Mr.B. Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Bearair, having re read the guardian link from the OP I confess I assumed that it was an FPV multi rotor type based on; the article refers to it as a drone (OK drone doesn't actually mean anything), it value of the AC is stated as £1000 and return to home as referred to. I have never come across RTH on FW. You have a better source of information on this story, can you share it please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Bennett Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Happy to apologize Bearair. but without smilies being used it is some times hard to see that things are tongue in cheek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearair Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Posted by Mr.B. on 03/04/2014 10:30:55: Bearair, having re read the guardian link from the OP I confess I assumed that it was an FPV multi rotor type based on; the article refers to it as a drone (OK drone doesn't actually mean anything), it value of the AC is stated as £1000 and return to home as referred to. I have never come across RTH on FW. You have a better source of information on this story, can you share it please? Certainly you can read it on the BMFA website And at the CAA says here And you can read what discussion has gone on about it here and here. Personally I think that the guy was a bit stupid in the way he handled the whole thing, BUT what has happened to him could well happen to any of us with regards to the fly away. Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 03/04/2014 11:14:54 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I'm going to backtrack somewhat, too. Having spent a bit of time reading through the relevant threads on the FPVHub forum, if one takes 80% of what is written there as fact, then the circumstances are rather different than I originally interpreted them from what had been published. I think this case raises more than a few questions as to the standard of the investigation and prosecution process and, arguably, the conduct of the BMFA. The chap concerned really hasn't helped himself in many respects and is certainly not blameless. Again, if what he says is correct, his representation leaves much to be desired. I agree with Bearair that if this is the way model flyers are going to be dealt with in future, he is right to be concerned. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Only if the plane has a camera and clearly a non-functional failsafe. BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Bennett Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 it was drummed into me time and time again at my club, to check the fail safe before every flight. we are surrounded by restricted airspace and no fly zones, so we have to show due care in case of an accident. he did not help himself in any way with his choice of flying site in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearair Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 03/04/2014 11:07:35: I'm going to backtrack somewhat, too. Having spent a bit of time reading through the relevant threads on the FPVHub forum, if one takes 80% of what is written there as fact, then the circumstances are rather different than I originally interpreted them from what had been published. I think this case raises more than a few questions as to the standard of the investigation and prosecution process and, arguably, the conduct of the BMFA. The chap concerned really hasn't helped himself in many respects and is certainly not blameless. Again, if what he says is correct, his representation leaves much to be desired. I agree with Bearair that if this is the way model flyers are going to be dealt with in future, he is right to be concerned. Pete Thanks Peter I am aware that I do not express my self very well in print sometimes. But I really do care about model flying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.B. Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Thanks Bearair. I'd better put my reading glasses on! I'll look through that lot tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken anderson. Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 the American way.............shoot first etc.... ken Anderson ne..1 ....... drones international dept Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearair Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 This is how they do it in the USA, interestingly Trappy's lawyer is interested in the case here! Maybe we shall see an appeal! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 The problem is that he pleaded guilty so cannot appeal against conviction, unless there were serious failings by others in the procedure. All he can appeal now is the sentence, AFAIK. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearair Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 03/04/2014 17:29:53: The problem is that he pleaded guilty so cannot appeal against conviction, unless there were serious failings by others in the procedure. All he can appeal now is the sentence, AFAIK. Pete Yes I think that your right on that. We shall see if it becomes a major issue for the whole modeling fraternity. The more I read about this the more I think non of the parties involved have exactly shone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Posted by Bearair on 03/04/2014 21:36:17: Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 03/04/2014 17:29:53: The problem is that he pleaded guilty so cannot appeal against conviction, unless there were serious failings by others in the procedure. All he can appeal now is the sentence, AFAIK. Pete Yes I think that your right on that. We shall see if it becomes a major issue for the whole modeling fraternity. The more I read about this the more I think non of the parties involved have exactly shone! I don't know which other parties haven't shone. From this report in the Westmorland Gazette he's the only one who wasn't at all bright. Because he'd left the building before the trial began a guilty plea would have had to be assumed, even though he'd previously pleaded not guilty. And he relinquished any chance to explain his loss of control story in person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearair Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Posted by PatMc on 04/04/2014 00:01:31: Posted by Bearair on 03/04/2014 21:36:17: Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 03/04/2014 17:29:53: The problem is that he pleaded guilty so cannot appeal against conviction, unless there were serious failings by others in the procedure. All he can appeal now is the sentence, AFAIK. Pete Yes I think that your right on that. We shall see if it becomes a major issue for the whole modeling fraternity. The more I read about this the more I think non of the parties involved have exactly shone! I don't know which other parties haven't shone. From this report in the Westmorland Gazette he's the only one who wasn't at all bright. Because he'd left the building before the trial began a guilty plea would have had to be assumed, even though he'd previously pleaded not guilty. And he relinquished any chance to explain his loss of control story in person. Have you read all the information on this or are you making your assumptions based on a local newspaper? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I'm not disputing that he wasn't at fault in several aspects of this flight and he really can't blame anyone but himself. I've found the offending flight on Youtube. I'll leave you to make your own judgement on it: Just a reminder - we can continue to discuss this nicely, can't we, folks? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avtur Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I can see why the bridge crossing has apparently attracted attention and why it has been described as a near miss. It seems like the aircraft flew a long shallow descent, while this might not have been under the control of the pilot, it didn't appear uncontrolled in terms of flying erratically, very strange. Could that be in fail-safe mode but where it wasn't set up correctly ??? Edited By avtur on 04/04/2014 10:28:35 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 If you fly anything near a Defense related establishment you are going to get 'done' - the guy is a dork! He says he runs a TV repair business - in this day and age who gets their TV repaired? - no wonder his business is making a loss - going bankrupt will do him a favour and hopefully he won't be able to fly anything ever again - I repeat, the guy is a dork! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken anderson. Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 the fellow in question has stated on his u-tube channel that the video has been stolen and he is going to report the matter-do you think that its wise to display it here? .... ken Anderson ne..1 ....... stolen video dept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearair Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Posted by avtur on 04/04/2014 10:27:15: I can see why the bridge crossing has apparently attracted attention and why it has been described as a near miss. It seems like the aircraft flew a long shallow descent, while this might not have been under the control of the pilot, it didn't appear uncontrolled in terms of flying erratically, very strange. Could that be in fail-safe mode but where it wasn't set up correctly ??? Edited By avtur on 04/04/2014 10:28:35 Reading lots about this, I get the impression that the model was fitted with some kind of stabilization system, and/or a return to home system. If I understand it correctly he might of been using a system where you use gps to fly the plane and plot its course on a computer, basically you launch the model and it does the rest. In all honesty my knowledge of all these new systems it very limited. Trying to comprehend it with the hype around the Drone factor, anger from both sides and what I think is a reluctance from the guy to answer a straight question with a straight question is very difficult. I think there is a whole lot of technology out there which I for one and I think others here are not even aware of. IMHO we all need to discuss this, without laying blame or singling out one part of the rc flying community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I did have some reservations about putting it up, Ken, I'll be honest. Youtube is very much bandit country and anything put up there is on offer to be hijacked by other users. If he didn't want it shown, he shouldn't have published it in the first place. Whether it will subsequently be removed by Youtube remains to be seen. However, I think the value of actually seeing what we've been blindly discussing for a few days outweighs any negative effect of putting it up here. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearair Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Posted by Wingman on 04/04/2014 10:37:27: If you fly anything near a Defense related establishment you are going to get 'done' - the guy is a dork! He says he runs a TV repair business - in this day and age who gets their TV repaired? - no wonder his business is making a loss - going bankrupt will do him a favour and hopefully he won't be able to fly anything ever again - I repeat, the guy is a dork! Just what do you think posts like this will acheive, if you think hes a dork why do you not ring him, his business is advertised. This is a very serious situation for model flying in this country and attitudes like this will make the situation worse not better in my opinion. Just as others were quick to accuse the FPV community wrongly ,for which I notice some do not apologise, demonising one man or a group is only going to make it worse. Edited By Bearair on 04/04/2014 10:59:43 Edited By Bearair on 04/04/2014 11:13:25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I really don't think he's got much to complain about, looking that video, IMHO. At 1m10s he turns left to fly north along the channel, towards the no-fly zone, which includes the bridge. At 2m10s there's a clear course correction to line up with the bridge. It's close enough to the bridge to have caused an incident with a passing vehicle - I don't think anyone can argue with that. At what point did he 'lose control'? - debatable, I'd say. I don't think the authorities had much choice in their decision, frankly... Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearair Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 It looks like that to me, but then the question is how could he see it to do the course correction, apparently the plane was not equipped to fly FPV. The fact that the CAA did not proscecute for breaking FPV regs so I assume that he is telling the truth there. I think, but I have no proof that he was using a computer to fly the model. He "preprogrammed" the flight If anyone knows about whether this is possible I would be interested to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 On the FPVHub forum he openly states that he had an active downlink to a ground monitor and he followed the flight on that after he had 'lost control' - I wish we had a 'raises sceptical eyebrow' smiley here.... oh, we have..... Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearair Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I took that to mean he had a gps type telemetry unit on the model, which was reporting the models location back. but as I understand it he did not have a video tx on the plane and the CAA seem to confirm this. Could you make course corrections as gentle as those we see just using that type of unit? Edited By Bearair on 04/04/2014 11:54:24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.