CAA prosecutes flyer

[Bearair]

I think he was using something similar to this and flying the model as a autonomous aircraft. Again i have no proof of this but he does state in his letter to the BMFA that he had a APM fitted.

I have no idea how these work or indeed that they even existed.

[John Mccullagh]

It all seems so wrong, every comercial drone flight flight i have seen is within 50 m of a structure and most are for the purpose of recording faults or inspecting structures,pretty useless from further away .all the drone footage on tv is within 50 m of structures and i havent seen anyone taken to court for that yet.there is obviously something wrong with the rules .

Edited By John Mccullagh on 04/04/2014 12:24:16

[John F]

Sorry John but there is nothing wrong with the rules as you clearly cannot compare recreational flying with commercial. The purpose of each are completely different.

I am more surprised that the exception to the term"fpv" seems to be the focus with more guesswork than I ever thought possible.

The facts are in the video and the fact is he ran away from court, not wishing to deal with the situation. He was found guilty in his absence. If he went to court he may well have been successful but he opted to run so there is nothing other than the evidence presented.

Edited By John F on 04/04/2014 12:35:18

Edited By John F on 04/04/2014 12:36:07

[Bearair]

Posted by John F on 04/04/2014 12:33:17:
Sorry John but there is nothing wrong with the rules as you clearly cannot compare recreational flying with commercial. The purpose of each are completely different.

I am more surprised that the exception to the term"fpv" seems to be the focus with more guesswork than I ever thought possible.

The facts are in the video and the fact is he ran away from court, not wishing to deal with the situation. He was found guilty in his absence. If he went to court he may well have been successful but he opted to run so there is nothing other than the evidence presented.

Edited By John F on 04/04/2014 12:35:18

Edited By John F on 04/04/2014 12:36:07

Its quite simple really FPV is flying the model by a video link a video link was not fitted to the aircraft concerned. In post 4 BEB refers to the FPV community and FPV. My exception to this post and the use of the term FPV is based on the FACT this was not anything to do with FPV.

[Robin Kearney]

Bearair - that is the APM I think he was using, he mentions it somewhere in the fpvhub thread. It can optionally transmit telemetry and GPS data to a ground station. That isn't a video feed, just a data feed. Although a lot of APM users also have a video camera and associated transmitter to send video back for FPV use and the like. But I'm pretty sure nowhere in the fpvhub thread did he say he was transmitting video back.

The data feed can then be displayed using the APM mission planner software on a laptop, when hooked up to a suitable receiver. More details of the planner SW here.

r.

[Aky208]

My opinion from the video is that it looks like a failed attempt at an autonomous flight and he got caught. I just hope that this is an isolated incident and helps people to properly plan ahead before attempting such flights. James May's toy stories episode on the glider flight just shows some of the lengths you have to go to be within the law.

[Pete B]

I've already explained to you that the facts, as were known at the time that post was made, indicated that this was an FPV flight. It's subsequently been established that this was not the case but I'm not prepared to spoil the continuity of the thread by selectively removing posts that don't suit you.

I suggest you just ignore the posts you don't wish to read and the discussion can remain on-topic. The only one taking it off-topic now is you, as far as I can see.

Pete

[Bearair]

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 04/04/2014 13:04:13:

I've already explained to you that the facts, as were known at the time that post was made, indicated that this was an FPV flight. It's subsequently been established that this was not the case but I'm not prepared to spoil the continuity of the thread by selectively removing posts that don't suit you.

I suggest you just ignore the posts you don't wish to read and the discussion can remain on-topic. The only one taking it off-topic now is you, as far as I can see.

Pete

Are you posting this as a moderator, in which case by forum rules I cannot argue with you?

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I stand by what I said Bearair. He had an autopilot, some sort of flight controller. The plane was either capable of or was indeed flying autonomously. The device is therefore clearly a UAV, by definition. Furthermore its equipped with a camera. He's posting about it on an FPV thread. All of this in my view places it fairly squarely in the field of FPV - this is not just some average run of the mill R/C flyer.

But whether that falls within your definition of FPV in some restrictive sense is really frankly immaterial to the case, as it clearly falls within the CAA's definition and the courts - as they have proved.

I really see no point in me continuing this debate as I nothing to add to that. In you very many previous posts in this thread, you clearly hold a different view - then we can only agree amicably to differ and leave it at that.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 04/04/2014 13:13:57

[Pete B]

Yes, I am. I think we should move on and get back to the subject of the thread......

Pete

[Mr.B.]

What follows is wild speculation and conjecture (a bit like being in the main stream media really). Given that the AC was not fitted for FPV, this looks to me like an attempt to fly under the bridge by autonomous control. The AC is not lined up on the centre of the bridge (indeed it is lined up on the pier) but keeps nudging left, and the let down is miss timed leading to it buzzing the bridge then ending up in the drink. I think Mr Knowles has shown very poor judgement before and during the flight and in dealing with the aftermath. This is reflected in the judgment. I don’t think the specifics of this case have much impact on ‘normal’ club type flying (ie spending your Sunday flying round and round the same field).

[Bearair]

Posted by Mr.B. on 04/04/2014 13:30:45:

What follows is wild speculation and conjecture (a bit like being in the main stream media really). Given that the AC was not fitted for FPV, this looks to me like an attempt to fly under the bridge by autonomous control. The AC is not lined up on the centre of the bridge (indeed it is lined up on the pier) but keeps nudging left, and the let down is miss timed leading to it buzzing the bridge then ending up in the drink. I think Mr Knowles has shown very poor judgement before and during the flight and in dealing with the aftermath. This is reflected in the judgment. I don’t think the specifics of this case have much impact on ‘normal’ club type flying (ie spending your Sunday flying round and round the same field).

I agree with your wild speculation and conjecture. However I am not sure about the impact on the normal club flyer. One third of BMFA members are country members thats 12000 modelers, some will be in clubs but even so that leaves a lot of people who do not fly in clubs, then there are those who do not choose to be a member of the BMFA. It appears to me that is a lot of people who are out there doing things that the average club flyer has no knowledge of. In my opinion we need to be reaching out to those people, model flying is changing rapidly so rapidly that I certainly was unaware of the technology this man may of been using, I think that some of the comments here suggest that I am not alone in this.

[Bearair]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 04/04/2014 13:12:36:

I stand by what I said Bearair. He had an autopilot, some sort of flight controller. The plane was either capable of or was indeed flying autonomously. The device is therefore clearly a UAV, by definition. Furthermore its equipped with a camera. He's posting about it on an FPV thread. All of this in my view places it fairly squarely in the field of FPV - this is not just some average run of the mill R/C flyer.

But whether that falls within your definition of FPV in some restrictive sense is really frankly immaterial to the case, as it clearly falls within the CAA's definition and the courts - as they have proved.

I really see no point in me continuing this debate as I nothing to add to that. In you very many previous posts in this thread, you clearly hold a different view - then we can only agree amicably to differ and leave it at that.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 04/04/2014 13:13:57

My definition of FPV is that stated here. There is no where in the court or CAA reports any mention of FPV in the reported incident that is the subject of this thread.

We can disagree amicably by all means but that does not get away from the above facts.

Au revoir

Bearair

[John Mccullagh]

So Does the caa rule allow you to fly within 50 m while recording video by fpv /drone or not? i am confused more now than when i read the earlier posts thanks john .

Edited By John Mccullagh on 04/04/2014 18:37:36

[Bearair]

Posted by John Mccullagh on 04/04/2014 18:27:06:

So Does the caa rule allow you to fly within 50 m while recording video by fpv /drone or not? i am confused more now than when i read the earlier posts thanks john .

Edited By John Mccullagh on 04/04/2014 18:37:36

Right forget FPV that has nothing to do with it , that is only the way the plane is being piloted.

If ANY model plane is fitted with a recording device it is subject to the Unmanned surveillance regulations and therefore not allowed within 50m of any structure. Thats how I understand it to be.

[John Privett]

Posted by John Mccullagh on 04/04/2014 18:27:06:

So Does the caa rule allow you to fly within 50 m while recording video by fpv /drone or not? i am confused more now than when i read the earlier posts thanks john .

From what has already been stated, any model fitted with a camera, and flown for recreational use may not fly, "within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft"

For commercial use a whole raft of extra/different regulations and licencing applies.

[John Privett]

Posted by Mr.B. on 04/04/2014 13:30:45:

What follows is wild speculation and conjecture (a bit like being in the main stream media really). Given that the AC was not fitted for FPV, this looks to me like an attempt to fly under the bridge by autonomous control. The AC is not lined up on the centre of the bridge (indeed it is lined up on the pier) but keeps nudging left, and the let down is miss timed leading to it buzzing the bridge then ending up in the drink.

Having just watched the video now, that is entirely possible. I hadn't considered the "buzzing the bridge" option though. To me it seems he set it up for an autonomous flight - presumably GPS-guided. It sets off directly towards an airfield (whether active or disused I have no idea - perhaps a local can comment?) then makes a deliberate left turn to fly along the river/channel.

My thought was that it was intended to fly past the bridge then turn back to the lauch point, but that the altitude control was incorrect/ineffective. I believe that GPS gives altitude to a rather lesser degree of accuracy than the 'x,y' co-ordinates. So maybe the steady deline in height was a mistake, or perhaps it was an attempt to fly under the bridge. Only one person knows for sure!

[ken anderson.]

Robert Knowles...would have got away with it all-if he hadn't put his killer vid on u-tube(don't you think) ...... I also think that there are many more flying around using FPV /drone type of model aircraft than we or the CAA know about......I've seen video's posted on here that are questionable.....and once someone points out the possible pitfalls...they are taken off......did we not have someone once saying they had been visited by the police...who had been alerted by the CAA ...... he was told to mend his ways or else......and then he published on here that he was going to hide all his stuff so as it couldn't be confiscated! ........ so me personally-I think that RK shot himself in the foot to be honest....but he is not alone........

PS -note-that this is my personal opinion......and not posted to start arguments etc.....

ken Anderson ne...1 ....... reply dept.

[Phil 9]

Posted by ken anderson. on 05/04/2014 09:38:04:

Robert Knowles...would have got away with it all-if he hadn't put his killer vid on u-tube(don't you think) ...... I also think that there are many more flying around using FPV /drone type of model aircraft than we or the CAA know about......I've seen video's posted on here that are questionable.....and once someone points out the possible pitfalls...they are taken off......did we not have someone once saying they had been visited by the police...who had been alerted by the CAA ...... he was told to mend his ways or else......and then he published on here that he was going to hide all his stuff so as it couldn't be confiscated! ........ so me personally-I think that RK shot himself in the foot to be honest....but he is not alone........

PS -note-that this is my personal opinion......and not posted to start arguments etc.....

ken Anderson ne...1 ....... reply dept.

Just because you can "get away with it" by hiding the evidence does not mean you should continue to break the law

[Steve Balaam]

Dear Fellow Modellers

It's is not often I get drawn into any forum debate about inappropriate behaviour in our hobby but here is my two pence worth. I have been concerned for some years now that individuals with no knowledge or experience in our hobby can go to any shop retailer or online store and purchase cheap Chinese rubbish that in many cases even experienced flyers find difficult to operate. Indeed anybody can purchase some very sophisticated equipment now by just opening their wallet.

I wander how many individuals up and down the country are attempting to operate various types of model aircraft, FPV and UAVs untrained, unsupervised and uninsured I'm surprised that there have been so few reports of injuries and property damage and it's my view that it's only a matter of time before we see a fatality. I have personally approached our governing body a few times over the years and asked for advise and help with dealing with particular safety issues within the confines of a club and find them to be fence sitters and of no particular value, I treat them purely as my insurance provider through my club now. It's a huge worry to me that in the near future I will no longer be able to participate in my chosen pastime because of the actions of these individuals effectively closing our hobby down.

This thread is discussing one particular incident that has been acted upon by the authorities, but in my opinion this incident is probably only the tip of a rather large iceberg. Many of us know that this country as we once knew it is broken, we just have to browse through these threads to read about forum members discussing their interactions with other so called modellers and the public and the change in attitudes that have occurred in our society. It seems to me the country is full of individuals participating in many sports and hobbies who have the attitude of “I can do what I want, when I want and bear no responsible for my actions” I apologise to those people who do behave in a responsible way of which I count myself as one, but we will be the losers in the near future when eventually we will have no hobby left to participate in as it will be banned because of the individuals who fall into the “irresponsible” category.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I suspect that the CAA are more "clued in" than sometimes we give them credit for. I think they are aware of the points that both Ken and Steve make. That they too believe there is a lot of what might be called "low level breeches" of the ANO going on among some - and again, as before in my early post in this thread, I emphasise, "some" not "all" - FPV/UAV flyers.

This prosecution may not have been perfect - but it provided them with a way of sending out a signal - making an example of someone. And let's face it - its worked, proved by the fact that we are all discussing it. Tough on that individual may be - as I suspect he's not doing anything worse than some others are doing - but from the CAA's point of view its one cheap prosecution, with costs awarded, that makes the point in a high profile manner that the ANO is not to be ignored.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 05/04/2014 12:23:56

[Andrew Russell 2]

All over the country there are 1000's of unsuspecting children and adults breaking the law by flying their small infra red model helicopters that have cameras fitted around their living room or back garden. Lets face it your never going to get those little a/c 50m away from anything.

[Mr.B.]

Andrew, "within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft"

I think flying at home would count as the building being under the control of the pilot (my home is certainly under the control of my children).  Of course, when flying a indoor heli inside my house it is still within 50m of next door  (unless I take the long walk to the ball room in the east wing B' Manor).

In view of this story I checked the local park where Mr B Jnr occasionally flies his tri copter with video camera. Scaling of a map shows his take off/landing area is actualy only about 40m from the nearest houses but the rest of the flight is over 50m. Still I don't think the CAA will be after him any time soon.

Edited By Mr.B. on 05/04/2014 17:17:58

[Andrew Russell 2]

Posted by Mr.B. on 05/04/2014 17:14:19:

In view of this story I checked the local park where Mr B Jnr occasionally flies his tri copter with video camera. Scaling of a map shows his take off/landing area is actualy only about 40m from the nearest houses but the rest of the flight is over 50m. Still I don't think the CAA will be after him any time soon.

Edited By Mr.B. on 05/04/2014 17:17:58

It still possible they could tho. Lets say pc plod takes a dislike to Mr.B junior and reports him. Or a dog walker feels he is flying dangerously.

The CAA technically would be with in there right to prosicute under law altough common sense would say not to.This is also the case with the small helicopters. As is the case with indoor flying technically you are breaking the law. I would have to do more reading into the subject but im more than willing to bet there is a cut off weight limit for an excemption.

As someone who has been on the side of the stick this poor fellow has been on (all be it with a full size a/c). The case i found my self in was won after the prosicuting athority actually could not under stand there own legislation!

He was an idiot for leaving the court as it would have been quite simple to argue a fly away.

[Mr.B.]

Yes, I total agree. Mr B Jnr is old enough to be prosecuted and part of his flights do brake the law. It would need a very clued up copper though. And I do think comon sense would prevail, but technicaly he could be as could 1000's of others as you said. In fact I would be prosecuted as I act as observer for him and would argue I was in charge. May be we will walk the final 10m next time.

"He was an idiot for leaving the court..." Perhaps be he activated return to home.

Edited By Mr.B. on 05/04/2014 17:52:07

Edited By Mr.B. on 05/04/2014 18:00:42