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

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Raphael - thanks and welcome - we had to remove your video as it was causing a problem in IE browsers. Would you mind having another go? Many thanks.

[Stuart Leask]

(Raphael - as a UK FPVer, I do fear your video does creates a slightly grandiose perception of what  FPV would be about over here on our crowded little island! 

We're limited to 10mW maximum transmitter power here. Add the explosion of WIFI and other interference sources and, in practice, I find FPV seldom works well more than 3-400m away, or much over 4-500 ft altitude, even in relatively remote - for the UK - locations)

[David Turner]

 

Below is a copy of the document which the BMFA will have received from the CAA, in 2008, inviting comments about the proposed change to the ANO.

 

 

 

4 Consultation

4.1 You are invited to send comments on the Impact Assessment and on the proposed amendment itself (detailed at Annex 1 to the Impact Assessment). The documents can be found on the consultations page of the CAA website at www.caa.co.uk/Consultations.

4.2 Comments should be e-mailed to [email protected] or in writing to the following address:

Manager Flight Operations Policy (General Aviation)

Flight Operations Policy Department

Safety Regulation Group

Civil Aviation Authority

1W, Aviation House

Gatwick Airport South

West Sussex

RH6 0YR

4.3 Comments should be received by the CAA no later than 1700 hrs on Monday 11 August 2008. If no response is received from your organisation it shall be assumed that you are in agreement with the proposal.

4.4 Comments received by the CAA may be made public, unless the respondent specifically requests otherwise.

Yours faithfully,

Chris Finnigan

Flight Operations Policy Department

Distribution:

AngleCam

BAE Systems

Blue Bear Systems Research

British Model Flying Association

British Association of Radio Control Soarers

Chief Fire & Rescue Adviser's Unit, Dept for Communities and Local Government

Conocophillips Limited

Dorset Fire Brigade

Dragonfly Aerial Photograph

Directorate of Aviation Regulation and Safety, MOD

European UAV Systems Centre

Eye In The Sky

Flying Minicameras Ltd

Hampshire Fire Brigade

Helicam UK Ltd

High Spy RC Aerial Photography

Home Office Aviation Adviser

HoverCam

In-House Films UK Ltd

Large Model Association

Magsurvey Limited

Meggitt Defence Systems

MW Power Systems Ltd

QinetiQ (Business Development Manager UAV Services)

Remote Airworks (pty) Ltd

Remote Services Limited

Rotorcam

S & C Thermofluids Ltd

Scottish Aeromodellers Association

Secretary ACPO UAS Working Group

THALES Aerospace Division

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems Association

Walker Air Film

West Midlands Fire Service

 

 

 

Next is a link to the CAA' document which displays all of the comments which were received from those who were consulted (see list above).

 

 

Link

 

 

I'm still busy searching this document for the bit entitled "BMFA' response".

 

 

 

Fair enough, the BMFA had nothing to say, it seems. 

 

But, Andy Symons claims that the BMFA liaised with the CAA on behalf of its members.

 

In that case, the BMFA will have a document to that effect.

 

Since the BMFA is liaising on our behalf and in our names, we have a right to see the that document. Don't we?

 

Post it then, for the members to see.

 

Sits back, dunks biscuit and waits for the excuses to pour in.

Edited By David Turner on 02/12/2009 10:08:58

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 02/12/2009 10:25:12

[Andy Symons]

David

 

The point you seem to have missed is that those of us that are BMFA members know that we can enjoy FPV flying legally and while being insured, and all that is required is to follow the very minimum of common sense guidelines. All because the BMFA checked with both the CAA and its insurers what was required to do this. I would say that was a result for BMFA members.

 

If any BMFA members believe the guidelines are too strict or need changing all they need to do is get their club delegates to take the matter to their area committee meetings, or go along themselves to area meetings and put their case, then if it has support it will go forward to national level. As yet I can only imagine that no one has brought this up at area level, or if they did the area didn't agree with them. One of the perils of a democratic system is we don't always get our own way. Whether you like it or not, or whether you choose to believe it or not the BMFA is led by it's members, if members want something to change they have to do something about it.

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 02/12/2009 10:24:09

[David Turner]

QED.

 

There was no consultation, was there?

 

 

[leccyflyer]

Posted by Stuart Leask on 02/12/2009 09:55:39:
(Raphael - as a UK FPVer, I do fear your video does creates a slightly grandiose perception of what  FPV would be about over here on our crowded little island! 

We're limited to 10mW maximum transmitter power here. Add the explosion of WIFI and other interference sources and, in practice, I find FPV seldom works well more than 3-400m away, or much over 4-500 ft altitude, even in relatively remote - for the UK - locations)

 Stuart

 

That's very interesting information. I don't think I've seen those limitations presented so clearly before in these discussions. If correct, they would seem to limit FPV operations to within direct line of sight range by default.

 

The sort of flying exhibited in the video is quite simply totally out of question and indefensible in this country. Flying over and between houses, over roads and people, in the manner portrayed would be a clear breach of the ANO. However many pre-flights were undertaken.

[Andy Symons]

Posted by David Turner on 02/12/2009 10:26:29:

QED.

 

There was no consultation, was there?

 

 

 

Yes!! 

 

How else could we be informed by the BMFA that we can carry out FPV flying legally and while being insured if the BMFA hadn't consulted both the CAA and its insureres, it really is very simple to understand you know.

[David Turner]

There's no evidence on the CAA' website.

 

So, it must be at Chacksfield House.

 

Let's see this liaison document, then...if, as you maintain, it exists. You are a fairly senior elected officer of the BMFA. make it happen.

[Andy Symons]

Why would there be evidence on the CAA website? I don't maintain a liason document exists either.

 

You asked if the BMFA had consulted the CAA with regards to FPV flying. I answered yes, they consulted the CAA and it's insurers to ascertain what was required so BMFA members can enjoy FPV flying both legally and while insured. The BMFA then informed it's members through the BMFA news and club bulletins what it's members needed to do. All very straight forward.

 

Please tell us all how they could inform us that FPV flying was legal if following the very simple guidelines if they didn't consult with the CAA. Are you really suggesting that they are telling us it is legal without checking first? Surely not?

[David Turner]

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!....quote from Andy Symons

 

 

There is no liaison document.

 

So, what form did this liaison take?

 

And, are you really saying that the BMFA "liaises" with the CAA on matters of aviation law...and yet has no documentary evidence?

 

Is it all done "on a nod and a wink?"  Is that how it works at Gatwick, then?

 

 

[Phil Brooks]

"Consultation" is a word much beloved by politicians and bureaucrats.  It can mean many things.  In this instance, reading the last few postings, it would seem that BMFA did not take part in the discussion phase and did not submit a position document to the CAA when invited to do so, but did stand meekly before the headmasters desk after the decision had been made to be told what the great and good(?) had decided was right for its' members.  To a politician, that's consultation.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[David Turner]

Just to pull us back onto topic...there is a debate on the BBC's Have Your Say forum. Not specifically model flying, but attitudes to risk, Health and Safety stuff.

 

 

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/default.stm

 

Edited By David Turner on 02/12/2009 12:06:45

Edited By David Turner on 02/12/2009 12:07:53

[Andy Symons]

Posted by David Turner on 02/12/2009 11:35:33:

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!....quote from Andy Symons

 

 

There is no liaison document.

 

So, what form did this liaison take?

 

And, are you really saying that the BMFA "liaises" with the CAA on matters of aviation law...and yet has no documentary evidence?

 

Is it all done "on a nod and a wink?"  Is that how it works at Gatwick, then?

 

 

 Once again you are reading words that are not there, you said I maintained a liason document exists, nowhere have I said that, equally I have not said one doesn't exist.I didn't say there was no documentary evidence either, I did suggest it wouldn't be on the CAA website though, why would it be?

 

It is you that appears to be saying the BMFA did not consult with the CAA on the legality of FPV flying, I would suggest it is very plain to see that they have.

[Andy Symons]

Posted by Phil Brooks on 02/12/2009 11:41:54:
"Consultation" is a word much beloved by politicians and bureaucrats.  It can mean many things.  In this instance, reading the last few postings, it would seem that BMFA did not take part in the discussion phase and did not submit a position document to the CAA when invited to do so, but did stand meekly before the headmasters desk after the decision had been made to be told what the great and good(?) had decided was right for its' members.  To a politician, that's consultation.

 Alternatively there was no need to submit a position document to the CAA as the proposed changes are entirely sensible. However you are free to decide for yourself what the position was.

[Andy Symons]

Posted by Phil Wood on 02/12/2009 12:04:23:

Do the BMFA not have an official spokesperson on this forum?

If I were in their position I would make that a priority considering the number of members.

 

Polyphilla.

 But there are much busier forums than this, so that would mean an official spokesman on quite a few forums.

[Tim Mackey]

And thats where I think we will leave all this for now gents....I have provisionally closed the thread, as it seems that pretty much all that needs to be said has been. We are now straying into the territory of getting personal about who did what and who didnt etc.

When David returns shortly, he may well decide to unlock it.