Phil Brooks Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Referring back to Pete B's posting, and risking being accused of putting ideas into people's heads, I think we need to consider the dread phrase 'security risk'. Consider a hand launched electric FPV model, capable of carrying a pound or two of 'payload', capable of being directed remotely onto a given point. If you haven't, I've no doubt that the security services have. Would a blanket ban on all model flying be disproportionate? Probably, but don't bet against it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyS Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 Martin, I suppose having a flip up visor, putting it on a string around your neck or other solutions might prevent you from throwing your kit onto the ground and risking damage are perhaps overly-simplistic but possible answers. Don't get me wrong. I don't say I disagree with buddying as a sensible way of flying. I do however think that making it a regulation would a) not deter the morons who have no regard anyway for safety (look on you tube at how many guys show off their new heli by taking off from their back yards!!) and b) would be a nightmare to police. I'm proposing that we set 'common sense' rules such as: Fly only within line of natural sight. (Having a buddy's useless if neither of you can see the plane without a visor) Observe all the existing rules of model flying If you harm someone and you weren't following the rules be prepared to pay the price... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Brooks Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 OK Tony, but your response begs at least two questions:- 1. How does an unaccompanied FPV pilot know when his plane is 'within the line of natural sight'? 2. If and when he removes his visor, how does he know where his plane is, let alone what its' orientation is? I agree, regulation does not stop morons doing crazy things, but I think the point is that those who decide the rules, i.e. in this case the BMFA, must be seen to be adopting a responsible approach. If those of us who fly responsibly are not seen to disassociate ourselves from the morons, then in the eyes of the public, and particularly local authorities, we'll be tarred with the same brush. Once local government starts taking control of model flying we'll be left with nothing but simulators to fly. Much as I deplore 'political correctness', and the no-risk culture, we have to accept that the world is the way it is, and feeding the safety fanatics by appearing to condone possibly dangerous practises will not help our cause. As for the responsible FPV flyers, practising their black art far from civilisation, well fine, so long as they can be sure that the risk of damage to life, limb and property is minimised, but have they checked the small print of their insurance policies? If they are ignoring BMFA guidelines they may not be covered. Should the worst happen they may well find that their hobby has cost them a lot more than they expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Phil's comment on security has been going through my head as well. The first time I explained FPV and showed some videos to a non-modelling friend of mind his immediate reaction was "OMG 9/11 without the personal consequences!" It had honestly never occured to me but I can see his point. If this ever happed (heaven forbid) or was even tried, even suspected, the consequences for the hobby would be fatal. I'd put at least even money on the fact that FPV might be "gone" in a few years, once the implications become clear in certain quarters. If you don't think that is possible - just ask those who shoot guns or breed big dogs. BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyS Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 Phil, True but .... If you're looking down from a plane you should be able to work out if it would be possible to see where you are i.e. the plane from a certain spot ..?Have a whizz around on Google Earth - it works. Pick a spot and 'fly around' at a certain altitude. the point I'm making is that if you are concerned that you may not be able to see the plane you should turn around - if not and the worst happens it will be your fault and you will be liable. I agree with what you say about being seen to be doing the 'right thing' but it doesn't mean that intellectually I like it. There are way too many 'self-regulating' bodies that act in a manner designed not to deal with the problems but mainly to protect their self-regulatory position. This doesn't make it right and to me it means that the wrong factors are being taken into consideration. I'm also still too young to think that I have to accept the world as it is. There must still be a place when we can talk sense not politics - I'd like to think that this site is one of those places.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Mackey Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Slightly off topic I confess.... but I just dont see the attaction of the whole thingSure its a novelty, and technically clever etc, and has uses ( both good and bad ) for video surveillance and so on.... but its not model flying as I know it, or want it.I like to be able to actually see the model as it flies around, or admire it as it lands and taxis back etc....I can get a bit of video footage or birds eye view form the model by simply sticking a £30 el cheapo flycam1 on a cheap foamy model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyS Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 A Mod, off-topic!!!! Tut tut. That's a two bun penalty! I agree though. I'd love to give this FPV a go but there's nothing like watching a plane flying like planes should. Imitatin the birds is summat altogether different. Like comparing Maggie Thatcher and Audrey Hepburn. Sure, they're both birds but ...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Two or three points that come to mind after reading the latest posts. I have a simulator with which I can fly round as if in the model. I haven't a clue where the strip is! If there are no rules the morons can say that they didn't break the rules. At least if they have broken rules it gives victims and authorities more clout when it comes to any action. And rest assured that any judge would criticize the lack of rules. Other people that I have talked to agree they they like to watch the model and would soon get bored with being in it, just as I did on the simulator. Now where I can really see a use for the technique is in aerial photography. The pilot would fly the model and someone else would watch the view with the TV camera lined up with the still camera and so could take pictures when they got the subject in view. I recently saw this being done by a commercial company flying a tethered helium balloon with a ground link to a TV screen on the TX which then controlled the camera on a mount. Many years ago I used to do aerial photography from models. I was interviewed by Anglia TV. They asked (in a light hearted way) about taking pictures of restricted sites. That was before 9/11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 I agree. I'm always impressed with FPV but I don't think I'm tempted to buy a system. For me I too like to watch the plane. How can you tell if your loop is perfectly circular from a restricted view from inside the plane? How can you admire the "sit" in the air of your scale Cub, or the menacing swoop from a wingover of your WWII warbird, or the beautiful flat turns of your scale biplane from FPV. But R/C modelling is a broad church, and all the stronger for it. And those who do want to fly FPV should obviously be encrouraged to do so. But like many others I do think FPV opens up so many new possibilities that additional sensible regulation under the ANO is both desirable and necessary if we all to continue to enjoy this great hobby. Ah, but there's the rub isn't it? What is "sensible regulation"? It would have been very easy for the CAA to have effectively banned amatuer FPV - leaving it purely to the military. But they didn't. Instead they took what I think is a surprisingly pragmatic and liberal view. I feel the buddy lead regulation is a sensible compromise and, as at least one person has said, it provides a set of rules and a framework. If someone wants to operate outside of them, and there will be some, then if they have an accident we can at least disown them! BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 This video appears to infringe the sites rules, in that a Foreign Language was clearly heard, together with what I thinkare euphemisms for drugs and parties. As for the content. I did enjoy the pictures yes. Did I think the actions reasonable regarding safety or responsible behaviour, definitely not. The potential for damage to third parties was significant, the potential for serious accidents also high. I personally would discourage this type of usage, by individuals or authorities. Also I have concerns about the surreptitious potential of observation of honest persons, who may not wish to be observed in situations they feel to be private. OK at the flying field, with sensible rules. definitely not the high street or other public places, by anyone. Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 26/11/2009 10:59:05 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Meurer Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Just a few comments to the "killing rules": Till now we had 3 FPV models at our club, all three have gone lost latest on their second flight and haven´t been found again....all due lack of orientation. My suggestion is to try to get familiar with the flying area and sorrounding fields by visiting them phisically before and study them through the amazing Google Earth tool, it will help a lot to improove your orientation and knoledge of the area..... Rules should be made with common sense for those with none or little of it....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flytilbroke Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 One comment on the 25th, is that those who decide the rules, i.e. in this case the BMFA , Is a msiconception that a lot of folk fall for somehow. In the case of FPV they did not decide the rules. The current regulation while imposing a restriction is certainly not overly restrictive and does not prevent a person from flying FPV legally. To bring my thought here into context, I have been and still am, a knife carrier, since Five years old well over sixty years ago. I have also had, first Airguns since eight years old, then the use of and ownership of Shotguns and Rifles. First Licence, Ten Shilling ( 50 pence ) licence for airgun and shotgun over the Post office counter. Look at the restrictions in force now So, the current legal use of FPV is very sensible. It is also something which can and is likely to be modified for the worse if some fail to accept very minor, sensible restriction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Brooks Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Flytilbroke, point taken. BMFA do not 'make the rules' in that sense, but those of us who get our insurance cover through BMFA would be very reluctant to ignore their guidelines. On the question of risk, I think there needs to be a distinction between risk to oneself and risk to others. Whilst I'm quite prepared to accept that anyone has the right to decide how much and what sort of risk he or she is prepared to accept for themselves, risks to the safety and property of others must always be kept to the absolute minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Turner Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Posted by Phil Brooks on 26/11/2009 15:49:39: risks to the safety and property of others must always be kept to the absolute minimum. I think that this statement needs to be challenged. It would be trite to point out that, in order to meet this criterion, I would have to avoid flying altogether. The level of risk needs to be "reasonable". That's all. The insurance cover is not provided by the BMFA, but by a third party...a broker. You can go along and buy a similar insurance product direct from a broker. There are no stipulations regarding BMFA' regulations, AFAIK. As a separate point, a couple of months' ago, I wrote to the BMFA's insurance provider. I requested a full copy of the policy document...my paperwork says that I am entitled to see it on request and I wanted to read the small-print. Would you believe it? No sign of the document. So, I have insurance but no full idea of what I am actually covered for...until push comes to shove. Then, I guess, I'll find out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Im no FPV flyer, but, I remember a year ago on this forum that a BMFA announcement was made regarding such activity. It stated that FPV was a perfectly legitimate hobby. It said that its recomendation was that on its 'affilliated' fields it could be used in conjunction with a buddy lead system. When one considers what exactly FPV is in its practicalitiy is! A buddy system would seem to be a comonsense way forward. Im sure that the last thing an FPV flyer wants is to be in a position where the plane they are flying becomes/is out of control. Imagine an FPV pilot in charge of a 'Turbine' engined plane. No amount of comonsense when 'that' plane loses signal will result in a satisfactory outcome. Do I like the idea of a complete ban, no! Does it make sense to have a back up plan - YES! And, If a buddy system is the way to go, with current technollogy, then so be it. Complaining for symantics alone dosen't justify an augument. Complaining, for complaining sake becomes ineffectual. Try complaining becuase the system NOW in place does NOT work. Then the debate you have started will mean something. BB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Smalley Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Well im with Timbo on this first time for everything eh timbo ! i really don't see the attraction in anyway what so ever ... but everyone is different and given eveyhting that has been said on here i actually think the ANO is pretty slack and if people ignore the rules and break them in a populated area then further (and more restrictive) rules will surely follow, not just for FPV flyers either i bet !! If FPVs want to fly in the middle of nowhere then let them if there is no one or no property about for tens of miles who are they going to hurt and who is going to catch them to prosecute them! (tree falling in the woods and all that) i personally do not want to see FPV flyers at my club without buddy boxes, and even then im not flying when they are !!!Edited By Lee Smalley on 26/11/2009 16:43:26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Turner Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 As I understand things, there are systems available which will, on signal loss, return the model to its launch point. I guess that these can be programmed to, say, climb to 400', then head home and circle at a prescribed height. Such a system would actually be safer than our conventional LOS flying, wouldn't it? At the moment, signal loss means curtains for the model and pot luck for those on the ground. I'm quite sure that long-range FPV is both practicable and reasonably safe...given appropriate flying sites, equipment list and crew competence. The proposed legislation is attempting to "ban" long-range flying. I'm fairly sure that this tack will not work. Serious flyers will just get on and do it in spite of the legislation. It would be much better to legislate such that the FPVers can legally indulge their hobby under controlled conditions. That is, appropriate equipment, venues and crew competence. It is a much more serious business than conventional LOS flying. I am presently waiting for the postie to deliver some very high-tech gear to my door-step...but I ain't quite sure of its capabilities just yet, except to say that it has a very high level of automation. Commensurate with the price-tag! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flytilbroke Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Have a look at the restrictions which Rocket Modellers work within thier hobby. You will find that there is a Major restriction which states the they Cannot in Law utilise ( in our context ) self guiding systems. The same restriction applies to our Miniture Aircraft. This does not apply to the types of "fail safe" which can be used. We are not legally allowed to use "in aircraft" full self guidance systems. Even when designed to RETURN TO BASE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 I am sure that the self homing system will become available, they could possibly be financially viable for some. At present I remain to be convinced that a system presently exists for "Joe public". I am also concerned that this deals with one of the many failure modes. I would hazard a guess that the present military systems do something similar to that described. I also guess that the costs are far higher than most can afford. I would also guess, that the first advanced civilian system will be operated by the police or other such body. But judging by the system highlighted on television last year? operated by the Liverpool Police, an advanced civilian does not exist today. I think it is also worthy considering if the demonstration was safe, as the aerial vehicle was seen operating over properties? I also seem to remember that they were made aware of BMFA concerns regarding there operation, which involved the regulators. Any one know if this is true? I really do believe that we must be both responsible and operate safely, if we are not to have even greater restrictions placed on us. As for the police etc., these days it is a case of do as we say, not as we do. Erfolg Edited By Erfolg on 26/11/2009 17:36:50 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 David, you say.. "The proposed legislation is attempting to "ban" long-range flying. I'm fairly sure that this tack will not work. Serious flyers will just get on and do it in spite of the legislation." In my view such people who break the law are not "serious flyers" they are irresponsible and naive. And what is worse they are bringing into disrepute and risk an activity I value - i.e. being able to fly my planes in a public park as part of a properly organise, safety aware, club. You are right, the law (and the insurance companies) will indeed apply the test of "reasonableness". The problem is, judging by your statements in this and other threads, you seem to have no concept of what is reasonable in terms of the risks 3rd parties may be subjected to as a result of your activity. I have no wish to be rude, but to be frank, based on your comments here and in other threads, and if we are to assume they are your geniunely held beliefs, then you are the sort of flyer that alarms me. BEB PS I'll leave it to Timbo/Bruce to mod this if they wish - at least I will have got it off my chest! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter 'Ivanna Crashalot' Savage Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Why not just make sure you adequately range check your video equipment? it would be no different to misteriously losing radio signal on your radio set, like mount the camera in your car then set it recording at home onto a DVD or something then find out how far the range is, if you have, say, a 500mw 900mhz video set you are looking at well over 5km of perfect video signal and you would lose radio signal on your radio gear much before you run out of video range. As long as you now the area you would be able to see where you were previously then you could almost immediately know where you were. Ever since i looked at my dad's easy street i always loved the idea of putting a camera on the front and flying it, having to have a person next to you with a buddy box just seems too cumbersum. It means you need a lot more equipment. It all depends on the quality of your video equipment. If you have onboard GPS you can even tell with GPS accuracy how far you are away from the model. I have always wanted to fly a full size aircraft and i guess this is closest i will ever get... Edited By Peter Savage on 26/11/2009 18:07:19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Mackey Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Well at the risk of leaving you guys too much leash - again - I am not modding anything said YET. If the discussion moves any closer to personal insults etc, then it will be simply closed...after all, its had a decent run. You have all been warned - in a friendly way of course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Turner Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 That's OK BEB. Nothing rude in what you say. I think that you'd find that I am the most "un-alarming" flyer you are ever likely to encounter. Boringly predictable is more like it. As I recall, the Large Model contingent went through something similar 20-odd years ago. You know, "the end of model flying as we know it" scenario. In the end, the modellers had to form their own organisation. And, in fact, the LMA is now actually designated a degree of authority by the CAA... unlike the BMFA, which has none. So, the LMA campaigned to loosen up the restrictions on model flying. For example, in the early '80s, you had to apply for an Exemption Certificate if you wanted to fly a model weighing more than 5kg. At that time, a Merco .61 was considered to be a big engine, as I recall. People fit more power to trainers nowadays. Things change. And it will be possible for committed people to make a good case for relaxation of the proposed Amendment to the ANO. They may have to fly according to specific criteria...expensive criteria...but I'm absolutely sure that it will come about. I'll make a further prediction, too. I predict that, before too long, it will become blindingly obvious that FPVers are flying more safely than the LOS guys are able to do. Then, the pressure will be on the LOSers to change their modus operandii. Edited By David Turner on 26/11/2009 18:18:22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Oh Peter! come off it! "...having to have a person next to you with a buddy box just seems too cumbersum. It means you need a lot more equipment." The buddy box lead is pretty standard in most clubs and there are usually spare transmitters around so where is the "Lot more equipment"? Using it to teach people is hardly "cumbersome" so what is the difference when used in FPV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Claridge Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 a friend of mine watched a demo of a new heli for the fire brigade that one had a return to base fail safe system on board, cost over £1500, he was told the system would probably be available to everyone in two years time for about £1000 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.