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.     

Martin,   I thought you wouldn't like the concept of a long distance spotter but at the same time it's perfectly legal. Going back to learner drivers without dual controls, the driver in change/instructor is not able to physical take control of the vehicle, it is not legal to drive from the passenger seat, they can only give verbal instructions. When learning to ride a motorcycle the instructor speaks to the student via a radio link, again unable to physicality take control. These examples are exactly the same principle but yet are totally accepted even though driving is far more dangerous than FPV.  Also, there is no test any modeller has to take to fly a small light weight foam model aircraft, so whether or not somebody is a competent flier is really no more than opinion. As long as the PIC /spotter is satisfied the flight can be conducted safely then it is legal regardless of any actual flying skills.    As for showing PIC's in a video, there is simply no need. We are all innocent until proven guilty not the other way around and it is morally incorrect to suggest otherwise. I don't need to prove my innocents. If you were to make a video about any aspect of model flying, would you include information to prove everything your doing and your equipment was legal? I think not.   I don't want to get into a debate about motoring, just trying to provide some examples from another walk of life, but  I don't any additional police out catching speeders just revenue producing devices which are clearly sign posted. Even these are on the declined as they are not earning enough money.   Just to be clear, I wrote to my MP last year, when the changes to the ANO were just proposals. At the time it seemed unclear and I was not 100% sure of my legal standing. He investigated for me and wrote back confirming I could fly with a spotter. I have also spoken to the CAA about queries I have had and checked their official documentation several times  to check I am flying legally.   If you search the internet, you will find many videos of LOS fliers breaking the law, flying to close to spectators in a prime example, with far more dangerous equipment, such as heli, turbines etc. I don't see modellers worried about  rights being lost because of them, granted FPV produces many more videos but I don't see why it should be viewed any differently, after all it's just another branch of the same hobby.   All the best   Jay.          @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

Continued....   You are incorrect as to flying alone in my other videos, (although granted it is not clear, you would not know otherwise and I was not expecting comment on my other videos not posted here). To extend my legal flying range, my regular spotter (bless her) usually does not stand with me. I use a patch antenna and plan my flights, basically meaning I fly in a certain direction, she normally stands (a couple of times chased on a quad) in a more optimal location and communicates by radio. You properly don't like the sound of this but it is also perfectly legal, in the same way motorcyclist are taught to ride.   I truly do realise your concerns, I am often warning LOS fliers about the dangers of flying their heli close to spectators with little avail. Although I don't not understand your concerns for other modellers, the law does not blanket ban something because of the actions of the minority,  (sorry for another roadside comparison) otherwise driving would be banned due to all the speeding motorised, it purely deals with the persons at fault. This is why I don't worry about the those idiot in other countries that are shown on youtube, etc. clearly misusing FPV.   Another point is that CAA's changes to to the ANO in Jan 2010 where not done to intentionally effect FPV flying (although it does mean we now require a a spotter or buddy box set up), they have clearly stated this. The changes were brought in to deal with the commercial use of UAV's. At no point have the CAA expressed any concerns over FPV hobby flying.    I do my utmost to comply with legal requirements whilst still trying to have fun, so I thank you for your best wishes.   Kind regards to all,   Jay                                         @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(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); Thanks for all your comments, I'll try to answer them all,   Steve, The collision wasn't intentional at all, although I named this video Dogfight for fun purposes, causing a mid air collision would actually be very difficult especially on the first attempt in this fashion.   In reality the intention was simply to film the other guys aircraft although I ended up with a crash video. The accident was actually the fault of the regular line of sight flyer, who did except responsibility. I knew where he was in the sky, he did not see where I was. The main reason for the crash is that he did not stick to our flight plan which was to circle the field with me behind filming him. As the video shows, he was flying at lower altitude and did an unplanned half loop at WOT putting himself on a collision course and hitting me inverted. Unfortunately because he was travelling so fast, I did not have time to react.   I do have a mic on board my bird, which I use to monitor the throttle/motor whilst flying. However, I find this dull on playback and prefer music in my vids, I guess we have different tastes.   Kiwi, IMHO this is no more dangerous than LOS flying, the accident was the fault of the LOS flyer,  not my own as stated above. IMHO, I  think it would be more likely to have a mid air collision with two LOS flyers as they would be focused on their aircraft more so than what's going on around them. I have done literately hundreds of FPV flights and this is the only collision I have ever had, I have seen many LOS collisions. It's a fair point to say. that because of the use of video in FPV,  incidents are much more likely to be caught on camera opposed to regular LOS flying.   Richard, I'm afraid you are incorrect, as already mentioned I was following the other aircraft to film him, it was he who did not see me.   A fair point (that you didn't mention) is that the picture quality was very dark and really didn't help much, I must admit my camera doesn't cope to well facing the brightness of the sun at dusk, I will void flying at this time of day in the future or get another camera that copes better in this situation.   This wasn't supposed to be an advert for FPV, just a video showing something out of the normal for me, sorry you didn't enjoy it, maybe I will post a regular uneventful more relaxing video in the future.   By the way, this video was filmed at private property with the owners permission, in the sticks, miles away from anything so hopefully I've please you there   David, Yep I wouldn't mind recouping the cost of the damage by winning a new receiver, you've got me there but I'm sure you wouldn't mind recouping the cost of any previous crash you've had either. To be honest the damage was minimal, both aircraft had small damage to their fuses (nothing that wasn't fixed within the hour with some CA & kicker). My PSU (used to power the 12v cam & 5v VTX) needed some wires re-soldering. The worst thing was I lost a 3s 2200kv 40c lipo which fell out of the aircraft at the point the video stops. It fell in a small section of overground grass and could not be found. Winning a receiver would cover the cost of the lipo. The other modeller did accept responsibility for the crash and offered to pay for the lipo, although I've not seen him since, so I don't know yet if he'll stick to this. My aircraft which had the most damage (being a lightweight foam easystar) was fixed and flown again the following morning. Sorry you didn't like the music!   Martin, Thanks for quoting the ANO Art 166(3) for all to see, a useful reference point.  A good compassion is that a spotter is in charge of the aircraft in the same way as somebody teaching a person to drive without duel controls. You could argue that they are not in control of the vehicle but I don't write the law, just abide to it.   There is another legal requirement that nobody has mentioned concerning video transmissions. Only 5.8ghz & 2.4Ghz is allowed in the UK by law for airborne use. 5.8Ghz is expensive, has very poor penetration and the equipment available is of a low standard. That only leave 2.4Ghz as a viable option. Because of the recent increase in 2.4Ghz for model control which is used by many BMFA members, it is not feasible for me to fly at BMFA sites due to interference caused to my video reception, for this readon their guidelines do not apply to me, only the law does. I do have my own third party insurance that covers me for FPV without using a buddy lead and also LOS flying for anywhere in Europe and the UK, There is no legal requirement to have this but I do by choice.   With regards to my other videos, I have not flown over built up areas, in many you will see I fly near a small village in the middle of nowhere (sorry, your comment unintentionally makes it sound like I'm flying in a town or city) The same rules apply to me as they do you, which is 150m away from people/property (except during landing/take off which is 50m). There are zero times that I have intentionally flown within 150m of people or property.  Edited By Jay28 on 11/11/2010 14:50:22

Forgot to mention, the other guy flying is flying regular line of sight so he is irrelevant in this.@import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

Martin,   You are very very much mistaken!    The ANO states that the "PIC must remain in visual contact with the aircraft at all times" The PIC can be a spotter and not necessarily a "safety pilot" on a buddy box. If you don't believe me then phone the CAA and ask them, that is a fact! I even have a letter from my local MP confirming I can fly like this.    If you look you will see my spotter, he can be seen clearly seen standing with me when I test my aircraft before take off whilst panning the camera behind.   Other than that, I hope you and the lovely folks at the CAA enjoyed my 100% legal FPV video.   Thank you   Jay.         

@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); Hey Guys, I thought you might like this video of a mid air collision involving my fpv easystar http://www.vimeo.com/15960562 If you liked this video, give me a quick vote here, it might help me recover some of the cost of the damage:-   http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1334260   Thanks all!  @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); Edited By Jay28 on 10/11/2010 14:40:20 Edited By Jay28 on 10/11/2010 14:40:52

BB.   Thanks for the kind comments, but if the truth be known, I took about 200 stills. I deleted most of them immediately and kept the best 30 or so. The ones shown are the top 5, so they distort the truth a little of what to expect from the flycamone2. Also, I had particular good conditions that day, it was the best flying day I can remeber this year, back in early August.   Peter,   Don't give up on those videos, John is correct, most of the data should be salvageable with the correct software tools.   Good luck with it.   Jay

Here a video I took with the Flycamone2 of the Suffolk countryside:-         And here's some stills of the same area:-     The flycamone2 isn't bad as a toy for someone to mess about with and take their first aerial photographs but the resolution is far to low for video and not suitable for anybody wanting high quality images or video. I have now set up a recorder for my FPV camera and will post some video footage to compare, as soon as the wheather is good enough. Edited By Jay28 on 08/12/2009 10:02:11