What is it with people and this manic drive to make everything risk-free?

[TonyS]

Just read the article "Give FPV a break" and find myself bubbling with irritation ... again.

I just don't get the problem that seems to be driving others to insist on a buddy system. Not sure if anyone can enlighten me....

I know that we all have a duty to fly safely. I know that models can do harm and damage. I just don't get what the heck the problem is with the muppets who think that slipping a visor off is too hard if you lose the camera link?

I've watched plenty of model flyers get into trouble (sadly myself as much if not more than others) and crash planes. It happens.

Fly sensibly, well away from people and property and no further than within visual range of where you're physically standing and whether using FPV gear or not you'll minimize the risks.

I think that some people have nothing better to do than to play the pompous, self-righteous little hitler about other people's pastimes - even when they clearly don't understand what they're talking about. Unless the visor is bolted, glued or stapled  onto your head rip it off if suddenly you lose contact.

Why aren't all these guys stood outside boxing arena's campaigning to stop two guys from trying to give each other brain damage?

If I'm wrong on this please let me know.... 

[Pete B]

I haven't read the article yet, Tony, as my mag arrived today. Health and Safety and people damaging themselves or others by accident is one thing. I would not be at all surprised if the authorities are probably looking at FPV developments with some concern - probably more so than any branch of aeromodelling hitherto. Sadly, not all potential users have our intentions and ambitions in mind - just do a Youtube search and you'll find plenty of examples of helis being flown out of (US) gardens and over their neighbours houses. There was another where a heli was flown from a track to, and over, a village a couple of km's away, and then back again.

 

A thread was sensibly pulled here a while ago when it featured a model fitted with some rather extreme kit.

 

Not a lot of point in setting up Air Exclusion Zones for security purposes if someone can buy the kit off the shelf at relatively low cost, is there?

 

Without exaggerating the point, I think we must be careful that we are not inviting some very restrictive legislation which will quite possibly affect all R/C flying.

 

Pete

 

[David Ashby - Moderator]

I'll sit on the fence a bit until I've flown FPV Tony but clearly the CAA/BMFA disagree with you, just out of curiosity and to become better informed, let me play devils advocate........

 

Do you think someone in trouble would be able to orientate themselves quickly enough just by slipping off the visor - would they not run the risk of looking in the wrong direction in that moment of indecision? 

 

Do you think that someone flying, say a WOT4 solo FPV is as safe as someone standing alongside flying normally? Do you think the FPV flyer's field of vision and overall awareness of other flyers/objects in the sky are as good?  

 

[Peter Miller]

I think I can see one problem with not using a buddybox system.

 

We all know that if we look away from a model that is a long way away it can take time to pick it up again. That would be much worse if we have not been watching the model its self

 

While flying with the visor you are not seeing where the actual model is. If things go wrong one has to take the visor off and then pick up on the model, (Not easy if it is a long way off, ) Then recognise what it is doing and regain control.

 

Sorry but I feel that this is one rule that is sensible.

 

.

 

 

[Bert]

I don't think it's worth worrying about, there are only a very tiny number of people doing it.

 

I suspect that a lot more have tried it, lost their expensive kit and given up - I know I wouldn't want to lay out the sort of cash required only to lose the plane and the gear due to interference/disorientation/weather/whatever.

 

Fortunately the ones who are most likely to find this out the hard way are those who don't want to follow the common-sense guidlines.

 

Bert

[TonyS]

Lot's of food for thought.

In  response to Pete, if the issue is stopping idiots from flying out of their back gardens, over neighbours then I don't think buddying is the right answer to the problem and in this case, rather than trying to create blanket rules there should be an offence of say flying without due care and attention and / or flying with the intent to invade privacy. In this way the individuals concerned could be dealt with. Saying you can only do this accompanied is saying that morons won't have other morons for mates.....

David and Peter make a good point about orientation and if there is a good reason for buddying this might be it. It does tend to suggest that at the moment you lose visual contact you didn't know where you were in relation to where you were actually standing - not likely but definitely possible. So I guess the argument has some merit. 

I think my point is perhaps a more general one.

Society (driven by a few individuals I feel) is of the opinion that if we make enough 'rules' we can attain the nirvana of a risk-free environment. Children not having playground equipment for fear of falling off and injuring themselves, pavements being perfectly smooth with hi-vis edges so that we can't trip, gadgets to automatically slow traffic, only crossing the road where designated, the list goes on. When we have a mishap / accident then there's someone to blame for not having taken the appropriate action to eradicate that risk.

I've recently been sued by a mamber of staff who tripped over a cable from a vacuum cleaner. I'd ensured that the flex was in hi-vis yellow but somehow I should have taken some other action - presumably been there to watch and warn if it looked like she might trip up.

When are we going to stop this dumbing down and start accepting that , as adults, we live in a risky environment and we need to look out for ourselves - it isn't always someone else's responsibility despite what Insurance-claim-lawyers-for-u say.

In the case of FPV I hope that the appropriate and proportionate controls are applied not some blanket "hammer to crack a nut" ill-thought-through stuff we usually get.

 

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

Not an FPV flyer either but find the concept facinating......

 

Whilst I agree with Tonys basic argument about the nanny state mentallity & responsibility for your own actions etc I think the worry for FPV is that you could quite easily fly the model out of site from where you are standing & not actually realise it.....say you are flying along & think you would just like to have a look over that hedge off to the left....the model might not actually be visible when you take your visor off to regain control....then what!!!!

[ken anderson.]

the other side of the aurgument is there is allway's the 'cuckoo' element of 'society' who will buy a FPV set up and use it (not the way it was intended)--actually it might not be even down to the cuckoo's....so some sort of guideline's/rule's have to be introduced to ensure that anybody who decide's to give it a go-do so in a controlled safe manner..and in the end don't have everybody else running for cover........after all a radio controlled whatever can do an awfull lot of harm...if it goes out of control...

 

     ken anderson's personal view...no offence intended to anyone or to cuckoo's......

[TonyS]

I see your point Ken but if we legislate everywhere to accommodate the lowest common denominator - the cuckoos - then very soon I'll need a letter from my local police station to buy a set of steak-knives (and I'm 45 !!)

 

Steve, agree which is why I think it might be more sensible to put the onus back onto the flyer - if you have an accident and someone is injured when the model was out of normal visual range then be prepared to accept some serious consequences.... Seems to me a more adult way of dealing with it and a lot more able to be policed...

[Kelly]

Well said Tony.

 

[Kelly]

The  Riding high  feature on free flight models in the December mag makes you think.

Free  flight with an I/C engine must be the most dangerous form of model flying no direct control at all.

 

[ken anderson.]

go on kelvin-dead right-my blinkered view-forgot about the free flight lad's.....we had better ban them as well.............(joke-o).

 

         ken anderson......

[Erfolg]

In this instance, I do generally believe some controls on how small aerial vehicles are used and controlled is necessary.

 

In some respects it is the use of the technology in built up areas by the authorities for surveillance where the greatest dangers potentially exist. Overflying demonstrations, crowd observation, observation of suspects etc. There can clearly be benefit in many instances, although undoubted potential for accidents.

 

I certainly have concerns that this technology could be used for covert observation, by individuals and authorities, which is also questionable in my opinion

[Bert]

Posted by Kelvin Stephenson on 25/11/2009 10:18:15:

The  Riding high  feature on free flight models in the December mag makes you think.

Free  flight with an I/C engine must be the most dangerous form of model flying no direct control at all.

 

 

 Yes, that may be, but the people who do that sort of thing have (usually) the common sense to do it in an area away from houses and people.

 

Bert

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

Ahh!! Common Sense....that most useful & rare attribute

[Ultymate]

Posted by Bert on 25/11/2009 11:43:25:

Posted by Kelvin Stephenson on 25/11/2009 10:18:15:

The  Riding high  feature on free flight models in the December mag makes you think.

Free  flight with an I/C engine must be the most dangerous form of model flying no direct control at all.

 

 

 Yes, that may be, but the people who do that sort of thing have (usually) the common sense to do it in an area away from houses and people.

 

Bert

 Have you ever been to the NATS the evening freeflight sessions draw massive crowds even when the weather's pretty inclement as it was this year, you end up with people ducking and diving all over the place, great fun but it is between consenting adults in the privacy of RAF Barkston

[Tim Mackey]

And occasionally OUTSIDE of the airbase too ! A couple of years agao I remember one old timer flying OOS, rapidly followed by its equally old owner hot footing it in his car

As you say Brian...an absolute treat of a do - for anyone visiting the NATS its mandatory.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by TonyS on 25/11/2009 09:32:54:

I've recently been sued by a mamber of staff 

 

 Was this mamber a snake in the grass?

 

Sorry. couldn't resist...

 

[Lee Smalley]

has anyone considered that the ANO has been changed regarding FPV flyers not to just legislate against the FPV and us lot flying toy aeroplanes,  but to protect real lives in real aeroplanes? natuarally a man flying FPV has no spatial awareness and as a result can not check around him for other users, free flighters are 99% really small aircraft and can cause no real damage FPV aircraft can be anysize they want  upto 20Kg

[David Turner]

That was a really good video. Thanks.

 

However, there would be no need for additonal legislation so as to prosecute that particular pilot; the existing ANO already has the scope to deal with such flying. Probably.

There's already a law against flying your heli up the main street, so I don't see that there is much to be gained by introducing "more law". The duffers won't pay it no mind.

 

This FPV genie is out of the bottle and I think that there's evidence that more and more people want to give it a go. I know that I do. Actually, I have, with a £20 setup from eBay. Shook the box and there was 300m reception from a .40-sized model...obviously not a sophisticated installation!

 

In general, I agree with the limitations as proposed by the CAA...the BMFA had no hand in this proposal, btw.

 

But, there must also be some means by which the more serious FPV proponents can indulge their desires to fly further afield. Either that, or let them operate illegally and, in many cases, ignorantly...with no chance of prosecution unless there is an accident.

 

I have argued, on the BFPVMFA website, that the FPV community should lobby for a formalised licensing system. This would incorporate formal knowledge of airspace and of appropriate FPV technologies...thus reducing the likelihood of conflicts with third parties. I have to say that my argument did not meet with much approval.

 

To the OP. You probably know my views on the "safety Nazis" (darn, I said it again!).  And I'm a bit surprised to hear the view that the FPVers don't matter because they are few in number.

[Peter Miller]

SEveral interesting points here.

 

On the Free Flight points, I remember the free flight area at Old Warden. Most people flew small models quite safely but we used to get the idiots who would launch a model that would scream round and crash.

 

The awful thing was that these fools would start up and do the same without trying make adjustments.

 

Of course they were even bigger idiots for not getting the model sorted before flying it in such a congested area.

 

I also agree on the obsessive rules for safety and litigation culture that we live in. It does get totally absurd at times and at times can even make things MORE dangerous.

 

However there are some areas where some rules are really necessary. Flying a model effectively blind without a second watcher at the least does seem to be one of those.

 

Of course we will always get the idiot who will not obey the rules but the sensible modeller will appreciate the need for reasonable rules.

 

On that video, well I am pretty sure that it breaks just about every rule in the ANO.

 

One of my own big concerns is that any serious accident will get coverage in the national media. We all know how they can latch onto these things. Even my local newspaper reported on the fatality at a show in Hungary.

 

We don't need any bad publicity from an accident. IT could only result in more draconian rules.

 

One other point that many people never think about. WE all consider the victims of any accident but any reasonable person who is the cause of an accident suffers considerable distress as well. You don't want that, it is bad even when not your fault.

 

 

[David Turner]

One of the things about the Nats free-flight IS the danger. At least, that's my opinion. The crowd is never more vocal and excited than when a model swoops down and sends it scattering. The crowd loves it; and so do I.

 

I admit that the Nats' free-flight is a special case, in that if you don't want to accept the risk, you just need to keep away...the FPV scenario does not fit that criterion.

 

I personally do not see the ANO as a Draconian document. In fact, I perceive it as being a very liberal piece of legislation...if somewhat open to interpretation. Its basic premise is, "Don't do nuthin' dumb". Or so it seems to me.

 

Perhaps we could adopt a different psychology, we aeromodellers. Instead of concentrating on the "vanishingly rare" serious accidents, we should spend more time promoting the fact that aeromodelling is a very safe pastime.

 

There really are very few serious injuries...and I don't count cutting your finger as being a serious injury. And those few serious injuries that are sustained, are pretty much wholly sustained by participants and willing spectators. And all of this safety is achieved despite an aeromodelling population which has more than its fair share of dummies and duffers.

 

FPV will find its niche, given time. And the ANO will be modified to provide greater freedoms to its acolytes. Give it time.

 

And, for God's sake, get rid of those reflective vests; you'll be wearing epaulettes, next.

Edited By David Turner on 25/11/2009 19:01:26

[TonyS]

David,

I wish I had a fraction of your faith in human nature....

 

 "FPV will find its niche, given time. And the ANO will be modified to provide greater freedoms to its acolytes. Give it time."

 

I guess the beauty of this is that to some extent you can't uninvent the technology... It's here and to some extent we have to hope / pursuade people to be sensible. Let's face it, people go clay shooting i.e. they get together in groups and wave loaded weapons around. You don't hear daily reports of people being killed and maimed.

FPV is a victim of being new. That means that the 'safety nazis' (who sit at home and every time something new comes along look for all the ways it might be a problem and get worked up) will jump on the band wagon. In time they'll get bored and move on to something else.

 

The video was incredible....but shows how dim people can be. It seemed to me that he must have been well out of natural visual range for most of the time and pretty much at the limit of the transmitters/receivers - but that's a technical point and I'm no expert with leccy bits (as Timbo will attest).

 

As I said before, if the plane had come down somewhere and caused harm then he/she should have been locked up - possibly in an asylum.

 

I'm not sure about all the privacy problems being raised. I guess I'm pretty boring and there's never any concern about people seeing what I'm up to - if they saw anything interesting I'd love to know what it was!! Then again, I was surprised at the recent hoo-haa about retaining DNA samples. Seems like a ruddy good idea to me to keep everyone's on file, it might make solving one or two crimes a possibility, but that's another issue. 

 

[Peter Miller]

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I never meant to say that the ANO was Draconian. IT isn't by any means.

 

What I did mean was that, in the ever increasing paranoia, there could be an outcry that would bring in tighter rules.

 

There was a council some years ago that banned any model over 36" span from flying. Crazy! At that time we didn't have ultra light electric models and a 36" span model could be quite heavy and  going like stink.

 

If anyone doubts the power of the paranoia of the great unwashed just look in Amateur Photographer.

 

You can be arrested and detained for taking pictures of any public place...unless you are a foreign tourist. Oh no. There isn't an actual law banning it, just the police and Community Support Officers.

 

There have been cases of someone being made to delete their pictures in London while a load of Japanese tourists were busy snapping the same scene right beside them.

 

I could quote other examples.

Edited By Peter Miller on 25/11/2009 19:19:52

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by TonyS on 24/11/2009 22:27:08: I just don't get what the heck the problem is with the muppets who think that slipping a visor off is too hard if you lose the camera link?

 

 Well, getting back to the original post,  I reckon I must qualify as one of your muppets.

 

Apart from a natural reluctance to lob what might be hundreds of pounds worth of kit from your head onto the ground when the link is lost (and how long would you hesitate before giving up on a fading link?) finding the model may not be as easy as you think.  From experience spotting gliders approaching competition finish lines in the good old days before GPS logging, to pick up a flying object in the sky with no reference for focus is not easy.  OK, it might only take 10 seconds, but that's an awfully long time if the model happens to be pointing downwind...

 

I'm afraid I see the CAA's point of view on this subject and would fully endorse buddy boxing within my own club. 

Edited By Martin Harris on 25/11/2009 19:29:58