Bill_B Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Apologies if this has been posted before: LINK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 This is a worrying potential development. The proposals being put forward by the FAA are much more restrictive than our current system and would seem, if implemented unaltered, to be the end of FPV in the States without additional special permits - certainly with VR googles - and probably with a screen. The proposals specify very tightly that the operator of a model aircraft must be able to see it all all times, clearly if you are wearing FPV googles you can't see it. Let's hope AMA can do some heavy duty negotiations on behalf of its members. BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Contrary to BEB's opinion I think this would be a good development -limiting drones might preserve traditional aeromodelling. Otherwise we might all get grounded by the actions of these people. Flying by watching a TV screen or by satnav waypoints has little to do with real aeromodelling and has lots of potential for terrorists or newspapers spying on 'celebraties'. To them FPV will mean "Find Potential Victims" If you cannot see it with just your eyes then its not allowed seems OK to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I see your point KC, and as someone who regularly operates drones at work it wouldn't particularly bother me - I've already done the CAA approved training. But what does worry me just a tad is that when governments legislate - especially quickly - they tend to make "errors" that cause lots of knock on unintentional effects. I'd just rather governments took no interest - I think that's the ideal. But I agree with you - while there are those that are prepared to ignore existing legislation (and while they may be a minority they do exist and tend to be publicity seeking which means their impact is well out of proportion to the scale of their activity) and that even smaller minority that may contemplate very unpleasant use of drones, then governments are going to show an interest however unwelcome or unnecessary that may be for most of us. BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Government legislation is always a worry.......... " without vision-enhancing devices. " might ground all spectacle wearers! But we have not regulated ourselves enough. Yesterday at Wings & Wheels someone was flying a quadcopter in between the trade stands using what looked like a tablet computer ( not FPV but it illustrates the attitude of some quad people) He was not even looking at the machine but turned to chat to his companion whilst the machine hovered. Technically interesting but not safe enough in my view. The people with these gadgets may not be aeromodellers who have been brought up on club safety standards, no solo without A certificates etc. Thats the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Kc, So, if I understand your position correctly, if some people use a device/item etc improperly, dangerously or illegally then strong legislation should be enacted to preserve the previous way of doing things. That way cars, mobile phones, computers etc etc, the list is almost endless would be legislated out of existence. We would be back to a non existence because everything I can think of has been mis-used at some time by some one. Even our own hands for beating another human before we even had language. I hardly think your argument makes sense and suggests a touch of bigotry. Because a few mindless people behave badly (this happens in trad aero modelling as well) is no reason to ban something. You deal with the perpetrators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Kc, As to your experience at 'Wings & Wheels', why did you not speak to the pilot and point out the error of his ways? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Privett Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Posted by kc on 30/06/2014 19:39:15: Government legislation is always a worry.......... " without vision-enhancing devices. " might ground all spectacle wearers! I'm sure this has been "officially" clarified in the past. "Vision-enhancing" refers to things like binoculars, night-vision scopes, etc. and allows you to see things that wouldn't normally be seen, or easily-seen, with the unaided eye. Spectacles are "vision-correcting" and correct the vision of an individual to the same sort of level as someone who doesn't need specs. So I don't think spectacle-wearers have anything to fear here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Jones 7 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Preserving traditional modelling? It must have been a "traditional modeller" flying the Phantom at Wings and Wheels as he would need a B Cert, unless of course the organisers are willing to break the safety rules because it's a toy? And yet that model was flown at a height and position where if it had failed during a strong wind it could easily have landed in the crowd. The organisers allowed the Parrot Drones retailer to set up an obstacle course and to demonstrate the models in between trade stands and certainly in previous years were allowing potential customers to have a go. No safety netting and the crowd 1m away. Another flying show near Skegness, forget the name, allowed a Phantom to be flown over the pits area to video the crowd. Now when these models are seen at "proffessional" shows by members of Joe Public being allowed to flout safety rules surely the impression is that they are safe and can be flown any where? Shouldn't the "traditional modellers" be setting a good example? Of course none of these examples were flown FPV which is the problem the Americans seem to be trying to solve but if you ask me they are "solving" the wrong problem. The problem is the people who buy a Phantom from Maplins believing it to be a flying camera. Legislating this problem won't work as there is no way to enforce it - education is the answer and that should start at the top. The BMFA need to get their finger out with Multirotor tests and the shows, manufacturers and retailers need to behave responsibly and to start setting an exemplary example. "Drones" aren't the problem, attitudes to them are, accept them as a model just like any other and treat them as such and the "problem" goes away. The potential use for "terrorism" is limited due to the low payloads and if we were that bothered we would have banned mobile phones years ago as they have been used by terrorists in the majority of attacks for years. Chris, (flys everything, DLG, fixed wing, helis and multirotor) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olly P Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Can I just say that I Really dislike the term 'Drones' An aircraft piloted remotely is not a Drone, it is a UAV - Unmanned Air Vehicle. Some varients can be UCV or AUAV (unmanned Combat Vehicle or Automatic UAV (flies to waypoints)), but they are not 'Drones' Sorry - I work with people who develop this sort of thing and the techyness seems to have rubbed off on me.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Sorry Olly but a drone IS a UAV or a UCV or a AUAV, whichever acronym comes out of the dictionary, they are all drones by definition. Sometimes you see a person trying to get a differentiation to distance from one term in favour of another, for example we don't fly toys but rather models, but it doesn't matter. It is a drone. Here is a thread I commented on earlier. Interestingly even a missile, once fired, is a drone! **LINK** We study airpower as part of some courses we have in the RAF as well as having this topic as a choice for projects or dissertations. Edited By John F on 01/07/2014 09:21:48 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilmBuff Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Posted by kc on 30/06/2014 18:30:21: Contrary to BEB's opinion I think this would be a good development -limiting drones might preserve traditional aeromodelling. Otherwise we might all get grounded by the actions of these people. Flying by watching a TV screen or by satnav waypoints has little to do with real aeromodelling and has lots of potential for terrorists or newspapers spying on 'celebraties'. To them FPV will mean "Find Potential Victims" If you cannot see it with just your eyes then its not allowed seems OK to me. Maybe we should have stuck with rubber powered A-Frame pusher models made from spruce and silk? That balsa stuff was very non traditional. And IC engines? - very non traditional. Radio control? very non traditional compared to free flight. FPV, UAV, WTF- it's just different - not a threat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Meade Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 But surely if there is a pilot flying it, it then becomes a UAS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Gonzo. I was suggesting SELF REGULATION to a high standard to avoid having laws imposed by the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Posted by Chris Jones 7 on 01/07/2014 08:37:59: The potential use for "terrorism" is limited due to the low payloads and if we were that bothered we would have banned mobile phones years ago as they have been used by terrorists in the majority of attacks for years. Chris, (flys everything, DLG, fixed wing, helis and multirotor) I agree with most of what you say Chris - but I'd just point out that we shouldn't underestimate the lifting power of modern multirotor UAV's. There multi rotors are about now that can lift very high payloads indeed. We have one in work that will lift 20kg. Endurance, now that is an issue for multi-rotors compared to say large petrol engined powered UAV's that you can get now. BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Whybrow Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I have to agree with Olly on the use of the term drone. Here's a dictionary definition: a. an unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously, without human control or beyond line of sight: the GPS of a U.S. spy drone. b. (loosely) any unmanned aircraft or ship that is guided remotely: a radio-controlled drone. So, although the term drone can be used, it's not the recognised usage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Sorry to be a pedant Martin but it is the recognised usage. Your addition of the term "loosely" to B is trying to be misleading but B is the definition from every other dictionary around. How can it be loose when every other dictionary quotes B as the definition? Also, in the RAF, as well as Tri-Service, we have complete courses, Air Power studies, promotion studies as well as via universities to doctorate level on the subject. A drone is very simple to classify. A drone is a pilotless aircraft. Simples Edited By John F on 01/07/2014 14:11:48 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingCrust Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I've just read the IEEE Spectrum piece which generated the article on this and it makes interesting reading. I get the feeling from that piece that the rule will receive significant opposition and legal wrangling. I have no particular interest in MutiRotors or FPV but will be following with interest. Ian Edited By TheFlyingCrust on 01/07/2014 14:43:04 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Manuel Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 I have been in contact with the CAA today in connection with a totally unrelated matter, and received the automated email response below. It is clear that dealing with queries about unmanned aircraft of all sizes is taking up a lot of the CAA's time (and budget). This should be of concern to us all because the CAA cannot continue to function like this. *********************************************************************************************************** Dear Sir/Madam, We are receiving a very high number of enquiries about Small Unmanned Aircraft (UA) - 'Drones' - and the various rules and requirements governing their operation within the UK. Although we will read your e-mail enquiry, it will not always be possible to provide an individual response. Please use the links below to find detailed information for common enquiries: > General enquiries about Small Unmanned Aircraft (SUA) and the CAA's regulatory safety framework for commercial and recreational use: www.caa.co.uk/uas and www.caa.co.uk/cap722 > Detailed guidance on operating SUA within London and other towns and cities: www.caa.co.uk/in2014081 and www.caa.co.uk/in2014115 > UK Law: Air Navigation Order (ANO) Articles 166 and 167 pertaining to small unmanned aircraft: www.caa.co.uk/cap393 > Demonstrating pilot competency at a National Qualified Entity (NQE) for the grant of CAA permission to work commercially ('aerial work': www.eurousc.com and www.resource-uas.co.uk and www.caa.co.uk/in2014044 > Collecting images with an SUA: Data Protection Act: www.caa.co.uk/in2013027 *********************************************************************************************************** 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.