Bearair

Posted by Bob Cotsford on 10/04/2014 11:45:54: biggest risk appeared to be landing on a palm tree in a miniskirt, bet that made her eyes water1 Having never landed on a palm tree in a mini skirt I can only imagine!!!. Got to go now off to Spain with some soothing lotion....................

Posted by Levanter3 on 10/04/2014 11:32:23: The Titanic was fully authorised. Evel Kneivel ended up having more metal in him than me. I only just started my list and thank goodness we don't have to be professionally trained to have an opinion Bearair. Agreed opinion's are free to everyone just trying to establish if you had experience of this sort of stunt and possibly a more valued opinion. I see this as a professional stunt carried out and filmed such that it looks more dangerous and possibly impressive than it is. If it promotes the hobby in a way that might appeal to the younger generation then i think great.

Posted by Levanter3 on 10/04/2014 10:35:38: David. Yes it looks more dangerous than running in front of bulls and being attached by fireworks. Good old Spain. On a serious note I noticed in the credits Centro RC Levante. For the record this has nothing to do with my pseudonym here on the forum. Levanter3 It is a radio control shop in Alicante and I live in Mallorca. These are not Spanish people however. Further down the credits I see that lots of magazines are involved as media partners. In all forms of sport, technology, whatever. If people can do it they will do it. Having said that I am absolutely not condoning it. At the end they indicated the risks were all thoroughly assessed and managed. I couldn't disagree more. Too high, over concrete, directly under heavy machines, exposed rotors, built up area ................... as you say how long is one list and how short is the other? Are you a professionally trained stuntmen then? You seem to think you know better than the ones on this stunt, just wondering why?

At 3.07 it states that it was officially authorized and safety measures were taken even if not apparent. So NONE is the answer.

No idea, not sure what the regulations are in Spain. Im guessing none as it explains quite clearly that it was a stunt carried out by professional stuntmen and presumably women. Also it seems to have been supported, by quite a few magazines Im guessing but like RCM&E they would not associate themselves with an illegal act.

I had one wire come of a DHT unit, but that had more to do with the operator (me) than the equipment quality. I cannot understand what all the fuss is about. The Taranis is a traditional radio, it just has all the ability's of a high end radio at an entry price. The programming would not be any more difficult for a newbie than would a 6ex. The issue is more with people who have got so used to a programming method that they would struggle with a different structure.But that is just as true for someone changing from a Spectrum to a Multiplex for example. When I was instructing on a regular basis I became familiar with the basics for JR Futaba and Spectrum, it came with the territory. When the first Eurgle turned up I was completely flummoxed by it.But I didn't just walk away complaining the newbie had just bought the wrong TX. I got hold of a manual and learnt. Surely instructors have got enough warning now of the Taranis  to be looking into it ready for the day a newbie arrives equipped with one. For me being an instructor wasn't just about teaching people to fly I had to have enough knowledge to advise on radio installation, programming, becs etc, Obviously there were times when I couldn't but I always knew a man who could. There is always the club guru on engine tuning or Futaba programing that I could refer the newbie to when I got out of my depth. With the amount of sets being sold you will soon have a "tony the taranis techie" in each club. At the slope where I fly we already have two!. Standard advice I thought to a beginner was buy the best set you can afford I see no reason to change that advice now just because the best set cheap set is as good as if not better than what the experts are flying.   Edited By Bearair on 09/04/2014 12:02:46

This is what the man states, On that day i had no VTX or any wiring to the camera, my lawyer said i wasnt using it for monitoring or controlling, to ad this is what my lawyer said NOT me, and its them i have to convince first He could of course be lying, but as the CAA would of inspected the model if the above was not correct why would they have not prosecuted him under the FPV regs, IE flying without an observer, flying beyond LOS. We have no evidence that he was flying FPV whatsoever. Lining up a model being flown solely by LOS, to overfly the bridge with such a degree of precision, from a point laterally removed from that point, would be a matter of considerable piloting skill, and probably far beyond the capabilities of an unmanned, unpiloted, uncontrolled wing in undirected flight. Again this has all been covered in the thread, the model was fitted with a ATM which was working and would of been capable of piloting the model as seen in the video. Interestingly he insists this ATM was damaged beyond repair and so could not have the data proving it wasn't being flown by waypoint downloaded. (this is treated with scorn by some very knowledgeable on the FPVhub)I was astounded by this piece of technology! IMHO it is either through ignorance or bias that people keep insisting this flight was piloted by FPV when as far as I can see and others who have commented with far more experience than me, that this aircraft was probably being flown by waypoint. Continuing to focus on the FPV aspect is only serving to distract from what I consider is the much more important point for general model flyers. What constitutes a Small unmanned SURVEILLANCE aircraft. If experienced and dedicated modelers cannot be bothered to ascertain the above fact as has been stated on this forum then it bothers me even more. Please accept my apologies if I have some of the terminology is wrong. As I keep repeating I am no expert on this equipment.

I've already shown in the thread how we know, please please read the thread. The model was not fitted with a video tx, How many times to how many people do I have to repeat information contained in the thread. But do you not think if the CAA thought that the model was equipped to fly FPV they would of prosecuted him for breaking those regulations aswell?

Posted by leccyflyer on 06/04/2014 10:17:27: Posted by Bearair on 06/04/2014 10:13:07: Posted by leccyflyer on 06/04/2014 10:04:51: Just watched the video. That was a remarkably accurate flight just over the bridge, for a flyaway. It looked a lot more, given the descent down from altitude to very close to the bridge, to be an attempt to fly under the bridge, which did not come off. There were certainly plenty of very delicate apparent course corrections on the approach to the bridge. Is that how the return to home function would have been programmed, with the bridge as a waypoint? I think the only one who could say for sure is the miscreant himself and to say he has been evasive in an understatement. The more I read the more I think he might of just been stupid enough to do that! Yet there have been all sorts of bold declarations claiming that the aircraft was not being flown by FPV, and even claiming it was a normal LOS flight terminating in an unfortunate uncontrolled fly-away. In other attempting to deflect from the fact that the aircraft was equipped for both FPV and UAV flight, whilst expecting the reader to believe that neither system was actually in operation during the ill fated flight. It certainly did not look that way from the video. FPV is a way piloting the model we now the model was not fitted with a video transmitter so it is a fact it was not being piloted by FPV. He claims he was not flying by waypoint but by normal LOS, but the court must of considered otherwise. Rightly in my opinion. What I am concerned about is the other technology involved in this that I and plenty of other modelers did not even know existed. I am even more concerned about the definition of a Small unmanned surveillance aircraft, which as far as I can see is any model equipped with video or picture capture. And therefore includes a flycam equipped model. I would like to know how we are going to try to stop another incident like this because it damages all model flying IMHO. Or if we are going to distance "ourselves" how are we going to do it. In my mind distancing ourselves is much easier said than done. Especially when there is a massive public and press awareness of "drones" but virtually no knowledge of what a "drone" is.

Posted by leccyflyer on 06/04/2014 10:04:51: Just watched the video. That was a remarkably accurate flight just over the bridge, for a flyaway. It looked a lot more, given the descent down from altitude to very close to the bridge, to be an attempt to fly under the bridge, which did not come off. There were certainly plenty of very delicate apparent course corrections on the approach to the bridge. Is that how the return to home function would have been programmed, with the bridge as a waypoint? I think the only one who could say for sure is the miscreant himself and to say he has been evasive in an understatement. The more I read the more I think he might of just been stupid enough to do that!

Posted by PatMc on 06/04/2014 09:51:35: Posted by Bearair on 06/04/2014 09:45:31: Posted by PatMc on 06/04/2014 00:08:19: Bearair, I only commented & drew conclusions from the legal proceedings. IMO the summary I gave a couple of posts back covers everything relevant on why Mr Knowles was prosecuted, how the case proceeded & why it concluded the way it did. Anything not stated or presented to the court is irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned the judge, prosecutor, CAA & defence lawyer did exactly what they had to do. Knowles, OTOH, did nothing to help himself. Also as I stated earlier, I don't think carrying a camera makes a model subject to more stringent regulations or it would surely have resulted in another charge against Mr Knowles. I've been using a Flycam since they first appeared & look forward to getting better results soon with a Mobius. And that's the problem with coming into a thread without having read it! If you go back through the thread you can find the information on why your Flycam equipped model is subject to more stringent regulations if you are recording video data! I would read it if I was you , ignorance is no defence in law as others have pointed out. If you are refering to this , I have read it, in fact I commented on it here : Posted by PatMc on 05/04/2014 21:23:46: Re the comments on videoing from models - I don't think the actual taking of pictures from a model aircraft breaks the law technicaly or otherwise when it's not being done on a commercial basis. I think the "Notes to Editors" in the CAA report on the prosecution is misleading in several respects. PS the fact that using a camera in the illegal flight wasn't one of the charges against Mr Knowles seems to back this opinion up. Edited By PatMc on 06/04/2014 09:55:46 Nope

Posted by Ian Jones on 06/04/2014 00:12:39: Mr Knowles had the opportunity to put the record straight a good number of times and not least at the hearing at which he was convicted. Ultimately whether the flight finished as expected or not he bears the responsibility for it just as we all do for our flights. He has cast a shadow on RC aircraft in the public eye and whether FPV or not that's not a good thing. So we can argue one thing or another because we like or don't like this or that, misuse one term or another but when it comes down to it we should distance ourselves from Mr Knowles because he has brought our pastime into disrepute and he does not demonstrate the normal good character of RC pilots. Be aware also that various representatives at law may be looking in. Define ourselves? If we are going to distance this guy, then I would of thought excluding him from the BMFA might be a start. However does the BMFA has the right within its constitution to expel members? Who makes that decision? If the power to refuse membership does not exist does the BMFA need to change its constitution to do so if another person breaks the rules? What other ways should "ourselves" distance him?

Posted by PatMc on 06/04/2014 00:08:19: Bearair, I only commented & drew conclusions from the legal proceedings. IMO the summary I gave a couple of posts back covers everything relevant on why Mr Knowles was prosecuted, how the case proceeded & why it concluded the way it did. Anything not stated or presented to the court is irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned the judge, prosecutor, CAA & defence lawyer did exactly what they had to do. Knowles, OTOH, did nothing to help himself. Also as I stated earlier, I don't think carrying a camera makes a model subject to more stringent regulations or it would surely have resulted in another charge against Mr Knowles. I've been using a Flycam since they first appeared & look forward to getting better results soon with a Mobius. And that's the problem with coming into a thread without having read it! If you go back through the thread you can find the information on why your Flycam equipped model is subject to more stringent regulations if you are recording video data! I would read it if I was you , ignorance is no defence in law as others have pointed out.

Posted by PatMc on 05/04/2014 23:08:11: Posted by Bearair on 05/04/2014 22:28:25: Thanks for proving my point so quickly, the data being downloaded to his laptop was GPS location NOT video, if you had read the information provided in this thread you would of known that! Sorry to disappoint but I don't think my mistake has proved any point you've made. I haven't read all of this thread & only surmised that the laptop recorded video. However not being certain about this is the reason I said suggested that "Perhaps he posted on Youtube before he was notified or even before the model was found." The fact that he could only have posted the recovered on board video makes him even less sensible than I thought.     Exactly proving that the West Moreland Gazette did not contain all the relevant information to the case. What you are asking me to do is go back over all the info to provide you with the evidence of what else is relevant but not reported. Go back over the info in the thread I'm not repeating myself or others. And theres two people who have not exactly shone you and me! You because you have not read all the information before commenting on the thread, and me because I wasn't aware that by fitting a keyfob camera I became the operator of an "surveillance" aircraft and subject to more stringent regulations. Nothing actually wrong, but neither of us has exactly shone IMHO Now I am sorry but if you want anymore examples you will just have to read all the information for yourself. Goodnight Edited By Bearair on 05/04/2014 23:32:39

Posted by Martin Harris on 05/04/2014 22:41:53: But the question I raised was who posted the video - to the best of my limited knowledge, GPS does not provide any video information and if it was simply linking to Google Earth information the traffic wouldn't have been moving on the bridge and the water immersion effect would have been unlikely! Please note that my post was a question, not an opinion but I still wonder at the thought process of anyone posting a video returned to them with a pending prosecution - unless perhaps they were already in possession of a copy and had posted it before GMP and the CAA had seen fit to send him a copy/return his gear? Personally I think judging by his attitude and comments made, he posted the video after the CAA had returned them. Somewhere in all the info here and other links I think that his lawyer made a declaration that the aircraft was not fitted with video tramsiting device or something like that. Lawyers do not generally make such declarations without checking it cannot be disproved in my experience.