FPV Dogfight

[Jay28]

Posted by Phil Wood on 11/11/2010 21:26:04:

You just got my vote Jay.

 

Pol.

 Thank you very much!

[kiwi g]

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!

 

Jay  . Im all for the advance in fun things.

You driving home in FPV is true but I guarantee that you head and eyes are moving alot more than they are when flying FPV and you are alot more aware of your surroundings.

 

The problem I have isnt really who right and whos wrong , Its when a aircraft approaches from a blind angle ,the FPV is not in a situation to react no matter how good the said spotter may be. Not the FPVs fault

What if the FPV is flying into the path of another aircraft with out the FPV pilot being aware., with the LOS aircraft that situation is usually avoided before the problem escalates.

I like the idea of FPV following another aircraft, its as close to real flying youd get.

Im just trying to make a point about blind spots . Sure it could be argued that two or three FPVs flying together wouldnt be a issue as the intersepting plane should see the plane its due to hit.

But two LOS planes should never be in that situation unless they are dogfighting.

 

 

Like I said previous . FPV dogfighting would be cool. . but dont show a accident, its only going to cause trouble.

Theres a similar video on vimeo that has a float plane in FPV and being followed by another FPV plane . the footage is awesome.

 

[Jay28]

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!

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Jay28 on 11/11/2010 18:34:25:

 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,

 I have to admit to some surprise that the CAA has agreed that this procedure complies with the intent of the legislation - do you have agreement in writing?

 

Surely the idea that as soon as the PIC detects a situation that could result in a collision or loss of control, they then take control and return the model to a safe situation. You seem to be suggesting that the CAA have accepted that your PIC could be negotiating fields or driving on a public road on a quad while somehow guiding you over a radio link (handsfree, I assume). Are you certain that they haven't simply assumed that your PIC is standing nearby and able to physically take control and that your question related simply to the use of buddy leads?

[Jay28]

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!

 

 

 

 

 

[001]

First of all I did not accuse you of lying, I just said that things did not add up.

It is common to go through an experience and then rationalise after the event.

 

I wondered where the children mentioned that you were talking to, but could not see, whilst flying came from and who was supervising them. (Are they yours, or just passing by?)

 

First of all you state 'in the sticks miles away from anything' then,' near a small village in the middle of nowhere' then 'when the kids ask me where my bird is in the sky' !

 

So how did they come to be on your flying site?

 

If near a village, how near? 500 metres?, 800 metres or as I expect you will say, just a dot in the distance on your screen when your camera is up!

 

In the sticks, miles away from anything, to me, means just that, farmland or heathland without a building for miles. Very rare in the UK.

Again it doesn't add up.

[MarkyMarc]

Richard,

 

Give Jay28 a break.  He's doing nothing wrong, illegal or dangerous.  Let's celebrate the wonderful diversity this hobby of ours can conjour up.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Jay,

 

Please don't feel I'm trying to "have a go" at your operation of what is a lightweight model and you seem to have a generally responsible and well researched attitude - despite the impression given by some of your videos such as the "crash" one where you state "Flying too low, too fast and behind obstacles it's bound to lead to problems".

 

It's the sensationalist impression given that I feel is potentially damaging to the hobby in general and if the CAA are happy that you are operating within the law then I can have no argument with that and can only wish you good luck and happy flying.

[Jay28]

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

 

 

 

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Jay28]

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

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Jay28]

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! 

 

 

 

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Jay28]

 

 

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

[Eck]

Could mean "Easy On-Screen Display", Pol!

[Jay28]

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.

[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.