Bearair

Posted by John Mccullagh on 04/04/2014 18:27:06: So Does the caa rule allow you to fly within 50 m while recording video by fpv /drone or not? i am confused more now than when i read the earlier posts thanks john . Edited By John Mccullagh on 04/04/2014 18:37:36 Right forget FPV that has nothing to do with it , that is only the way the plane is being piloted. If ANY model plane is fitted with a recording device it is subject to the Unmanned surveillance regulations and therefore not allowed within 50m of any structure. Thats how I understand it to be.

Got attacked in a car park about a month ago. Guy said I had hit his car door, I didn't but his son about 20yrs old punched me in the face and then he jumped on my back. When the police arrived they were going to arrest me, but thankfully it was all on CCTV and there were 2 witnesses who saw the entire thing. I had literally just come out of hospital after a heart attack! It is a mad world!

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 04/04/2014 13:12:36: I stand by what I said Bearair. He had an autopilot, some sort of flight controller. The plane was either capable of or was indeed flying autonomously. The device is therefore clearly a UAV, by definition. Furthermore its equipped with a camera. He's posting about it on an FPV thread. All of this in my view places it fairly squarely in the field of FPV - this is not just some average run of the mill R/C flyer. But whether that falls within your definition of FPV in some restrictive sense is really frankly immaterial to the case, as it clearly falls within the CAA's definition and the courts - as they have proved. I really see no point in me continuing this debate as I nothing to add to that. In you very many previous posts in this thread, you clearly hold a different view - then we can only agree amicably to differ and leave it at that. BEB Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 04/04/2014 13:13:57 My definition of FPV is that stated here. There is no where in the court or CAA reports any mention of FPV in the reported incident that is the subject of this thread. We can disagree amicably by all means but that does not get away from the above facts. Au revoir Bearair

Posted by Mr.B. on 04/04/2014 13:30:45: What follows is wild speculation and conjecture (a bit like being in the main stream media really). Given that the AC was not fitted for FPV, this looks to me like an attempt to fly under the bridge by autonomous control. The AC is not lined up on the centre of the bridge (indeed it is lined up on the pier) but keeps nudging left, and the let down is miss timed leading to it buzzing the bridge then ending up in the drink. I think Mr Knowles has shown very poor judgement before and during the flight and in dealing with the aftermath. This is reflected in the judgment. I don’t think the specifics of this case have much impact on ‘normal’ club type flying (ie spending your Sunday flying round and round the same field). I agree with your wild speculation and conjecture. However I am not sure about the impact on the normal club flyer. One third of BMFA members are country members thats 12000 modelers, some will be in clubs but even so that leaves a lot of people who do not fly in clubs, then there are those who do not choose to be a member of the BMFA. It appears to me that is a lot of people who are out there doing things that the average club flyer has no knowledge of. In my opinion we need to be reaching out to those people, model flying is changing rapidly so rapidly that I certainly was unaware of the technology this man may of been using, I think that some of the comments here suggest that I am not alone in this.

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 04/04/2014 13:04:13: I've already explained to you that the facts, as were known at the time that post was made, indicated that this was an FPV flight. It's subsequently been established that this was not the case but I'm not prepared to spoil the continuity of the thread by selectively removing posts that don't suit you. I suggest you just ignore the posts you don't wish to read and the discussion can remain on-topic. The only one taking it off-topic now is you, as far as I can see. Pete Are you posting this as a moderator, in which case by forum rules I cannot argue with you?

Posted by John F on 04/04/2014 12:33:17: Sorry John but there is nothing wrong with the rules as you clearly cannot compare recreational flying with commercial. The purpose of each are completely different. I am more surprised that the exception to the term"fpv" seems to be the focus with more guesswork than I ever thought possible. The facts are in the video and the fact is he ran away from court, not wishing to deal with the situation. He was found guilty in his absence. If he went to court he may well have been successful but he opted to run so there is nothing other than the evidence presented. Edited By John F on 04/04/2014 12:35:18 Edited By John F on 04/04/2014 12:36:07 Its quite simple really FPV is flying the model by a video link a video link was not fitted to the aircraft concerned. In post 4 BEB refers to the FPV community and FPV. My exception to this post and the use of the term FPV is based on the FACT this was not anything to do with FPV.

I think he was using something similar to this and flying the model as a autonomous aircraft. Again i have no proof of this but he does state in his letter to the BMFA that he had a APM fitted. I have no idea how these work or indeed that they even existed.

I took that to mean he had a gps type telemetry unit on the model, which was reporting the models location back. but as I understand it he did not have a video tx on the plane and the CAA seem to confirm this. Could you make course corrections as gentle as those we see just using that type of unit? Edited By Bearair on 04/04/2014 11:54:24

It looks like that to me, but then the question is how could he see it to do the course correction, apparently the plane was not equipped to fly FPV. The fact that the CAA did not proscecute for breaking FPV regs so I assume that he is telling the truth there. I think, but I have no proof that he was using a computer to fly the model. He "preprogrammed" the flight If anyone knows about whether this is possible I would be interested to know.

Posted by Wingman on 04/04/2014 10:37:27: If you fly anything near a Defense related establishment you are going to get 'done' - the guy is a dork! He says he runs a TV repair business - in this day and age who gets their TV repaired? - no wonder his business is making a loss - going bankrupt will do him a favour and hopefully he won't be able to fly anything ever again - I repeat, the guy is a dork! Just what do you think posts like this will acheive, if you think hes a dork why do you not ring him, his business is advertised. This is a very serious situation for model flying in this country and attitudes like this will make the situation worse not better in my opinion. Just as others were quick to accuse the FPV community wrongly ,for which I notice some do not apologise, demonising one man or a group is only going to make it worse. Edited By Bearair on 04/04/2014 10:59:43 Edited By Bearair on 04/04/2014 11:13:25

Posted by avtur on 04/04/2014 10:27:15: I can see why the bridge crossing has apparently attracted attention and why it has been described as a near miss. It seems like the aircraft flew a long shallow descent, while this might not have been under the control of the pilot, it didn't appear uncontrolled in terms of flying erratically, very strange. Could that be in fail-safe mode but where it wasn't set up correctly ??? Edited By avtur on 04/04/2014 10:28:35 Reading lots about this, I get the impression that the model was fitted with some kind of stabilization system, and/or a return to home system. If I understand it correctly he might of been using a system where you use gps to fly the plane and plot its course on a computer, basically you launch the model and it does the rest. In all honesty my knowledge of all these new systems it very limited. Trying to comprehend it with the hype around the Drone factor, anger from both sides and what I think is a reluctance from the guy to answer a straight question with a straight question is very difficult. I think there is a whole lot of technology out there which I for one and I think others here are not even aware of. IMHO we all need to discuss this, without laying blame or singling out one part of the rc flying community.

Posted by PatMc on 04/04/2014 00:01:31: Posted by Bearair on 03/04/2014 21:36:17: Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 03/04/2014 17:29:53: The problem is that he pleaded guilty so cannot appeal against conviction, unless there were serious failings by others in the procedure. All he can appeal now is the sentence, AFAIK. Pete Yes I think that your right on that. We shall see if it becomes a major issue for the whole modeling fraternity. The more I read about this the more I think non of the parties involved have exactly shone! I don't know which other parties haven't shone. From this report in the Westmorland Gazette he's the only one who wasn't at all bright. Because he'd left the building before the trial began a guilty plea would have had to be assumed, even though he'd previously pleaded not guilty. And he relinquished any chance to explain his loss of control story in person. Have you read all the information on this or are you making your assumptions based on a local newspaper?

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 03/04/2014 17:29:53: The problem is that he pleaded guilty so cannot appeal against conviction, unless there were serious failings by others in the procedure. All he can appeal now is the sentence, AFAIK. Pete Yes I think that your right on that. We shall see if it becomes a major issue for the whole modeling fraternity. The more I read about this the more I think non of the parties involved have exactly shone!

This is how they do it in the USA, interestingly Trappy's lawyer is interested in the case here! Maybe we shall see an appeal!

Hi Richard, All Stans models go together very well and are excellent VFM, he fly's every design regularly so they all do what they are intended to do. The Pzazz was designed as a 60inch racer well back in the day it was a "crunchie" class. It will fly quite a bit quicker than some of Stans other models. Personally if I was still a learner then I would go for something like the Stage 2 with ailerons. It will fly slower and be more forgiving. But you will not outgrow it for a very long time if ever! But your best bet is to give Stan a ring he is very helpful and will give you good advice I am sure. Roger

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 03/04/2014 11:07:35: I'm going to backtrack somewhat, too. Having spent a bit of time reading through the relevant threads on the FPVHub forum, if one takes 80% of what is written there as fact, then the circumstances are rather different than I originally interpreted them from what had been published. I think this case raises more than a few questions as to the standard of the investigation and prosecution process and, arguably, the conduct of the BMFA. The chap concerned really hasn't helped himself in many respects and is certainly not blameless. Again, if what he says is correct, his representation leaves much to be desired. I agree with Bearair that if this is the way model flyers are going to be dealt with in future, he is right to be concerned. Pete Thanks Peter I am aware that I do not express my self very well in print sometimes. But I really do care about model flying

Posted by Mr.B. on 03/04/2014 10:30:55: Bearair, having re read the guardian link from the OP I confess I assumed that it was an FPV multi rotor type based on; the article refers to it as a drone (OK drone doesn't actually mean anything), it value of the AC is stated as £1000 and return to home as referred to. I have never come across RTH on FW. You have a better source of information on this story, can you share it please?   Certainly you can read it on the BMFA website And at the CAA says here And you can read what discussion has gone on about it here and here. Personally I think that the guy was a bit stupid in the way he handled the whole thing, BUT what has happened to him could well happen to any of us with regards to the fly away. Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 03/04/2014 11:14:54

Your statement BEB Not flying within 50m of a structure is an FPV rule in the framework agreed between the CAA and BMFA - nothing to do with whether the flight is classed as survailance. You are not to fly within 50m of a structure - period. FPV has nothing to do with it, do you accept that now? Tony Bennet, the comment was made "tongue in cheek" after everyone assumed it was an FPV model when it was LOS flown by a BMFA member. However as far as I am aware there is no forum law that states I must not criticise the BMFA if that criticism is justified. Would you kindly stop making unjustified allegations against a fellow forum member. Otherwise I will have to ask the mods to intervene. There are plenty of post's on here where I publicly support the BMFA. BEB used an incident in which FPV was not involved to give his opinions on FPV as have others here. I was a member of the BMFA at the time of the incident as were many others here but I was not aware of the specific rules regarding a model fitted with a recording device. It would appear that is the case with many others. IMHO that indicates that the administrators of the BMFA are not getting the message out, particularly to there country members which this man was. BEB this has serious implications for model flying since anybody with a model that fly's away could be charged with flying in a restricted airspace, it has set a legal precedent.

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 02/04/2014 19:27:56: I'm afraid I have little sympathy. The CAA lay down the rules specifically covering UAV and FPV flying very clearly - the BMFA reiterate those rules. Being ignorant of those rules is no more a defence here than it would be in any other walk of life. The rules clearly state that you cannot fly within 50m of any structure. It appears he broke that rule - he has to accept the penalty. Now some will say "but the drone was out of his control, it wasn't his fault". Well it shouldn't have been able to fly outside of his control. Where was his failsafe? Outside of the specific regulations covering FPV he is also subject to the ANO - as are we all. Under that regulation he is required to be satisfied that the flight could be completed safely. But he had no provision for loss of signal. I think the prosecution was entirely justified. I hope it is widely publicised and makes some of the less responsible members of the FPV community sit up and take notice - the law applies to them just like everyone else. I know and I fully acknowledge that there are many FPV flyers who operate fully within the regulations - but even the most fervent supporter of FPV cannot deny that this community does seem to have more than its fair share of people who think all regulation is negotiable, circumventable or ignorable. I know the organising bodies are doing what they can to get the message across - but I think they need to do even more. They must get FPV under full control and compliant with CAA regulations and the law. If not, there will be more of these instances and that will not help their cause at all, and most worryingly for the rest of us might even have knock on consequences for the wider hobby. Before anyone says so - I'm not at all anti-FPV. I fully support our friends and fellow flyers that want to do this aspect of our hobby. Its great. But it has to be within the law 100% of the time. BEB Interesting but the aircraft was not FPV why do you assume it was?

I really do not understand, A. The aircraft the man was flying was not a quadcopter but a foam wing. B. The aircraft was not being flown as an FPV but LOS. And by the way the man was a member of the BMFA. Personally I hope the BMFA gets it out to its members that fitting a camera or video unit to your model turns it into a Small unmanned surveillance aircraft and so is subject to more rigorous flying restrictions. I hope the BMFA and its members don't ruin model flying for the rest of us.

Where as the rules A.N.O deals specifically with Small unmanned surveillance aircraft. Small unmanned surveillance aircraft 167 (1) The person in charge of a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not fl y the aircraft in any of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) except in accordance with a permission issued by the CAA. (2) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (1) are: (a) over or within 150 metres of any congested area; (b) over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons; (c) within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft; or (d) subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), within 50 metres of any person. (3) Subject to paragraph (4), during take-off or landing, a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not be fl own within 30 metres of any person. (4) Paragraphs (2)(d) and (3) do not apply to the person in charge of the small unmanned surveillance aircraft or a person under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft. (5) In this article ‘a small unmanned surveillance aircraft’ means a small unmanned aircraft which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition.

    Small unmanned aircraft 166 (1) A person must not cause or permit any article or animal (whether or not attached to a parachute) to be dropped from a small unmanned aircraft so as to endanger persons or property. (2) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fl y the aircraft if reasonably satisfi ed that the fl ight can safely be made. (3) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must maintain direct, unaided visual contact with the aircraft suffi cient to monitor its fl ight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions. (4) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft which has a mass of more than 7kg excluding its fuel but including any articles or equipment installed in or attached to the aircraft at the commencement of its fl ight, must not fl y the aircraft: (a) in Class A, C, D or E airspace unless the permission of the appropriate air traffi c control unit has been obtained; (b) within an aerodrome traffi c zone during the notifi ed hours of watch of the air traffi c control unit (if any) at that aerodrome unless the permission of any such air traffi c control unit has been obtained; or 14 April 2010CAP 393 Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations Section 1 Part 22 Page 6 (c) at a height of more than 400 feet above the surface unless it is fl ying in airspace described in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) and in accordance with the requirements for that airspace. (5) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must not fl y the aircraft for the purposes of aerial work except in accordance with a permission granted by the CAA Where does the ANO state 50m of a structure with relation to Small unmanned aircraft? Are you suggesting that someone flying in their back garden with a helicopter is breaking the ANO unless their house is very detached? Edited By Bearair on 03/04/2014 00:12:54

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 02/04/2014 23:23:40: Posted by Bearair on 02/04/2014 22:34:55: It would be nice to think that those who have criticised FPV here actually knew what was legal and what was not!! Ir Mr Knowles had read the very clear explanation of the law on the FPVUK website, so would he!..... Taken from that page: "At first it would appear that FPV flying would fall under article 167 for small unmanned surveillance aircraft because the ANO definition of an unmanned surveillance aircraft is as above in 167(5). However in situations where a camera is used for the sole purpose of controlling the aircraft the flight is not considered surveillance or data acquisition. CAP 722 article 3.4 in Section 3 Chapter 1 page 2 refers to this, copied here: “The provision of image or other data solely for the use of controlling or monitoring the aircraft is not considered to be applicable to the meaning of ‘Surveillance or Data Acquisition’ covered at Article 167 for SUSA.” However if the video is captured in some way and used for other purposes the CAA considers the flight to have been for data acquisition and article 167 does apply." (my bold) So he made three four mistakes: 1. He flew where he should not have. 2. He recorded the flight. 3. He published it on Youtube. 4. He got caught.... I'll not comment on the 'Spooks' aspect - we're all entitled to our fantasies... Pete Exactly he could of been flying a normal line of site aircraft equipped with a video camera, the fact he was flying FPV had nothing to do with it! It is clear from the wording of the A.N.O. that the concern is with SURVEILLANCE not with FPV. Where do I mention "spooks"? I think it might well be your imagination running away with you

What every FPV flyer in the country should make themselves aware of is exactly what this man was guilty of. Flying a unmanned surveillance aircraft within 50 metres of a structure. If he had not been recording it the aircraft would of been a small unmanned aircraft and not a small unmanned surveillance aircraft. In the ANO if any of you bother to read it there is a big difference. It would be nice to think that those who have criticised FPV here actually knew what was legal and what was not!! Personally I think that it is obvious that it is the surveillance aspect that the government through the C.A.A are worried about. I can happily relate many instances where the "established" modelling community turn a blind I to contraventions of the ANO. Take a look at the free flight nationals for a start. And as an ex-examiner I can tell you that at least 40% of fails on A and B test's I took were because people had not set their failsafe when one was fitted in direct contravention of the A.N.O.

It has occurred to me whilst standing on the slopes on a cold winters day exactly what Joe public might be thinking? Combat trousers Large coat Baklava Ski Goggles Battery operated heated belt And I fly within sight distance of a large radar installation(i think). Hope someone will get me out of Bellmarsh! Personally I do not buy into the whole "terror threat" business. It has been used to remove right's in this country and now as if being able to read our E-Mail's is not enough they want us to snoop on our fellow citizens. It is interesting that one poster has already casually used the expression Abdul in this thread. Obviously a reference to the type of people we should be looking for. By the way my father was arrested for taking photo's of a works at Avonmouth, he was doing so for a Camera Club competition in 1972 Edited By David Ashby - RCME on 28/03/2014 10:22:02