New FPV rules effective March 2014

[Bandit]

Hi Erfolg,

Great post, my spellcheck doesn't like you name by the way.

I don't advocate licencing but maybe some sort of reference to a BMFA membership number which might help, it's probably not practical but hey ho its an idea off the top of the bit above my lop-sided broad shoulders.

I think BMFA is great which might surprise an old brother.

But honestly I was in the old Curry's here buying a flat screen for my darling who shall be obeyed and they told me I had to give my details so they could check I had a TV licence.

Lop-sided broad shouldered unedited

Bandit

[Bandit]

That's a for advice not academic

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by ken anderson. on 19/12/2013 16:49:05:

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.......

ken

all clubs have had people turn up with bad attitudes, its a personality thing not specific to fpv

size of model limits the height we all fly at, not a given number. (other than controlled airspace + ANO's)

somebody could go buy a jet, heli, spitfire etc and tarnish rest of us.

also there are people at clubs up and down the country showing fpv can be safe

the words can be safe , applies to us all

[Bandit]

Can you imagine a proper jet turbine

[ken anderson.]

hello john-I agree with all you have printed ......

ken Anderson ne..1 ......big picture dept...

[Bandit]

I agree with all john printed and what ken printed because ken is a forum god

Lop-sided broad shouldered disciple of ken

Bandit

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I'm getting a little lost now...!

Can I make an attempt at summarising?

Bandit thinks that he can bring the new rules to the attention of existing and potential FPVers by posting in this forum but is disappointed that few of them have taken an interest in the thread.

He feels that the model flying community at large is against FPV flying.

Hopefully the responses here from the mainstream enthusiasts will give him some reassurance that we are not against his favoured form of the hobby and I certainly don't know of any strong opposition from anyone at my club - some indifference maybe.

What does concern people is irresponsible operation by ANY model flyer that could result in negative publicity for the hobby. There may also be some unease at the direction taken by the CAA in allowing larger models with less rigorous control - a subject which some of us feel is worth discussing in a rational manner, it having been drawn to our attention by the thread.

I certainly hope that responsible FPV flying can prosper and Bandit can feel that the chip (of which I can actually find no original reference to) can be taken off his shoulder now.

[Bandit]

I'd prefer Bandit was not summarised as this is a topic and the topic is what could be summarised but nothing is agreed or can be agreed to here so cannot be summarised

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Just trying to understand what you're looking for from the thread - the summary was really posed as a question to you...

Edited By Martin Harris on 20/12/2013 01:02:56

[scott finnie]

As an ex FPV'r i can understand where many are coming from but i feel the CAA are too late to address a growing issue where people are flying way beyond what could ever be classed as legal, the furthest i ever felt comfortable to fly was 2000ft, i had a spotter and also flew off a screen so at any point i could look up at my aircraft, i simply cannot watch videos online of people exceeding 10 MILES! in the Uk , i sometimes fly at my local golf club when certain holes are out of use for maintenance but i always have feelings and worry for the general public well being. When i started my short lived aerial photography company the fpv side of things was relatively new, it was exciting at the start but i became aware too quickly of the huge safety and insurance issues and thats what started to hamper alot of our work, hey ho though it was a little venture and i now feel far more firmly on my feet and happier. There was always just too much to go wrong....

Scott

[scott finnie]

I would also like to add though that i had the fantastic opportunity to sit on a seat with a set of goggles on and see from an fpv view what someone was doing at the local field, this was a view from an acro-wot generally flying around and it was a rush, i kept shouting pull up , so there are benefits for other people other than the pilot to experience a different kind of thrill . With the pilot side of fpv i never felt confortable, i could never see around the aircraft and the cost for pan and tilt ect ect id rather spend my money on a ben buckle kit

[Bandit]

What I am looking for ?

I think I have twice said my concerns have been answered.

And please don't say I said the model comunity is against FPV as I never said that.

If you go back I said some that are contributing.

In my own experience most modlers are interested in FPV

this time edited

Edited By Bandit on 20/12/2013 01:40:39

Edited By Bandit on 20/12/2013 01:46:01

Edited By Bandit on 20/12/2013 01:50:52

[Bandit]

Furthermore the disapointment is with the non participation of FPV flyers in the forum topic - there are few..

Also note that FPV is not my favoured form of the hobby it is simply one of them.

My concerns are shared and FPV will continue to be safe under the BMFA guidelines as clarified in this thread and the reference to the chip is from another thread.

Bandit is happy with his chip as it is now cherished

FPV will maybe, one day be discussed without over-reaction.

I sit here watching an advert for a Hubsan FPV set-up flashing on the screen as I type advertised as 'eye in the sky' and wonder if the buyer will receive any information about the regulations regarding flying the plane.

Remember the buyer could see that product on some google search like 'toys for chirtmas' maybe.

If they do then I stand corrected but I doubt it .

[Erfolg]

Bare in mind it is not any lack of adherence to BMFA guidelines that lead to prosecution it is the breach of UK laws and regulations. They are not necessarily the same.

I have not had the slightest bit of concern with respect to large models (as Martin mentioned). Although the recent RCM&E ARTF 10 foot Lancaster did cause me to pause and wonder. Hmm is this is where the trade is heading, does it matter. At the moment there is no issue, those who are attracted to buy such models, seem responsible and well informed. The time to worry when there is some tangible evidence that a problem is arising.

By and large I have few worries with FPV models, Std RC Models and tend to think that it is often ourselves who are the main threat, trying to impose restrictions, not necessarily the authorities. Yet jobs worths are part of every set of communities and have to be lived with and resisted when appropriate.

At present I think we should welcome any reduction in restrictions, and self regulate ourselves to ensure that we have safe behaviours within the constraints of UK laws and regulations.

I think it must be Merry Christmas and good will to all humankind time.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Bandit on 20/12/2013 02:23:09:

Furthermore the disapointment is with the non participation of FPV flyers in the forum topic - there are few..

Also note that FPV is not my favoured form of the hobby it is simply one of them.

My concerns are shared and FPV will continue to be safe under the BMFA guidelines as clarified in this thread and the reference to the chip is from another thread.

Bandit is happy with his chip as it is now cherished

FPV will maybe, one day be discussed without over-reaction.

But therein lies the confusion - on my and I suspect Martin's - part. No one has attacked FPV. You see Bandit reading back through this thread I can find no evidence of "over-reaction" or any other form of overt hostility to FPV. In fact I can see a lot of mildly interested general debate about the rule change, its interpretation and consequences.

Things only got heated after your comment on insurance. The "bone of contention" as far as I am concerned has nothing to do with FPV, I would have exactly the same concerns about a non-FPV flyer making such a statement, effectively saying an accident has no worthwhile consequences as it all covered by insurance. And, to compound matters, you have gone on to say that you do not regret making this statement. This is what is bothering me and others - not the fact that the statement was made by an FPV-flyer, or in the context of FPV, all that is immaterial to me. It is that it was made at all, by any RC flyer.

BEB

[Erfolg]

I think we should remember "you cannot insure against an illegal act".

My interpretation of that is that if what you have done is illegal, there is a very real danger that your insurance will not cover it, particularly if it can be shown that you knowingly acted in breach of the law.

I guess Bandits comments were meant more along the lines, that insurance provides peace of mind, in the case of an accident.

I guess most of us have insurance on this basis and a believe that it is the responsible thing to do, for us. Although I would defend the right of children, foam models for parks and indoor flight, kite flyers et al not to have insurance if they deem it unnecessary.

[Chris Jones 7]

Hi, I'm Chris and I'm an FPV flyer!

In response to Bandits disappointment at the lack of comment by FPV flyers I can only say that for me the relaxation of rules are of little relevance. I FPV a dead cat quad and an electric Mini Panic, both of which are a little boring to fly at any real height hence although I've done it I have largely given up. The ground hardly moves and my GoPro doesn't have a zoom so anything filmed looks tiny.

I have been know to fly without a spotter, (and I have said my Hail Mary's to repent!) but as I mentioned this is always at very low level and in remote areas where the chances of anyone straying into my way is very slim. If at a club field or anywhere I am remotely likely to bump into someone then I ask someone to keep an eye out for me and to alert me to any ground or air movement into the flying area. I also follow best practise with regards to failsafe etc.

My point is that I wonder if the lack of response to the relaxation of the rules stems from the fact that most FPV modellers are not even pushing the boundaries as they are currently and therefore don't really care about even more freedom?

[Bandit]

Thanks for the reply.

Yes like I have said before the statement about the insurance was a representation of the advice that far in the thread and was meant to query the logic - mission accomplished.

How can I regret what ultimately cleared-up the point about the insurance and how the guidelines should be interpreted, possibly the problem was omitting a question mark which is something I have not the power rectify.

The comment I made was 'insurance will cover the rest 'wink' thanks for the info' - yeah wink like that's going to be the case with an observer sitting on a bench away from the flight line...

I am glad you have cleared up we are not hostile to FPV and hope that future posts on FPV will visibly see support and positive guidance rather than advice to go fly on an island somewhere which helps nobody.

This was my 'bone of contention', and to compound the matter the comment seemed to disappear like magic which is probably confusing Martin and others including myself as the advice is now gone which had to have contained something useful for all.

So perhaps now we can move-on with the discussion.

This response from myself is not a wind-up but a response to a direct question and I think I have responded in a civil manner and never do I try upset anyone.

Bandit

[Bandit]

Posted by Chris Jones 7 on 20/12/2013 13:22:06:

Hi, I'm Chris and I'm an FPV flyer!

In response to Bandits disappointment at the lack of comment by FPV flyers I can only say that for me the relaxation of rules are of little relevance. I FPV a dead cat quad and an electric Mini Panic, both of which are a little boring to fly at any real height hence although I've done it I have largely given up. The ground hardly moves and my GoPro doesn't have a zoom so anything filmed looks tiny.

My point is that I wonder if the lack of response to the relaxation of the rules stems from the fact that most FPV modellers are not even pushing the boundaries as they are currently and therefore don't really care about even more freedom?

Hi Chris wow you are the guy with the quad cat!

Have to confess 400ft to 1000ft, one GIANT leap for fpvkind

Glad to make your acquaintance and sure you will be flying with a spotter in future like the guys have been recommending in this topic

Great to have you here

Bandit

[Chris Jones 7]

Hi Bandit nice to meet you too,

Just to clear up, mine is not the original dead cat of YouTube fame but the HK dead cat quad. I would hate to be a famous FPVer, they just get into trouble.

Also I do fly with a spotter - I said, "I have been known to fly without a spotter". Not that I now fly without one, that would be silly. (actually I can as I have permission to fly on an old MOD unit and don't fly above building level when I'm there. Building are all disused and no one cares if I break a window or put a dent in the floor! I'm a lucky guy!)

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Chris,

I was unaware that flying from MOD land exempts you from the ANO requirement for a spotter. Is this really the case?

If not, perhaps posting this information on a public forum might not be in anyone's best interest.

Edited By Martin Harris on 20/12/2013 23:32:16

[Bandit]

Martin he does say he does now fly with a spotter.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Quite right, but goes on to say that it's OK to fly unsupported from MOD land.

[Bandit]

If that is a question then I expect the answer is no.
I am sure the gidelines nor the ANO does not make any special reference to MOD land.
I am sure that if this is the case it makes us wiser. With that in mind that surely is something he realised an has stopped him from flying without a spotter.

Edited By Bandit on 21/12/2013 11:51:49

[Chris Jones 7]

Jeez, you guys are harsh!

For public record then.

1. I have flown without a spotter in the past.

2. I now have a more comprehensive knowledge of the rules than when I started and always use a spotter.

Hope that clears up any misunderstanding my previous post created. And no the use of MOD land does not create any ANO exemptions, (unless of course your flying in dirty great big hangers!)

Chris

Edited By Chris Jones 7 on 21/12/2013 14:03:08

Edited By Chris Jones 7 on 21/12/2013 14:10:55