New FPV rules effective March 2014

[Bandit]

As usual, good to see so much activity on the FPV board, thanks so much for contributing everyone.

Pity a lot is said by those who have no interest in FPV, but it does clear up a few things which was my intention.

I did think that comment about observers being competent and just looking out for air traffic would NOT be right by our insurance and I recon you'd be silly to do that.

Interesting thoughts about quantifying a competent observer, my thoughts exactly as I have had experience of observers looking away which is why I kind of question the 1000ft. My personal opinion is 1000ft is a bit too high but nice to have the option.

Our club discusses FPV to the point where no-one really knows what the rules are any more, we went through a stage of a new rule virtually every month but that seems to have calmed down with the hype that surrounds FPV.

Best to check stuff out in a discussion than to go out and get in trouble I say

Edited By Bandit on 18/12/2013 15:53:35

[Pete B]

Posted by Erfolg on 18/12/2013 14:47:41:

Having read the discussion, I think all, although perhaps not registering all salient points. I do think from the discussion there is one term that needs defining, if it has not been done already.

That is the term "competent observer".

The obvious first question is, what makes a person competent to observe.

The second is, what is the role and duties.

I've already posted the relevant section on page 1 but I'll repeat it again. It clearly states the role and responsibilities of the 'competent observer':

7) The person in charge must ensure that:
a) the competent observer is fully briefed on the planned flight and what is expected of him/her taking into account the prevailing conditions;
b) the competent observer understands that he/she must stay directly adjacent to the person in charge and maintain direct unaided visual contact with the SUA at all times, to visually and aurally monitor the airspace for other aircraft and the take-off and landing area for any persons;
c) the competent observer has been instructed on the actions to take in the event of another aircraft being spotted and a risk of collision is assessed; and
d) the competent observer understands that he/she must advise if the SUA is proceeding beyond the point at which he/she is able to monitor its flight path sufficiently to identify a risk of collision.

That, to me, is pretty straightforward. What is expected is that the 'competent observer' has sufficient situational awareness as to be not only aware of where the model is, and what it is doing, but also to be alive to what is happening in the sky around the model, using ears and eyes to detect the presence of another aircraft.

It's not unusual to hear a GA light aircraft or helicopter long before you see it - the observer is there to react to that sound, identify the location and direction of travel and warn the flyer of any action which needs to be taken.

'Competent' to me would suggest that the observer would be capable of making a judgement which results in a safe deconfliction between model and full-size, should the situation demand it, no more, no less.

I get some GA activity where I fly, as i'm sure many of us encounter. If I'm alone, I err on the side of discretion until I'm quite satisfied that a conflict is not likely to occur. If I'm flying with a mate, I'll expect him to remain alive to the situation too and advise me if he suspects I'm not fully aware myself.

This is all pretty straightforward for LOS fliers - but add a set of goggles and that 'quick scan of the sky' is out of the question. That's why the CAA are insistent upon the need for a separate observer - quite obvious, I'd have thought?.....

I really don't think the question of relying upon the insurance should be permitted to cloud the discussion - if any incident reaches the stage where insurance is involved, it's all much too late anyway.....

As far as the rules are concerned, the CAA have drawn up a set which should adequately cover the circumstances of most fliers without making them so proscriptive as to be unrealistic and over-complicated. That said, it's a matter of commonsense that a 24" diameter quad is going to be at the limit of viewable distance a lot lower than a 2m fixed-wing. The heights given are limits, not targets, after all.

I honestly think Bandit IS after good sound advice and I'll continue to offer my considered take on matters, which I'm sure is the intention of other posters

Pete

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

after reading that pete I have to agree with you, everything you need is there

also confident that lads at our field have it covered. they have read all this.

should have read it fully myself, things have gone so well, I never felt the need

should have took my own advice. (its all there read it)

[Erfolg]

Well Pete, I certainly missed that job description. It does seem to be pretty comprehensive.

The description also indicates that the role is not one to be taken lightly, is intrinsic to both safety and successful flying. Although it may not be seen as needing the same level of skill as the controller of the model, there is a need to have a high level of awareness and the ability to communicate effectively.

It seems to me that successful FP flying is a team effort, not a single person activity, however you (may wish to) consider the activity. On that basis the observer needs to recognise that there role is important, it is an active role, not just there to help if called upon.

[PatMc]

In practice I would expect that most of the time the observer would be fellow FPV flyer taking it in turns with his mate. Might even be that some clubs of FPVers rotate their role in much the same way as thermal glider pilots do with their towmen.
After all mutual help & interests are what clubs are about.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Bandit on 18/12/2013 15:36:03:

As usual, good to see so much activity on the FPV board, thanks so much for contributing everyone.

Pity a lot is said by those who have no interest in FPV, but it does clear up a few things which was my intention.

 

Why's it a pity Bandit? I suspect that those non-FPV flyers posting mostly have the overall interests of their clubs and the hobby at heart.

Personally, I'd enjoy an opportunity to try FPV but have no interest in investing a lot of money in my own equipment at this time. I'd like to think I have an open mind on the subject but if I see something that makes me uncomfortable then I'll speak out - and I'd be delighted to find out that any fears were unfounded.

I think that's a preferential attitude to the "ban it brigade" who I would also oppose if they raised their head at my club! My gut feeling is that we should stick to the original buddy lead requirement which we adopted into our rules given certain site limitations, but the decision would be that of the club in general and committee in particular.

Edited By Martin Harris on 18/12/2013 19:13:49

[Bandit]

Pity because many are the 'ban it brigade'

[PatMc]

Posted by Bandit on 18/12/2013 23:26:28:

Pity because many are the 'ban it brigade'

What makes you think that ?

[Bandit]

must be because we have a 'collective chip on our shoulder' to quote an earlier post of yours Pat

[PatMc]

Bandit, your confusing the activity with some of those who pursue it.

[Bandit]

And there I thought hunting had been outlawed

[Pete B]

Hang on a minute, Bandit - from what I've seen in this thread so far, apart from an understandably sharp response to an ill-judged comment from yourself, the guys have been trying to be constructive and helpful in their contributions.

Despite not being FPV fliers themselves, they have taken the time and trouble to discuss and clarify the rules on FPV flight for your benefit - and they apparently have an understanding which seems to be sadly lacking in your fellow club members!

Although I'm sure there must be some who watch or contribute to this forum, not one FPV flier has bothered to comment here, as far as I can see. Why is that? It does makes me wonder if they are interested enough in the rules to either discuss them, or indeed to help out a fellow modeller.....

If there are any FPV fliers following this, I'd be happy to be proved wrong, by the way!

The reason we think might think that some FPV fliers have a 'chip on their shoulder' is that, all too often, their unwillingness or outright refusal to accept any form of regulation results in them taking a defensive stance when questioned about their attitude. That's the only reason.

Frankly, Bandit, unless you can appreciate that the time and trouble that has gone into this thread has been largely directed towards helping you, I see little point in continuing the discussion. If you are really concerned about flying within the existing rules, you may find the answers on a dedicated FPV forum......

Pete

[Bandit]

Yes I have already thanked those who contributed, and I think that little tongue in cheek quotation of Pat 'collective chip on shoulder' was worth a laugh.

As far as I was concerned the subject had moved-on and the ruled clarified, thanks again for those who missed my earlier post which I will gladly quote and re-post if necessary, and the clarified rules.

Ill judged it may seem the comment about insurance, it was a representation of the advice to that point in the subject. I don't regret the comment, and glad it cleared-up the subject even if I suffered some abuse.

It IS a pity about who contributes, I think it brings up something disturbing, why am I the only one who fly's FPV contributing or maybe one of very few? Are they not interested in the new rules which allow them more freedom?

Perhaps they took their 'collective' selves away from the pursuers which maybe explains a chip or two

Your sincerely

Lop-sided shoulders

Bandit

[Erfolg]

Many of us who are not FPV flyers are interested for potentially a number of reasons. Firstly, it is another branch of model flight. A second is that potentially the rules that govern conventional RC flying are either identical, or are related.

I still find the term, competent, something which is rather nebulous. Does it mean, they are aware of what the duties are? Perhaps additionally their eye sight is adequate, there are no hearing issues. Maybe they should have experience of flying a model?

[Pete B]

I suppose the CAA had to have an adjective to describe the observer - couldn't just have anyone, could they?

If an incident ever made it to Court, then the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' principle would be applied, ie, what would a reasonable person consider to be the qualities required of a 'competent observer'?

Physically capable? - yes.

Mentally alert? - yes.

Capable of understanding the brief? - yes

Previous experience of model-flying? Desirable but not essential., IMHO. The current rules don't mention anything about the observer taking control at any time.

Pete

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Bandit on 19/12/2013 11:44:20:

I don't regret the comment, and glad it cleared-up the subject even if I suffered some abuse.

Well you should regret the comment, it was extremely ill advised and displayed an inappropriate attitude to safety. And if you feel abused by the posters on this thread then I can only say you must have lived an extrordinarily sheltered life. No one has abused you, what people have tried to do is get you you understand your responsibilities and your obligations under the CAA regulations, that's all.

BEB

[Erfolg]

Well you live and learn, I had thought it was an adverb, but then again i have always been rubbish at the English language.

I do take the gist of what you have written,. Although I do not think the term "Competent" was idly added as a modification of "Observer".

Again taking your point, I expect the term is added to ensure that the observer is not merely a cosmetic adjunct to the FPV flier. I guess they are telling us, if your assistant is not of legal age to be held accountable, if the assistant is not aware of the responsibilities of the ANO, or maybe they are playing on their I Pad, and so on, you and they may have a problem, dependent on what has occurred, and caused the authorities to turned their beady eyes onto you.

I also guess they are emphasising, do not even think of flying by yourself and also when you take on the role of observer, you have responsibilities, that you may have to defend, potentially in a Court of Law.

[Pete B]

Blimey, Erf, you had me going for a moment - but a quick check confirms it is an adjective

I think you've got it in a nutshell....

Pete

[Bandit]

Back from my little sheltered island I shall repeat what I have said

I do not regret the comment as it was a representation of the advice from the thread that far (up till when I posted it). And as I said, I am glad it cleared-up a few things and that will surely put all those who read this thread in mind of CAA regulations.

In this sheltered life we live we do notice that little bit of editing/deleting of said abuse, as that was a little off sides in a forum for people looking for some friendly advice from my fellow flyers if they wear goggle or not.

Perhaps a little think before we type is in order on both sides of the goggles I agree.

Still that question I put as to the disturbing lack of input/inclusion/contribution or whatever you want to call it from the thousands of terrible FPV flyers out there flaunting the rules and clubbing baby seals etc. Perhaps a little less attack would be better in order to entice those thousands to this wonderful forum.

Remember a kid out there who gets a quad for his birthday or something does not know the BMFA, BMFA?? is that an App??rules what rules?, or any of this. He might look on a forum...

Honestly instead of concentrating your efforts on me and bad FPV flyers can we contribute to the topic, I have stood corrected how many times must I repeat this?

I agree with Pete on the observer and that surely has to be the only way to interpret what they mean.

Yours sincerely

lop-sided shoulders

Bandit - unedited

[ken anderson.]

this thread has been up and down? ....... in our club of 112 members we have one who is interested/going to try FPV .......we are in controlled airspace and as such have to go with the ANO order etc......it would be interesting for to find out(if possible) how many forum members are interested and intend having a go with the FPV's......we had a visit from a non member who had purchased some equipment...and when we pointed out to him the ANO/BMFA STUFF he said he wasn't really interested in rules and reg's and left.......so I wonder how many people-young and old will be getting some form of FPV for Christmas and wont have the slightest idea about any ANO's/BMFA'S or CAA's.......when it go's pear shaped it will be the rule abiding flyer's who will be tarnished with the brush.....

ken Anderson....ne....1.......my opinion dept...not intended to upset any readers........

PS......i'll be amazed if someone can see an 18"dia FPV machine 1000ft from the ground.......

[Bandit]

I have a buddy who phoned me up and said he bought a plane or two on e bay and wanted to fly them.

I told him about BMFA insurance and becoming a member of a proper club and same response, what do you do the guy is an adult. He crashed one then asked me to help with his flying so I made him get BMFA insurance and a pass to fly at a local patch which solved the issue for me.... but FPV or not how many don't even bother to find out.

I was at a fairly well known field between Christmas and New year a few years back, I packed-up and went home after a while. It seems the information is available as to where one can fly a model plane but is failing to emphasise the responsibilities somehow.

I can remember it like it was yesterday hearing a plane start up behind me and crash very close to me while I tried to concentrate on my Piper cub. I thought that was the end of it till next flight another engine started and a full size go-kart suddenly appeared on the tarmac well that was time to call it a day as far as I was concerned. Fortunately the Cub isn't too frisky or I am sure I would have crashed it.

So with these stories in mind, none of the above mentioned included FPV and with a lot of these quads and little FPV planes why would they even bother to look for a flying field the park will do for them. Not to mention no training.

One of the most common FPV planes out there is stuff like the Bixler whish isn't a huge wingspan (white) so that query about seeing it at 1000ft was sort of why this topic sparked off, LOS yeah right that naughty lot will stick to LOS, they never even heard of LOS or the words competent observer.

There is a guy who fly's FPV at our club with one of those fancy DJI quads. Its fine if there is some contrast behind it but if he goes up where white clouds are behind it you blink and you have lost it .Even at about 100ft or maybe less I'm not a portable distance meter.

Personally I cannot FPV a quad it makes me want to fall over and I have when I tried.

There is a lot to be discussed on the subject, if we talking about it rationally, I am sure the solutions are reachable.

Like buying a television they ask for a TV licence which annoys me a little as if I watch TV it is Discovery channel or National Geographic but is it not possible to do something similar with RC aircraft of all descriptions, I don't know it might help people realise there are regulations before the crash into aunty betty walking her dog in the high street.

The more Numpties like me mention FPV in here, the more likely the lad who gets a quad will see it in a google search and come a read-up. That has to be good for FPV and modelling in general

lop-sided broad shoulders

Bandit - unedited

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Bandit on 19/12/2013 16:07:38:

In this sheltered life we live we do notice that little bit of editing/deleting of said abuse, as that was a little off sides in a forum for people looking for some friendly advice from my fellow flyers if they wear goggle or not.

I wouldn't read too much into that if I were you Bandit - it wasn't edited - it was aciidently deleted. I'd be very happy to repeat it for you if you forget the lesson.

BEB

[Bandit]

I wouldn't start an argument as a moderator not nice for the forum.

Hey listen repeating is my gig anyhow so no copying!

And I never forget..and very observant on this island

Lip-sided broad shouldered

Bandit

[Erfolg]

Bandit

I have not been asked for a TV licence, since, well I do not know when, it was so far back.

Are you advocating we should have to buy a licence, to fly a model?

In my opinion, I do not see a problem with RC and the sub set of FPV models, as it stands.

Although it pains me, I acknowledge that the BMFA has been part of a general improvement in safe operation of models. I believe this has come about from the sharing of experiences and the BMFA setting down safe ways of operating, within the ANO, which are also set out to ensure that models are operated safely. My beef with the BMFA is that they see only one way of being safe, so it seems, in every case, there way.

At present I see no need or benefit from licencing.

You are correct, it is people like yourself posting issues, that stimulates discussion, which broadens our education. It is the process taking in information, considering what it might mean, which helps us all (or at least me) be aware of responsibilities. Of course common sense should never be far away from guiding us.

I will confess, I do not know the clauses and sub clauses of the ANO, and i do consider it anal to be able to recite them. For me it is enough to know the requirements and principles of the regulations that is sufficient. Again I recognise that the BMFA takes the requirements and converts them into operating procedures, which should be (or are) guidance in how to comply. Yes, it is postings such as your own that stimulates discussion, consideration of issue and helps in stimulating personal investigation, which educates, provides the stimulation to think, filling in the missing gaps and misunderstandings.

As for being abused, well, I have got used to it, ranging from other forum members and even Moderators. Some will always disagree with your and my view, it does not them right, nor does it make my views right.

I have now been married some 40 years and come to recognise, that even when right, a superior power will always in some instances refuse to acknowledge there is the slightest possibility that you may have the slightest case. My greatest triumph with being abused, happened as a project manager. A contractor was attempting to wind me up. By remaining calm, we just disagreed. Probably the next day, the guy came to see me and said, you know, I was so angry, yesterday, I could not sleep last night, your implacable response infuriated me. Being thick I did not even recognise what he was attempting to do. Seems the motto should always be "stay calm" and you stand a chance of winning when right, get angry and you loose. Any way where is my angry head

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Bandit on 19/12/2013 18:31:00:

I wouldn't start an argument as a moderator

But you're not - so that point's academic.

BEB