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

[David Turner]

I have a 2W 2.4GHz video transmitter and a set of Spekky.

 

I did try to disrupt the Spektrum equipment using this video transmitter, with absolutely no success. 

 

I tried each and all of the 4 video transmitter channels, in various permutations. I tried switching on the Spekky first, then the Video Tx first. I tried it with the respective aerials just inches apart. Nada.

 

So, I wouldn't worry unduly about these video transmitters interfering with your RC gear.

[Phil Brooks]

Your receiver has to be able to detect the wanted signal in order to identify it.  If it's being swamped by other signals on the same frequencies, how can it do that? 

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Posted by Phil Brooks on 01/12/2009 11:13:15:

Simon’s response to Martin Harris’s query “Is it legal to use equipment for airborne video transmission that does not channel hop or even check for spare frequencies before transmitting?” is “Yes - it is perfectly legal and within all Ofcom rules”. This would appear to contradict an earlier statement in this thread that the only interference problem associated with FPV was that of LOS transmitters degrading the quality of the FPV video downlink. 

As a Spektrum user I’m not likely to fly near a microwave or a Phillips TV sender, and even if I should I have a second channel, and a 24/7 fixed frequency signal is not a problem, but it would appear that there is a potential risk associated with FPV flying and the use of Spektrum gear. This risk is not of the FPV flyers making, nor of Spektrum users, but if it exists it should be recognised and addressed.  Is it possible to develop FPV gear that will scan the band before powering up, or even carry a separate scanner to find the necessary space before switching the link on? OK, perhaps all Spektrum users should switch to FHSSS, and FPV’ers are within their rights to just switch on and be damned, but they stand to lose the support of an awful lot of LOS users if they do. Model flying is a very broad church, and is marked by the fact that it’s various disciplines and their disciples in general display mutual respect for each other’s interests. The hobby does not need to be fragmented into warring factions, each fighting its’ own corner at the expense of others.

There is no risk to Spektrum users or FHSS users from FPV (ie the licence free transmission of video at 10mW on 2.4GHz).  Some people in fact fly with Spektrum and 2.4GHz FPV gear in the same aircraft without issue (their logic being that so long as the video is turned on before the Spektrum selects its channels everything is fine).  I wouldn't recommend this practice myself (having a 2.4GHz Tx an inch or two away from a 2.4GHz receiver just seems silly to me) but I hope it demonstrates to you that there is no risk to other aircraft.

 

There is the problem of FPV pilots seeing white lines on their video when they fly alongside other pilots using 2.4GHz RC gear.  However FPV pilots are aware of this and, whilst it does spoil their fun a little, it is not catastrophic and the flight can be safely concluded.

 

It is also fair to say that we are very actively looking for alternatives to 2.4GHz for the transmission of video because most pilots are now using 2.4GHz RC gear and therefore FPV is not available to them (without the need for them to switch back to 35MHz for RC).  If we could produce 5.8GHz gear of sufficient quality and resilience then FPV would be available to many more people.

 

We have also looked into FHSS technology for the transmission of video.  Ofcom rules would allow airborne transmission using that technology up to 100mW and there would be none of the problems mentioned above.  However at this time the technology is simply not available.  The best modules available would give only 6 frames per second at 640 x 480 resolution, or 25 fps at 320 x 240.   These numbers depend on a perfect quality link - as the link degrades the framerate drops.  Perhaps in 12 months time this is a possibility but its simply not there yet.

 

 

Edited By Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 01/12/2009 11:38:34

Edited By Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 01/12/2009 11:39:53

[leccyflyer]

Posted by BEAR WOOD on 01/12/2009 09:46:33:
I would encourage every member of the BMFA who feels that Simons proposal is resonable to raise the issue at their next club meeting and get their club rep to raise it at area level. After all the only policy the BMFA should have is that dictated by their members and theres no doubt getting the BMFA to support the FPV issue will help their case at the CAA.

 Likewise, I'd encourage every BMFA member who recognises that the refusal to comply with the entirely reasonable requirement of having a direct line of sight control of radio controlled model aircraft is unreasonable, to contact their BMFA reps to support the BMFA's considered advice and negotiation with the CAA. That is support to permit the continued operation of FPV, as model aircraft, with an entirely commendable and pragmatic approach to whatever legislation lies in the futre.

That advice is aimed at the bulk of the 36,000 members who are model aircraft enthusiasts of all types, not just the 0.1% who want to put themselves, and themselves alone, in the cockpit, without that safety net provided by the direct line of sight control of the pilot-in-charge..

Edited By leccyflyer on 01/12/2009 11:44:10

[Phil Brooks]

Thanks for that David, very reassuring!  If I've gone off on the wrong tack, my apologies to all.  

I still stand by my other argument.  Adopting an "Us and Them" attitude, whether it be FPV v nonFPV, BMFA v non BMFA, or any other perceived confrontation, is counter productive.

Right, I've had me two'pennorth, I now withdraw to read me Spektrum manual and consider the wonders of digital transmission technology.  

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Posted by Phil Brooks on 01/12/2009 11:32:43:
Your receiver has to be able to detect the wanted signal in order to identify it.  If it's being swamped by other signals on the same frequencies, how can it do that? 

 

Swamping would be an issue worth considering with the Tx in the same aircraft (ie a few centimetres apart) but other than that a 10mW transmitter poses no threat to swamping the band.

 

As David Turner says above he's tried a 2watt transmitter (many many times more powerful than 10mW) inches from his Spketrum and was unable to worry the Spektrum.  I also referred earlier to some pilots who do indeed fly with Spektrum and 2.4GHz 10mW video gear in the same aircraft successfully (although I wouldn't recommend that).

 

Interference is simply not an issue.

[Phil Brooks]

Thank you Simon, I am aware that 2W is "many many times more powerful" than 10 mW, but I probably deserve to be patronised.  We didn't have digits when I worked in transmission. 

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Sorry Phil I didn't mean to be patronising.  Please accept my humble apology?

 

Sometimes people ring me up and ask for a "10 Mega Watt transmitter".  I just wanted to be clear that 10mW is less than 2W in case anyone didnt know (I wouldn't have known the answer to that a couple of years ago).

Edited By Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 01/12/2009 13:13:22

[Phil Brooks]

Apology not necessary, I sometimes have an incredible talent for grabbing hold of the wrong end of the stick!  Never drove a 10MW transmitter, my biggest was 300KW. Try fitting one of those into a foamy!

[Stuart Leask]

[START RANT]

A little red light goes off for me too whenever an "appeal to expertise" is made. 

40 years ago, when Dieter Schluter first flew a model heli (no gyro!), he was in some sense completely inexperienced, and in others, on landing, the most experienced model heli pilot on earth. (This is one reason I love model flying; it's endlessly renewed through technical and performance innovation). 

In a similar way, a problem with FPV is undoubtedly that it is new and different, and thus cuts into previously-clear hierarchies of expertise. For example, what I've observed on several online forums is either FPV folk complaining the club don't like/understand them, or a club member complaining the FPV member was inconsiderate, out of control (plane, not person!) or whatever.

This is probably understood better socially - threats to the social status quo/hierarchy - "The oldest member" suddenly treated as a novice, or rather the newcomer taking this stance -  than pretending it is easy to argue that FPV is "clearly safer" or "more dangerous" than any other flying. 

A club is a group of people who have to get on; I suspect that no guidance is required, beyond "Work out something locally that makes sense. Don't ban anything as a type if at all possible".

Thank you for listening...

[END RANT]

The technology is not the problem. The problem is the ANO telling us _how_ we should fly our 'planes; they don't tell us we can't FPV, they just insist whatever we're doing - even controlling a UAV base station - we have an unaided view to look out for obstacles. They don't want any excuses. They're not interested that such a view might be at several hundred yards with no view over a close horizon, in contrast to the airbourne view of FPV. They want safety and accountability. 

However, at the same time,  they are content with the accountability around flying free flight. I feel that placing FPV in that category (in terms of safe operating procedures, perhaps with specific weight limit) is the only rational approach. 

Otherwise the law is saying it's safer to turn off your transmitter (noted earlier). Which is nuts, and therefore bad law, and bad law puts law in disrepute and encourages breach - anyone remember the poll tax?...

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Stuart,

 

Dieter Schluter was indeed inexperienced in RC helicopter piloting on that first day - as of course was everyone else. But the point surely is that he was not an inexperienced RC pilot?

 

Again emphasising that I am speaking purely from a personal perspective, I don't think its unreasonable to ask that

 

1. if FPV is going to be tried for the first time in club that flies in an area where the general public frequent then

 

2.  the pilot that takes that first step has a level of general RC experience that leads to his fellow club members feeling confident that he has the ability to control the plane if things "go wrong".

 

As I say, as things develop that might change, the attitude of a club flying on private land may very well be different.

 

Finally, just to be clear, I did say on a number of occassions that I personally hoped it could go ahead , and like you I enjoy and applaud new developments in our hobby -  but sometimes, in the interests of the majority, I think it might be wise to make progress slowly but safely

 

BEB 

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother on 01/12/2009 16:29:04

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Perhaps it would be interesting to interject here that BFPVMFA guidelines suggest that pilots fly as a "passenger" (IE wearing the goggles whilst another pilot flies the aircraft) for the first few flights with a new aircraft or at a new site, then progress to doing all but the take off and landing, and then eventually the full flight.  This teaches the pilot the lay of the land from the air and also how the plane behaves in pitch and roll if not familiar to him/ her.   Pilots under tuition, or at a new site/ with a new aircraft, etc. should also fly with a buddy ,etc.

 

Would this sensible pragmatic approach demonstrate ability and foster confidence in fellow members in a club environment? 

 

The safety guidelines are here: http://www.bfpvmfa.org/downloads/safetyguidelines.pdf  

Basically they suggest that a pilot should fly with a buddy when it is appropriate to do so (EG new site, new aircraft, new pilot, unfamiliar conditions, etc.).

 

If a buddy is required to allow him/ her to fly safely (and comply with Article 74 (and the new article 98(2)) of the ANO) then that is clearly how the flight should be undertaken.

 

However if it is safe to do so (the pilot knows the site, knows the aircraft, can assure himself that the flight can be safely made - and is flying a low weight foamy) then he should be allowed to make the flight (ensuring that he adheres to Article 74 and clause 98(2) at all times obviously).

Edited By Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 01/12/2009 16:57:25

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Using the CAAs Risk Assessment methodology, the activity of solo flying a foamie scores 2.5, which has the written explanation of "Low risk".

Risk Assessment

Severity of Hazard (i.e. What outcome should the hazard become a reality?)

Trivial Minor Injury Serious Injury Single Fatality Multiple Fatality

1 2 3 4 5

Likelihood of Occurrence

Highly Unlikely Possible Quite Possible Likely Highly Likely
1 2 3 4 5

 

Hazard	Severity	Likelihood	Rating	Mitigation	M/Factor	Final Rating
2 Control is lost due to video link failure and the rc fpv aircraft hits a person	4 (Explanation: it is possible that a regular 40 size i/c 2.5kg aircraft with a 60mph speed could, if it hit a person in the head, result in a fatality.)	2 (Explanation: for this to happen the video failure has to happen, the model has then got to crash, it has to hit the spot on the planet where somebody is standing – and has to hit them in a specific part of the body.)	8	Fly low weight (<2.5kg) low airspeed (<30mph) a/c with rounded features. Do not fly near people	Severity reduced to 2.5 Likelihood reduced to 1	2.5

Risk Rating

< 6 indicates a low risk

Between 6 and 15 a medium risk

>15 a high risk.

Edited By Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 01/12/2009 17:02:44

[Erfolg]

Phil

 

With respect to my memories of Arrow Park.

 

From the front entrance, to the right near a boiler house I believe, were some older accommodation blocks, where my daughter spent some time as a student. Later when returning she was placed in an accommodation block at the rear. This was reached by going left and around to the rear. Then there was a very large car park. With what I thought was some newer accommodation, either backing onto or perhaps intermingled with the wards, Although my memories placed these at the front.  This was about 15 years ago, things will almost certainly have changed and memories could be less than perfect.

 

 Although I do clearly remember the air craft. I  remember walking out the back of the car park, into a very  large field which had a gentle rise to the middle, from which I think they flew, To the left was some kind of country house type  park (without the big mansion), walking through led to another main road.

 

 

Risk

Regarding the risks of  PV flying, I suspect that the methods used  the CAA are potentially quite complex, involving identification of the at risk groups, the character of the risk, which risks are dependant and independent, risk trees and some probability type analysis. I would guess that the risk assessment/management system described by a contributor would also be used when investigating mitigating methods of operating.

 

In many respects I find the whole topic frustrating, in that this is an opportunity for the BMFA to both inform, discuss and educate us the members on a topic which is a current issue., Dialogue with the members on the threats to flying and how opportunities could be developed, would I feel serve the members well. I also feel that there successes need to be transmitted to the members, as part of making the organisation relevant to members beyond insurance and a Magazine. The BFMA needs to be brought out of the committee rooms and select discussion groups to the wider membership. There are some very talented members who are not engaged on BMFA activities, what they lack is enthusiasm to engage. This would ensure that the brightest as well as committed enthusiastic members represent us. 

[Stuart Leask]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother on 01/12/2009 16:27:40:

Stuart,

 

Dieter Schluter was indeed inexperienced in RC helicopter piloting on that first day - as of course was everyone else. But the point surely is that he was not an inexperienced RC pilot?

 

Again emphasising that I am speaking purely from a personal perspective, I don't think its unreasonable to ask that

 

1. if FPV is going to be tried for the first time in club that flies in an area where the general public frequent then

 

2.  the pilot that takes that first step has a level of general RC experience that leads to his fellow club members feeling confident that he has the ability to control the plane if things "go wrong".

 

As I say, as things develop that might change, the attitude of a club flying on private land may very well be different.

 

Finally, just to be clear, I did say on a number of occassions that I personally hoped it could go ahead , and like you I enjoy and applaud new developments in our hobby -  but sometimes, in the interests of the majority, I think it might be wise to make progress slowly but safely

 

BEB 

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother on 01/12/2009 16:29:04

Well, BEB(?), not sure about THE point, but MY point is that innovation does require those moments of risk taking with something new, when (if you're honest) you hope you know what you'll do... but you don't know... nor does anyone (ever maidened a big flying wing?!): That heart-stopping moment, when you let go for the first flight of the new 'plane... marvellous!...

I don't think we're disagreeing. It's not unreasonable to ask for proportionate reassurance: If it's a kerosene-filled jet near the local school, we'd all want to see B certs and PhDs in aeronautics. An I/C heli - gloves, trenches & sandbags? Small electric heli - a reasonable safe distance, one end of the field? I/C trainer - a take-off, circuit, land? Small electric foamie with a pusher prop - er, absence of white cane or guide dog?

And of course nearly all FPV is (for all sorts of reasons) at the electric foamie end. So, a foamie with a camera on it - nothing disproportionate, no problems, eh?

I even feel that if a particular club decides to restrict FPV to buddy systems, perhaps just while it gets used to things, perhaps longterm - then that is fine if the decision is up to the membership of that club. 

What I (and I think a lot of other modellers out there, not just FPV) object to is the BMFA or CAA pre-judging things, in all instances, taking individual responsibilities for local risk assessments out of our hands and _insisting_ on a minimum safety standard for FPV  that is not imposed for any other form of model flying.

Sorry, should have put:

[RE-START RANT]

...that is not imposed for any other form of model flying.

(Hang on , this is a rant... here goes, er....)

!!!!!!!!!

[END RANT]

!

[BEAR WOOD]

Thanks for you response Leccyflier looks like we might have some interesting club nights to keep us entertained this winter and then we might have some interesting area meetings aswell! Ill be taking along some videos from you tube of the free flight nats as an example of what the CAA and BMFA does allow  and some of FPV as an example of whats not allowed. How will you argue your case?

[flytilbroke]

Posted by leccyflyer on 01/12/2009 11:40:58:

Posted by BEAR WOOD on 01/12/2009 09:46:33:
I would encourage every member of the BMFA who feels that Simons proposal is resonable to raise the issue at their next club meeting and get their club rep to raise it at area level. After all the only policy the BMFA should have is that dictated by their members and theres no doubt getting the BMFA to support the FPV issue will help their case at the CAA.

 Likewise, I'd encourage every BMFA member who recognises that the refusal to comply with the entirely reasonable requirement of having a direct line of sight control of radio controlled model aircraft is unreasonable, to contact their BMFA reps to support the BMFA's considered advice and negotiation with the CAA. That is support to permit the continued operation of FPV, as model aircraft, with an entirely commendable and pragmatic approach to whatever legislation lies in the futre.

That advice is aimed at the bulk of the 36,000 members who are model aircraft enthusiasts of all types, not just the 0.1% who want to put themselves, and themselves alone, in the cockpit, without that safety net provided by the direct line of sight control of the pilot-in-charge..

Edited By leccyflyer on 01/12/2009 11:44:10

 This and other posts of similar nature is something I agree with and indeed have been advocating. By encouraging assistance time may well bring a system which is acceptable to practical FPV flers who wish to fly unnassisted. This way is what I have found to be the most productive in other fields. In the meantime until Demonstration can show to the "Powers that be" that it is indeed publicly acceptable to ALL the parties who have an input within the Flyable Airspace and of course Groundspace. Use what is within the rules and try to find means to alleviate or overcome the problems. Video signals require more Bandwidth than the Digital control; signals. Video (present format) as Simon points out, is prone to interferance. In major part this is due to the nature of the Video signal curently in use, also quite likely the fairly low quality of the TV Receivers which are unnable to filter out the unwanted control signals

[Andy Symons]

Posted by Stuart Leask on 01/12/2009 19:20:57:

What I (and I think a lot of other modellers out there, not just FPV) object to is the BMFA or CAA pre-judging things, in all instances, taking individual responsibilities for local risk assessments out of our hands and _insisting_ on a minimum safety standard for FPV  that is not imposed for any other form of model flying.

 Hmm, lets look at what the BMFA actually did, they (for they though please read "we" as the BMFA is it's members) recognised that some members were interested in FPV flying, they then liased with both the CAA and the insurers to ensure it's members can engage in FPV flying in a legal and insured way. Someone please explain to me how that isn't a good thing!

 

So since the BMFA guidelines were released how many times have FPV fliers raised the issue at area meetings? Put your case and if your area agrees a proposal can go forward to either full or areas council, it's a very democratic organisation if members can be bothered to take advantage of it. 

[Stuart Leask]

I'm with you, repeating the point someone made a few posts back, Andy, about the "glass is half full" view of what the BMFA has achieved.

(I'll raise it at the next area meeting I get to - I bet that's how all the other types of model flying managed to get to the point of being legal to fly solo, too...

... oops, that darn glass is half empty again!...)

[Andy Symons]

Posted by Stuart Leask on 01/12/2009 21:23:16:
I'm with you, repeating the point someone made a few posts back, Andy, about the "glass is half full" view of what the BMFA has achieved.

(I'll raise it at the next area meeting I get to - I bet that's how all the other types of model flying managed to get to the point of being legal to fly solo, too...

... oops, that darn glass is half empty again!...)

 Stuart

 

I consider my glass completely full, if I wish to take up FPV flying I know that as a BMFA member I can do it and be legal and insured by following some very basic and completeley non-onerous guidelines.

[Steve Ralph]

I have no experience of FPV but the possibility does interest me.

 Our lawmakers are continually tasked with finding ways to protect the masses from potential idiots. So we have many laws that cause inconvenience to sensible people.

The FPV usage is new and has the possibility to be dangerous if the video early in this forum is anything to go by. Our administrative bodies are bound to try to find a means to protect us all from anything that may be used against us to prevent model flying, so must be seen to be acting in a safe manner.

The CAA wants to prevent incidents with full size aircraft.

The rules won't prevent  people from misuse of fpv models but give authorities the means to punish.

Laws do get changed when experience and public pressure goes against them. e.g. we don't see many people preceding motor vehicles with red flags these days.

[leccyflyer]

Posted by BEAR WOOD on 01/12/2009 19:44:07:
Thanks for you response Leccyflier looks like we might have some interesting club nights to keep us entertained this winter and then we might have some interesting area meetings aswell! Ill be taking along some videos from you tube of the free flight nats as an example of what the CAA and BMFA does allow  and some of FPV as an example of whats not allowed. How will you argue your case?

 

Why, with all of my usual eloquence and persuasiveness, of course.

 

I surely won't be showing any examples of free-flight models, given that the comparison between a model not under the direct, real-time control of the modeller and one which is supposedly under such direct real-time control of the pilot(s) is unlikely to be very illuminating.

 

 

[Raphael Pirker]

There are so many misconceptions in this thread I stopped reading at page 3, created an account and posting here for the first time. A little introduction ... I'm the creator of the video on page 1 and have almost 250 hours FPV experience in the last 20 months with various planes ranging from 1.3m foamies to 3.5m gliders. I will list some of the misconceptions and my answer now

 

1) FPV is more dangerous than regular R/C - FALSE

When flying over urban areas, a backup plan is not enough. I have one highly experienced pilot operating the ground station (redundant receivers, batteries and antennas) ready to take over at any time. I also have a plane that has been tried and tested to do these kinds of flight and is regularly maintained. So I'm flying in a more risky environment, but I'm also taking a lot of additional precautions and security. Be honest, how often do you do wiring maintenance on your planes, guys? What about antenna improvements? Hinge replacements? I have a checklist and protocol that I follow when setting up my plane - do you?

 

So, in short, anything done wrong is dangerous. If you're taking many risks, you'll end up crashing and probably hurting someone. This is not isolated to FPV, but applies to R/C aircraft and to anything else in life as well. I am aware that by flying close to houses or roads I have the potential of causing damage to people or property, so I take necessary precautions and preparations. Stating that FPV is more risky simply because there is an additional technical device in the equation - and calling for very limiting rules in return - is moronic. Technical devices have a MUCH smaller failure rate than humans. Look at the last 10 crashes in your club ... human failure was responsible for all of them in mine ... I'm sure the percentage is similar in yours.

 

2) In FPV you have a smaller field of view - FALSE

When you from the perspective of a plane, you look into the direction the plane is going. In regular flight, you look at the plane itself. How many times have you done a low fly-by and had to pull up rapidly because of that tree you always forget? FPV gives you an increased awareness with a comparable field of view. The camera isn't static, it can pan 180 degrees and tilt 90 degrees on many setups. Give it a try now with your head, you'll notice you're not much better after all ...

 

In addition to that, the ability to judge distance is improved from a plane's perspective. Can you fly between 2 trees at 300m distance with your normal aircraft? I can in FPV. Collisions with other R/C aircraft or objects is much rarer in FPV than in normal R/C.

 

3) Flying FPV alone (without buddy) is more dangerous than doing the same in regular R/C - FALSE

The argument here is probably that the video-link can break up or some other equipment failure. On all plane-related failures, a buddy isn't going to be any good (R/C lockout, ESC freeze, physical damage ...) regardless of your flying style. The video link can be compared to your vision. In regular R/C you can fly into the sun, you can look at your battery indicator and lose sight of the plane, you can get something in your eye and lose sight of the plane, etc. In the time I've flown at the club, I've seen all 3 occur and lead to crashes more than once. In the meantime, I'm still flying the same plane and haven't had a single complete video failure. Yes, there were some minor dropouts (< 1 second) and twice I had to do a outbound landing - once because of a failing LiPo battery and another time because of interference. Both times I was flying with limited, but flyable vision.

 

4) FPV is boring / not real modeling

This kind of attitude is just ignorant and arrogant. True, in FPV you don't get to enjoy the various paint-jobs you've put on your perfectly-scale warbird, but you actually get to be the pilot. You get to experience your surroundings, fly with birds, paragliders, hike up mountains, dash through trees and do other fun stuff.

 

------

 

Long story short - FPV is in no way more dangerous than regular R/C flying. I'm not saying there are no rules that should be put into place (in fact, I'm applying to have my aircraft tested by our FAA to comply with "mini drone" regulations) but limiting FPVers to buddy-box only operation or other stupid rules is ridiculous. A buddy box is used to control the head-trackers. Having someone stand next to me is just as safe, and if he doesn't have to hold a spare transmitter he actually has hands available to correct antenna positioning or replace batteries - you know, stuff that actually causes crashes.

 

I firmly agree with the theory that FPV poses a threat to "club hierarchy". There is a lot of misunderstanding and hostility towards the hobby in regular clubs. I've threatened to quit my R/C club only last week and fly from my backyard from now on. You guys need to look at FPV as a completely different interpretation of R/C modeling. It will reach a completely different crowd of people who, deep down, share the same enthusiasm for aviation and technology. It enables people to experience nature and their environment instead of just their aircraft. The long-awaited dream of man being able to fly has come true ... and all some of you can think of is additional safety regulations.

Edited By Raphael Pirker on 02/12/2009 02:03:15

[Raphael Pirker]

Posted by TonyS on 25/11/2009 19:15:10:

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 dim, and neither do I need to be locked up in an asylum. At no point in my video was I near the limit of my system (I have never actually reached the limit, but have reached 3 to 4 times the distance) The first part of the video was long range where neither my buddy nor me had visual contact (we use checkpoints and flight protocols to communicate position of the plane), but we were flying over uninhabited forest and unpopulated skiing slopes. In the town part, there was visual contact at ALL times, and any flight near roads were only done after getting the GO from my buddy (no cars and no pedestrians within "scaring distance").

If I may, one of my first long range FPV videos, for your enjoyment, just to show you the kind of pre-flight preparations performed before EVERY flight. I don't edit that kind of stuff into the videos anymore as it's a lot of work:

Edited By Mark Web Tech on 02/12/2009 08:19:03

[TonyS]

Raphael,

Perhaps the language was emotive and for that I apologize.

 

However.....The frustration with the video post remains. Whether or not you felt you had proper control is almost irrelevant. Those opposed to FPV will do exactly as I did, see your posting and think - irresponsible! 

As a result those who wish to impose tight  or even inappropriate measures on FPV flying have more ammunition. Don't think for one minute that they'll take the time to ask you about your pre-flight prep, back-up's, other safety measures.

You may be wildly excited about your flying and want to show everyone how good your gear is etc etc but IMHO I would, in future, enjoy it and not be so quick to post videos with captions saying that your doing this from inside your house. This is what will ruin it for others.