the odd building nearby, or sometimes I do fly near a small village, to avoid arguments I just state at a more than reasonably safe distance for a light weight foamie that travels at an average speed of about 20mph, which is more than the legal requirement of 150m away or 50m for landings/takeoffs from these closer hazards.    Markymarc, Thank you!   Phil, Thank you!   Martin, Don't worry, it's healthy to have a good debate. I don't want to get to much into all the aspects of my other videos, but yes I did make a mistake in the video you're referred too, my statement was so others can learn from my error. Lucky, this again was a controlled and safely executed flight, so only the thing in danger was my pride. I was using a low end radio at the time, which has now been replaced by a better quality one because of that particular flight.   Again I do understand and share your concerns, we've all seen those videos on the internet where somebody comes close to a jet in Australia or the one where a guy flies though a long road tunnel in South America. Both of these videos are shot using an on board camera's and appear to me FPV, so are very damaging to my hobby. In reality both are actually LOS flights recorded with a flycam, regardless of this, the CAA are very aware of both these videos which is certainly not a good thing for FPV.  I do have some faith in the system that these people will be dealt with accordingly rather than the innocent many being punished, maybe you should too?   Thank you for your kind wishes.   Jay      

Posted by Martin Harris on 11/11/2010 11:48:39:   ANO Article 166 (3) says The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must maintain direct, unaided visual contact with the aircraft sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions.    Martin, I appreciate your concerns, this can be very confusing, so I will explore this with you. You did quote the exact wording of the ANO Article 166 (3) earlier on this thread which deal with this subject (quoted above again). You can see from the quote that was in your own previous post that there is no mention of a PIC requirement to be at the controls and that (s)he need only monitor the flight path. If it was a legal requirement of the PIC needing to be at or have access to the controls, then the ANO would state so.   However, the ANO also states that the PIC must be satisfied that the flight can be undertaken safely to avoid endangerment to persons, property, etc. (I forget the exact wording off hand, maybe you could quote the rest of the article, if you've got it handy). Satisfaction is somewhat of an opinion and the law can be interpreted in different ways by different people. So this is not clear cut I'm afraid which therefore makes it a bit of a grey area. If an incident were to occur followed by a court case, it would be up to a jury to decide if the PIC could have been satisfied or not and that they acted accordingly. This applies to any model flying.   Now we are sure (from your own ANO Article 166 (3) quote) that the PIC does not need to be at the controls but as I have pointed out, they do need to be satisfied the flight can be undertaken safely and "maintain direct,unaided visual contact with the aircraft sufficient to MONITOR its flight path etc. etc.", This confirms that If the PIC is satisfied that verbal communication is sufficient to fly safely than, as written, this is in compliance. Again in the result of an incident it would be up to a jury to agree or not to whether the PIC had acted accordingly in any particular situation.   On the flip side, if the PIC is not satisfied the flight can be done safely, they should rectify the problem and make it so, before commencing. For example, in the case of an inexperience flier, it could be the use of a buddy box system or maybe the introduction of another procedure such as a transmitter handover protocol as you have suggested. If they are still not satisfied they should stop the flight altogether.   IMHO If a PIC were actually in charge of a vehicle on public roads whilst at the same time acting as a spotter than it would properly be hard to convince a jury that they maintained visual contact sufficiently. Instead sensible safety protocols should be in place in accordance with and to satisfy the wording of the ANO. Examples could include being a passenger, being away from public areas, off public highways, using additional safety or control systems, etc. etc.   Basically it come down to common sense in any given situation. IMHO there's a right way to do things and a wrong way, as long as you act safely and responsibly with the correct protocols in place, away from public areas, property & people, in accordance to what is written in the ANO, there will be no problems legally or otherwise.   Slightly off point but never the less an interesting side point regarding the ANO: a free flight model does not fall under Article 166 (3) it can legally have a FPV system so that the modeller can enjoy the flight and there are no legal requirements to maintain direct visual contact. This basically means it's perfectly legal to fly to a given altitude via RC regular line of sight, switch to free flight by switching off the transmitter/controls, then enjoy a FPV view. Now to me that's absolutely crazy!          

Kiwi,   You do have some valid points but incidents could be avoided if a proper flight plans were followed. My bird is a light weight foamie and isn't really much of a threat, the flight was done legally and in an isolated area of private property, so I don't really think there's a problem showing the video. The other guy actually managed to continue flying and land normally after the crash, it was rough because one of his wheels was bent. That really amazed me. I did go with the intention of making a chase video for the competition but this is the video I ended up with. I can obvious appreciate that accidents can happen and will happen, although in my case it should have been avoided. The name Dogfight is really just for fun that was never the real intention.    Most FPV'er do fly solo by the way, I do on at least 95% of flights, it's very rare for me to fly with another aircraft at all, so I don't usually need to worry about this. I can't comment on flying with other FPV planes as I've never done it. FPV is a small branch of a very big hobby and the FPV'er i'm in contact with live nowhere near me.   It might interest you to know, that I know a young guy (online) currently working on building a cheap gps/osd, one of the features he is working on is games. The idea is two units would talk to each other to create a type of points based laser quest for fpv, cross hairs, gun shots would all be virtual on a screen overlay. That could be fun! @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

Posted by Phil Wood on 11/11/2010 21:26:04: You just got my vote Jay.   Pol.  Thank you very much! @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); Peter,   Your club member is starting off correctly  whether or not he progresses any further. When the kids ask me where my bird is in the sky, I can point to it often beating my spotter. This amazes them because I'm wear video goggles and they know I can't see it directly. The secret is that I've studied countless flight recordings over and over again and know my flying sites really well from the air. From the air, sites can be unrecognisable and it could be easy to get disorientated, I highly recommend learning sites either as a passenger and/or watching video play backs of on board recorded flights. If you want to learn or need advice on FPV i would recommend visiting fpvuk.org. which has been set up for UK fliers, you can get some great advice there on everything FPV related and they a nice bunch too.    Thanks for the kind words, I hope you can vote, i'm currently only one away from the leader, so it could make all the difference! You have to be a member of RCGroups to vote, if you're not I would suggest joining anyway as it covers pretty much all RC stuff, there isn't much you can't find out on there! Here's the link to the actual voting. Just click FPV Easystar - Dogfight http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1334260    Thanks also for your interesting bike story, these day's they use instructors that follow behind and communicate via a  radio link thou.    I'm not so sure about those big dangerous fast turbine models, they are far to dangerous for my liking, I'll stick with my safe little lightweight foam FPV easystar   All the best   Jay  Edited By Jay28 on 11/11/2010 21:23:22

Kiwi,   See the above points made to Richard as they are relevant to some of your points.  When I  had a side look (panned camera right) was literally just after I had switched from LOS to FPV. (This was very short flight as far as FPV flight go!) As I explained, when I saw the other plane I followed him, previous to this, my spotter was directing me on his location in the sky. I didn't need to look around. Although as shown before take off, I can pan the camera a full 360 degrees, which can be controlled by simple head movements (headtracker)   With regards to my comments regarding LOS collisions, I am only suggesting it may be difficult  to watch two different fast moving objects in different locations in the sky at the same time. To prove this point, I'm sure you would agree that It would not be reasonable to use a spotter who was simultaneously flying another aircraft LOS.   Personally I've seen more collisions LOS than FPV even though I mainly fly FPV so on that basis it's not a unfair opinion to have.   By the way, when I'm driving home, I drive my car FPV not from the side of the road! I Forgot to mention earlier, your comments about the fun police did make me chuckle!  

Richard   I could see him and he didn't see me, that is a fact, you can either accept it or call me a liar, that's up to you. The reason you could see him in the video was because I kept him in my sights and filmed from behind as I was supposed to, he did not see me which is why he ended up on my flight path, I'm sure you can tell from the video that it was his flight path that changed and not mine. Granted the incident happened very quickly I hadn't long switched over from LOS flying, which I do for take off's and usually for landings, which might be hard to tell, apart from the the music overlay and slow motion at the end the video is unedited from take off to the crash.   You should also appreciate that the video was recorded on a  DVR with limited bitrate and compressed, it was then uploaded to Vimeo and then compressed again, there is loss of picture quality from all of these processes. The video you see compared to what I could see on the day is no way are clear.   I'm glad you watched the video a few times, it must have provided you with some entertainment, that's gotta be worth a vote over the FPV pilots who aren't so legally concious http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1334260       @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

Posted by flytilbroke on 11/11/2010 17:05:21: I do not for one minute believe that "The Pilot in Charge" can be in charge of a flying model while at a distance requiring radio communications. Nor would I agree that a "Pilot in Charge" can be in charge of an FPV flown model when out of reach of the transmitter in the event of an emergency.   The reasons given by the poster in this thread, in my opinion, is at best severely stretching the current guidlines. Guidelines which may be considered Law. This does no favour to FPV or LOS model flyers and could well prove detrimental to us all.  The PIC playing a spotters role does not have to be anywhere near a transmitter  they only need to maintain "unaided visual contact with the aircraft" and be able to give the pilot verbal communications. This point has been thrashed over many many times with the CAA and is perfectly legal, regardless of anyone's opinion of it, What do you mean by "guidelines which maybe considered law"? The law concerning model flight is written by the CAA which then needs to be passed in parliament and written in the ANO. Not some guidelines written by a club which are only relevant on their fields, if that's what your referring too? I am doing my utmost to work within the law, how can that be detrimental? 

Posted by Martin Harris on 11/11/2010 16:44:19:   It's odd that driving schools go to the bother of fitting dual controls then!  But is it really valid to compare supervision methods from other activities here?    In a way it is valid because it gives as all a common ground in which we can all relate,  I would imagine most readers on this site have little knowledge or experience of FPV, obviously the comparisons I've made are only to help understand the concept of my points. To answer your question, it's to ensure their vehicles are less likely to be damaged which results in lower insurance costs and not because it's law but that really is irrelevant.   The bottom line is the law as the CAA and the courts interpret it.  As I said before, if you have specifically cleared the principle of a remotely located PIC with the CAA and are complying with the rest of their requirements, I have no problem with your operation and I wish you well.    Thank you!  @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

I just notice one of the links in my original post is not working, it's here is wanted:-   http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1334260   Thanks   Jay.