FPV Dogfight

[Jay28]

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! 

Edited By Jay28 on 10/11/2010 14:40:20

Edited By Jay28 on 10/11/2010 14:40:52

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Jay,  Do yourself a favour and pull those videos before the CAA get wind of them.  Unless I'm very mistaken you haven't got a safety pilot and I believe that's in contravention of the ANO

[Jay28]

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. 

 

 

 

 

[Jay28]

Forgot to mention, the other guy flying is flying regular line of sight so he is irrelevant in this.

[Steve W-O]

It looks from the video as if the collision was intentional?

 

To be honest, there are few model videos I enjoy, and none of them have musical engines/motors.  I enjoy most music (except rap, but that isn't music!) but I fail to see what it adds to a model aeroplane video, it just destroys any atmosphere the video may have had.

 

Sorry, for me, the video doesn't show any achievement, nothing to vote for

[kiwi g]

FPV dogfighting ... cool.

In theory its a fun thing. in reality, could be dangerous and havent we just had a thread on dangerous, remember FPV wasnt too popular with the fun police either.

 

 

[001]

It is obvious that the FPV pilot could not have seen the other plane immediately before it hit him. If he had been flying EO then he would not have been in that situation. Even with a spotter, whose reaction time would not have saved him.

 

A pretty poor advert for FPV. And for anyone thinking of taking it up.

I didnt enjoy the video.

 

I have nothing against FPV, as long as it is carried out far away from sensitive areas. 

[David perry 1]

A rather poor video, blatantly posted in some sort of effort to get us to pay for your poor operating, rendered even worse by unsympathetic (and to my ear cacophonous) music.

 

I admit that the gift of seeing as per FPV is probably worth having, but it doesn't warrant the video. Or the expense actually.  Sorry Jay.

 

Out of interest Jay, what DID this crash cost you?  And did you flinch instinctively when you were hit? 

 

D 

Edited By David perry 1 on 11/11/2010 08:28:08  Changed "poor flying" to "poor operating"

Edited By David perry 1 on 11/11/2010 08:28:46

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Jay,

 

It's possible you had a spotter but in what way were they in charge of the aircraft without a buddy lead?

 

From the current BMFA handbook:

 

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.
This is a strict legal requirement

 

It also explains that BMFA insurance is not valid unless the buddy lead conditions are adhered to - which may or may not concern you.

 

To be fair, I hadn't made it clear that I also looked at some of your other videos where you are clearly flying alone and in some cases over built up areas and not in compliance, in my opinion, with the ANO.

 

I am trying to advise you for your own good and for the good of other modellers who might be caught up in the backlash from any adverse publicity. If you are operating with the full approval of the CAA then you have my best wishes for many enjoyable flights in the future.

[Jay28]

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

[Jay28]

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Sorry but I do find it rather hard to accept that your lady friend who may or may not be a competent flier can be defined as being the pilot in command when not able to physically intervene and being subject to the vagaries of a ground to ground radio link.

 

I'm glad that you take the law seriously but posting videos with no apparent PIC is the sort of ammunition that could be used against model fliers if someone with a vested interest wanted to make a point.  Saying that motorists speeding hasn't result in driving being banned is stretching the point a bit but it has resulted in the introduction of speed traps, cameras and other devices to detect the offences leading to minor inadvertent transgressors being prosecuted - not that you can argue against this in law but an example of the excesses of a minority impinging on the generally law abiding.

 

If the CAA have specifically approved your operating procedure then it's fair enough but to be frank, getting the OK from an MP who probably has no understanding of the subject may not protect you in the event that the CAA take exception.

[Jay28]

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. 

 

 

 

 

[Jay28]

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 Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Jay28 on 11/11/2010 15:59:54:

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.

 

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? 

 

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. 

Edited By Martin Harris on 11/11/2010 16:48:01

[flytilbroke]

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.

[Jay28]

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! 

[Jay28]

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? 

[001]

Why am I incorrect?.... You knew where he was?  Just before the impact I can briefly see the other aircraft as a light dot in a dark background. Having watched it several times from the comfort of my desk, it is not possible to get any clue as to orientation or direction of travel.

He did a half loop - so he was underneath you, in your blind spot?

'He did not see where I was'. Yet you had agreed with him that you would follow him. And he was watching from the ground, It just doesn't add up.

[kiwi g]

, to quote Jay28.

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.

 

YOU MUST BE KIDDING

Your FPV flight only once turned to the side for a look. You have no rear view. and a very limited peripheral.  You had no way of avoiding the collision because you didnt even see it coming.

 

If you fly LOS and focus solely on your plane and your plane only then I would suggest that you also dont drive your car home after the flying session .

 

[Peter Beeney]

   We have a club member that dabbles a bit with the slightly unorthodox and unusual electric toys, including FPV. As I remarked in another thread somewhere, this is currently residing in an o/d model, with 4 electric motors in contra-rotating prop configuration. It also doubles as a glider tug etc. He doesn’t tend to fly the model himself much anyway, preferring to just watch someone else fly it; and in FPV mode I’m not at all sure he could be persuaded to fly it at all, even though we would use the buddy system. He just wears the glasses/goggles/visor, I’m not sure of the technical description, as do the rest of the gang in turn, admiring themselves watching the model!
   I really like this, so much so that I’m seriously considering getting my own gear, but I would attempt to eventually progress to the true FPV mode.

   It seems to me that Jay has seriously done his homework here, in fact, I would rate very seriously, highly commendable in my book at least, I certainly realised the importance of this a long time ago if you were going to pontificate on something. Are there any consultancy vacancies in the world of FPV?
   Provided I can sign in to the website I’ll certainly give it a vote. I can always turn the sound off if I want, I usually do anyway. I shall treat his thread almost as a definitive word on the subject, at least as far as the rules are concerned.
   Re the driving bit, remembering back (just!) to buying my first motor cycle, the salesman pushed the bike just round the corner from the shop, helped me fix the L plates, showed me how to start it, and then gave me a push off. That was it. Luckily I’d had plenty of practise in the local woods and fields beforehand, and some treasured lessons on my best mate’s older brother’s Matchless G80. The test was similar, going round and round the block, the examiner dodging to and fro in the little street between. I guess it’s all a bit different now.

   So, all we really need now is to strap one of these onto one of those fast gas turbines in another thread that’s getting some pretty avid attention at the moment, fly in a suitable spot, near a nice low arched river bridge springs to mind, post on a popular area of YouTube and the forum would really start to bubble away nicely. I think the pilot’s running commentary would also be mandatory, to make a colourful background to an interesting two minute flight! Or would that perhaps be two seconds?                  PB                     

                                                                                                                                 

[Jay28]

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 

  

 

[Jay28]

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!

 

[Jay28]

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

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]