CAA prosecutes flyer

[leccyflyer]

How do we know that the model was not fitted with FPV equipment? IIRC there were earlier statements that the model was actually equipped with FPV equipment, bit it was not being operated during the flight. Now there are declarations that it was not an FPV capable aircraft - where is that information coming from? From the prosecuted party?

Like I said, the flightpath on that video, towards the end, flying straight along the channel, with a gradual, apparently controlled descent to pass very close to the bridge, does not look anything like an uncontrolled flyaway.

[Bearair]

I've already shown in the thread how we know, please please read the thread. The model was not fitted with a video tx, How many times to how many people do I have to repeat information contained in the thread. But do you not think if the CAA thought that the model was equipped to fly FPV they would of prosecuted him for breaking those regulations aswell?

[leccyflyer]

I've read the thread and the evidence presented that the model was equipped to be FPV capable, but, for some reason was not actually being flown FPV is slim to non-existent. The course corrections to fly along the channel, towards the bridge, strongly suggest, to me at least, that the model was under control at that point. I haven't read the threads on the FPV hub forums, so that is why i am asking that question, regarding the evidence presented for that assertion.

Lining up a model being flown solely by LOS, to overfly the bridge with such a degree of precision, from a point laterally removed from that point, would be a matter of considerable piloting skill, and probably far beyond the capabilities of an unmanned, unpiloted, uncontrolled wing in undirected flight.

That doesn't look like a flyaway and the story doesn't pass the sniff test. Why should the story about the FPV equipment being fitted, but not operating, be considered in any other light.

Edited By leccyflyer on 06/04/2014 11:17:06

[John Privett]

Leccyflyer, agreed the video looks nothing like an uncontrolled 'flyaway', so the question is, "How was the flight controlled?"

Now it might have been flown by FPV. But if that is the case, why did the constant, gradual descent continue after nearly hitting the bridge? Surely he'd have climbed and turned back to base.

More likely, it seems to me, it's on a GPS-guided pre-programmed flight. For some reason - bad data from the altitude sensor maybe, or perhaps incorrect data entered - the leg of the flight along the water has been with gradually decreasing altitude until the flight ends prematurely at zero feet altitude.

[Andrew Russell 2]

Posted by leccyflyer on 06/04/2014 11:16:22:

I've read the thread and the evidence presented that the model was equipped to be FPV capable, but, for some reason was not actually being flown FPV is slim to non-existent. The course corrections to fly along the channel, towards the bridge, strongly suggest, to me at least, that the model was under control at that point. I haven't read the threads on the FPV hub forums, so that is why i am asking that question, regarding the evidence presented for that assertion.

Lining up a model being flown solely by LOS, to overfly the bridge with such a degree of precision, from a point laterally removed from that point, would be a matter of considerable piloting skill, and probably far beyond the capabilities of an unmanned, unpiloted, uncontrolled wing in undirected flight.

That doesn't look like a flyaway and the story doesn't pass the sniff test. Why should the story about the FPV equipment being fitted, but not operating, be considered in any other light.

Edited By leccyflyer on 06/04/2014 11:17:06

Leccy flyer if he was flying fpv he would not have been prosecuted under the act that he was as it specifically excludes aircraft that are fitted with a camera for the sole purpose of maintaining flight.

[leccyflyer]

Hi John - long time no speak

True, the scenario that you describe is quite credible and fits the available information well.

What does not fit is the claim of an uncontrolled, uncommanded fly-away, that just coincidentally makes what looks like a very controlled turn to fly directly at the descending to only just miss it.

I'm not stating that the UAV was flown by FPV, but it certainly looks like it was controlled flight, by some means.

[Pete B]

I think we're thinking along the same lines, leccy. It seems the wing was equipped with a camera which was protected with a waterproof housing, apparently. There was an autopilot on board and a telemetry unit which was sending GPS data via the downlink to his laptop. The camera was, according to him, not downloading the video during the flight.

He states that at some point in the flight he 'lost control' and it turned left and flew away. He then followed the rest of the flight on his laptop - presumably watching the GPS data, rather than a camera image. Did he intend to record the flight on the camera alone, for later viewing?

If you look at the video, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the left turn occurs at about 1min 10secs, about mid-point over the channel, and heads north, towards the bridge area. Coincidence that he lost control just there?

Further on, at about 2min 10secs, there is a slight course correction to line up with the bridge. All this time the model is losing altitude for whatever reason, continuing on the same course until it hits the water.

I strongly suspect that this was a waypointed autonomous flight which terminated prematurely for reasons unknown - programming, equipment fault, whatever. It was not an FPV flight. Given that the bridge was apparently 1.5 miles from his launch point, LOS flying was never an option. One has to assume that he intended the model to return.

I think he has omitted to mention the waypointed flight aspect of all this, as that would show a clear intent to fly into the 'no-fly' zone. None of us were in Court to hear all the evidence that was presented - and with his non-appearance it would have been little more than an abbreviated statement of facts - so we don't know the extent of the evidence gathered by the CAA which led to their decision to prosecute.

Pete

[leccyflyer]

Surely the fact that the video was recorded and subsequently posted to You Tube means that the aircraft was not being flown with a camera for the sole purpose of maintaining flight, so, whether it was flown by FPV or not, it would have been specifically excluded.

[leccyflyer]

Pete - I think that is a decent summary of the most likely turn of events. As you said, the flight was well beyond that possible for that degree of accuracy with unaided visual control, and the course corrections on the video demonstrate any claim that it was being flown LOS as being dubious, at best.

[Bearair]

This is what the man states,

On that day i had no VTX or any wiring to the camera, my lawyer said i wasnt using it for monitoring or controlling, to ad this is what my lawyer said NOT me, and its them i have to convince first

He could of course be lying, but as the CAA would of inspected the model if the above was not correct why would they have not prosecuted him under the FPV regs, IE flying without an observer, flying beyond LOS. We have no evidence that he was flying FPV whatsoever.

Lining up a model being flown solely by LOS, to overfly the bridge with such a degree of precision, from a point laterally removed from that point, would be a matter of considerable piloting skill, and probably far beyond the capabilities of an unmanned, unpiloted, uncontrolled wing in undirected flight.

Again this has all been covered in the thread, the model was fitted with a ATM which was working and would of been capable of piloting the model as seen in the video. Interestingly he insists this ATM was damaged beyond repair and so could not have the data proving it wasn't being flown by waypoint downloaded. (this is treated with scorn by some very knowledgeable on the FPVhub)I was astounded by this piece of technology!

IMHO it is either through ignorance or bias that people keep insisting this flight was piloted by FPV when as far as I can see and others who have commented with far more experience than me, that this aircraft was probably being flown by waypoint.

Continuing to focus on the FPV aspect is only serving to distract from what I consider is the much more important point for general model flyers. What constitutes a Small unmanned SURVEILLANCE aircraft.

If experienced and dedicated modelers cannot be bothered to ascertain the above fact as has been stated on this forum then it bothers me even more.

Please accept my apologies if I have some of the terminology is wrong. As I keep repeating I am no expert on this equipment.

[Andrew Russell 2]

I'm With Beariar on this one.

Lets put aside spectulation about this flight to me it does look like a failed autonomus flight but again if it was a failed flight its still a fly away!

We need to look at he big issue aside arising from this case is alot of moddelers are breaking the law and they dont even know it. Little timmy down the park with his foamy and a key fob camera, Old tom at he flying club who comes within 50m of some unhappy farmers tractor while recording his flight on landing, and the countless people who buy the ready to fly 3ch helis with fitted cameras are all breaking the law and are all open to prosciution under this legislation.

Edited for language!

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 06/04/2014 12:41:58

[Pete B]

No, Bearair, I don't think anyone here now believes that he was flying FPV on this flight. That was an assumption by some earlier in the thread, including me, based on the information available to us at that time, including his Youtube channel, which shows numerous FPV and quad flights.

I'm happy to not mention FPV again - if you are, too!

I take your point about the definition of SUSA:

Sec 167(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.

Unfortunately, it has been worded in such a way as to include the images we record on our keyfob or Mobius cams, which is acquired data. I'm not sure the legislators intended to encompass us in our innocent pursuit but it is there and available for them to interpret it as such should the circumstances warrant.

In this particular case, they chose to use the legislation presumably because of the apparent intent to enter a 'no-fly' zone, which was clearly a silly thing to do, coupled with the possible security aspects of the nearby facility. They interpreted the law to the fullest extent.

In other circumstances, such as we regular LOS flyers taking aerial video/pics of our flying site and surroundings, I really don't think there is any need to be concerned that we are ever likely to incur the wrath of the authorities.

Pete

[leccyflyer]

Regarding the aspect of distancing ourselves from such activity, I've now had a look at the linked threads that Bearair posted earlier on, and the contrast is remarkable. The FPV flying forum is almost to a man convinced that the chap has been subjected to a miscarriage of justice, had done nothing wrong, and, most interestingly, that the video that had been put up, in their opinion, to a man, shows that he was not in control of the aircraft. That's a massive difference in emphasis, and there is all sorts of advice on there on, essentially, how to circumvent the rules (or guidelines) in order to try to get off.

The feller claims to have not being flying on a waypointed UAV flight on that occasion, though he had made previous flights using that system and, as Bearair observes, some other folks who appear to know what they are talking about, are somewhat sceptical about those claims - especially the one that the aircraft was attempting to return to a different Home location on a loss of signal.

The biggest surprise is the manner in which the feller handled the case -and for example posting up months of discussion about it, before the event, in a public forum frankly beggars belief. Saying that you;ve never heard of the CAA, or no-fly zones in what is so obvuously a highly sensitive location, is a spectacular shot in the foot. Now it looks as though the chap has the Black Sheep crowd on his side as well.

[Pete B]

I've just deleted a post for bad language, despite an earlier warning.

Just a reminder - the C of C states that posts will be deleted without warning. We mods more often just edit the post out of the goodness of our hearts - but our patience is limited

Pete

[Andrew Russell 2]

In other circumstances, such as we regular LOS flyers taking aerial video/pics of our flying site and surroundings, I really don't think there is any need to be concerned that we are ever likely to incur the wrath of the authorities.

Pete

 

I disagree the athourity oten lack the common sense to distingush between a normal modeller or a boundary pusher.

I was once a member of a fullsize flying club where a hating neighbour who was conctantly filing reports. reported and aircaft for flying dangerously. The aircraft was perfectly within the law and was actually on its yearly test flight for the permit to fly being flown by a test pilot. The athourity thought it would prosicute anyway. Luckily the case fell through when the gps data from the aircraft confirmed it had not performed any of the manouvers discribed.

My point is all it would take is a NIMBY or an agrivated farmer to get some poor person in hot water.

{Edited for language. Again!]

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 06/04/2014 16:02:49

[Peter Beeney]

Apologies for going slightly going off topic, perhaps, and leaving aside the pros and con of this particular episode, which to me, and as leccyflyer also suggests, seems to raise far more questions than it answers, I have a feeling this Quad, Camera and FPV stuff might soon prove to be more popular than normal aeromodelling; for one thing, it seems to require little effort to be an instant expert; a shed load of money is more the key.

For example, last summer some schoolboys brought the latest FPV setup to their model club, and in no time at all they’d plonked it on the top of a Riot wing. Then they hung a GoPro between the u/c legs and literally within quarter of an hour they were flying around FPV, including low passes down the strip, and filming themselves doing it at the same time. The extra weight made the Riot a bit sluggish, although it was still perfectly stable, and the only advise I could offer was to make sure the battery was changed fairly often to avoid any low power situations. Another lad had a large quad, with 8 propellers on arms. To make any adjustments he had to connect it to his laptop, which it frequently seemed to need, and the wiring loom under the large dome in the centre made Spaghetti Junction look positively straight-laced. I believe he’s already featured in a television program that’s been shown on Channel 4.

Remarkably their 2 Riots are still intact, how long I wonder before these are flying in FPV formation, complete with external onboard filming to boot. There are already 2 GoPros in action.

Much more recently, this week in fact, a new man has turned up at our patch, a lone specialist in Quads, on board cameras and FPV. I’ve not had a chance to talk to him properly yet, but a comment from a third party suggests he has some sort of licence issued by the CAA to the effect he is cleared to operate the quads in public places. Also he is thinking of developing this in other directions too, so to speak, for the purpose of aerial filming of events for long periods of time, such as sports activities. His kit, just like his flying and operating skills, all seemed to be top quality, including the MacBook Pro he was showing us the instant results on! Like it or not, I don’t think this ain’t never gonna go away any time soon now.

I also note, again this week, that the police are already using these quad drones around airports as surveillance points, an airborne CCTV camera if you will; as with previous demonstrations I’ve seen, these are controlled solely by a laptop. With the advantage that it could actually follow a suspect through the woods and across the field, perhaps soon there’ll be a souped up version of this able to keep pace with the runaway Beama legging it down the motorway. Whilst in the meantime BAE Systems might be working on the antidote to the unwanted spy-in-the-sky overhead, such as a short range but intense micro wave beam maybe capable of frying the radio. Or a small missile that will home in on the propeller blade vibration, or perhaps be aimed by one of those new TrackingPoint rifle scopes, with it’s built in computer that can take care of 16 variables, presumable all at the same time. A direct hit every time? It’s not beyond the realms of possibility to think that these don’t already exist, the guys that developed the drones must have also thought of the ways of destroying them.

This branch of the sport is no longer a hobby, it’s fast becoming a business.

The gentleman concerned seems to have been more than a little misfortunate, although he almost appeared to want to encourage this himself at times. With regard to flyaway models, I know of at least three fixed wing flyaway's, and I’ve been the recipient of two that have been found, in neither case were we able to trace the owners. Both were quite valuable scale type models, not glider types that might be expected to travel a fair distance.

The moral of the story perhaps, if there is one, it to make certain sure you don’t have any evidence that can identify you! At the very least it can save you a lot of money!

PB

Edited By Peter Beeney on 06/04/2014 15:49:41

Edited By Peter Beeney on 06/04/2014 15:55:38

[John Muir]

I've been following this saga since I first came across it last year. In my opinion he appeared to be trying out a waypoint flight with his plane operating as an autonomous drone. It was quite obviously under control until it hit the water and had made course adjustments to follow the river. I'd suggest his power system was sagging and simply couldn't provide the power to maintain altitude. If it hadn't come down where it did, he'd have gotten away with it, which in the terms of the FPV/UAV community is the same as didn't do anything wrong. I'm surprised that once they'd finished with him the CAA didn't hand the facts over to Ofcom so they could charge him as well.

There's an awful lot we simply don't, and can't, know about this sorry state of affairs but a few things we do know.
He was flying from a site close to a very sensitive nuclear submarine facility and very close to an active airfield.
He was using a radio on an illegal frequency (433MHz rings a bell and hence one reason that the BMFA insurers could be of no use to him).
He had an autopilot system fitted. An Ardupilot APM2.5.
He had a telemetry system fitted which maintained contact throughout the flight at ranges up to around two miles so he knew where the model had gone and where it came down.

Here are a few of quotes from the gentleman himself:

'Could anyone give an idea on a fixed wing air frame to get max air times .
Im thinking about an unmanned flight up the coast.' March 2013.

'yea legality has never been my strong point, but flying offshore though still not legal i should'nt hit anything, there are no cliffs at all, but fly near a nuclear dump :P
this is just an idea but something ive always wanted to do.' March 2013.

'aye, im thinking of a 100ft alt. i know the cumbrian coastine well , ive canoed it in the past and many a nights fishing.
the ardoplane system from what ive seen has unlimited wp's so should be able to hug the coastline easy enough' March 2013.'

Spec of an aircraft lost June 2013:
2x 5000mah 3c
3500kv motor
ardu + gps
1500mw vtx
uhf tx
osd
gopro3

Model recovered later in the month and comment below made:

'flying waypoints after sorting cg, it was short of waypoint 1 by a mile and lost altitude for some reason, it should have been 500ft'

The video of the flight was posted on Youtube, now removed, but here is a comment made by another forum user:

'Bloody hell that was fantastic!!!

How lucky? About 5 feet off the ground at some points, skimming houses, between trees,between lamp posts, just over treetops....

Thanks for posting'

'not sure the gopro just stopped recording, im thinking it went out of range( how i dont know, its suppoed to be 20-40k and ive done many 15 mile + ) its the return to home height i need to investigate'

Sorry for the long post, but this chap's exploits have been annoying me for quite a while.

[C Norton]

I'm not too sure there is much to be gained by arguing over the legal minutiae in this case but one thing which certainly stands out is this gentleman's poor airmanship, a concept which is just as relevant in model aircraft flying as in the full size world. That, combined with his apparent lack of common sense and empathy for his surroundings (and if reports are to be believed, recurrent behaviour of that nature), needed to be addressed. As the "qualities" mentioned are (sadly) not against the law, I believe the legal equivalent of a painful slap on the legs which he received to be entirely justified.

[ken anderson.]

hello john-your post and info is like a breath of fresh air....regarding this thread........from what you have put on it appears that MR Knowles was a bit of a loose cannon.......who got himself caught....thanks for the info..

ken Anderson ne...1 info dept.

[Peter Christy]

Another day, another drone incident:

http://everythinggeraldton.com.au/2014/04/06/unfortunate-event-triathlete-sustains-head-injuries-drone/

This time in Australia, and this time an athlete sustained "minor injuries", but had to be attended by paramedics, and was hospitalised!

The thing about this case is that the "drone" appeared to have been officially sanctioned, videoing the event.

Now this was clearly a commercial operation, but one thing that hasn't been mentioned anywhere (to my knowledge) is the frequencies used by commercial operators! At the moment, most of the "drones" available are pretty small, but its well known that a number of major aero-space manufacturers are designing quite big ones. Whilst I'm not talking about the military here, bear in mind that some of their drones are bigger than many light aircraft!

The thing is that, as far as I am aware, whilst the CAA, FAA and other various aviation bodies are legislating on the use of civilian, commercial drones, NO-ONE has said anything about the frequencies on which they will operate!

Now you may well get away with 459 MHz or 2.4 GHz for a small drone in a remote location, but what about operating one in an urban environment, or at a public event? Especially something bigger than the current crop of quads?

Ofcom have already made it clear that 35 MHz is NOT available for commercial use, which in the UK leaves 459 MHz or 2.4 GHz. 2.4 GHz is clearly favourite, as the equipment is readily and cheaply available, but therein lies the danger. It is a SHARED band - unprotected against interference. You use it at your own risk. Hardly a reassuring thought for operating a drone at a big public event - as the Australian operator of this drone appears to have discovered!

The World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC - formerly WARC) is the forum where international frequency arrangements are made. It happens once every four years, and usually takes two conferences for a consensus to be achieved. This means that, if you've just missed one conference, it can be nearly 12 YEARS between an application for a frequency, and one being agreed. The last I heard, the drone industry hadn't even submitted an application!

So whilst all the aviation legislative bodies are pressing on with requirements for commercial drone operation, the "Ofcoms" of this world haven't even received an application that they can start discussing!

Now, a protected frequency band for the control of commercial drones will, no doubt, be expensive for the operators. Safety never comes free of charge! But to continue to use shared frequencies that could be used for any purpose for controlling a drone over people at a public event strikes me as the height of folly. The operator of this one seems to be saying "we was hacked". This seems pretty unlikely! More likely it passed over someone else using the band for analogue video - which would have pretty much swamped the whole band!

I'm not quite sure where that leaves us or what we can do about it. But it seems to me that someone somewhere needs to wake up to the potential for disaster. Preferably BEFORE a serious incident occurs!

--

Pete

 

Edited By Peter Christy on 06/04/2014 20:15:33

[Erfolg]

t seems a certainty that many authorities such as the Police , Fire services will be using these devices, in the future. Another group who will use them are utility companies as well as farmers, forresters.All these commercial users plus many more will use them, in a similar manner to the user who has been prosecuted. Whatever we may think, they will continue to be used, I guess in increasing numbers.

There will be exemptions for many of these bodies, where we would face a life time prison sentence. That is the way of the world. I can see the logic, in that for some these devices are a cost effective way of obtaining information. In our case we could easily be up to no good.

Ours is a hobby, these devices are a triumph of technology and potentially a tool for work, in the right hands.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Off topic posts removed, thread locked.

Given the amount of time elapsed since the OP I’d suggest someone starting a new thread if necessary. 

Edited By David Ashby - Moderator on 02/08/2020 14:42:35