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

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Posted by Dave Bran on 27/11/2009 08:42:38:

Don't put yourself in the position of  being the one to trigger a similar permanant situation. Don't buy "bargain" inadequate systems, and fly only where and how it's safe.

 

YouTube is undoubtedly our biggest enemy as FPV pilots.  Goodness knows that people have done silly things with RC aircraft outside of the BMFA (and occasionally inside of it) for donkey's years but its not put up on YouTube for all to see - with the notable odd-exception such as the guys doing the (Humber?) crossing flying their whacking great IC plane LOS whilst driving across the (Humber?) bridge!

 

Unfortunately any onboard footage (quite often its not even FPV flying...just a FlyCamOne or something similar) of a couple of idiots with a no regard for safety (IE contravening the Air Navigation Order several times over) showing something dodgy is presumed to be FPV flying and to represent how all pilots behave.

 

Its really important to note that the majority of real FPV pilots have flown RC models for years, are often full size pilots as well, and they have invested probably nearly £1000 in their kit (yes - even flying with an FPV Easystar will cost you around £1k fully kitted out).

 

I hope that people can see the difference between the activities involved in producing videos like this http://www.vimeo.com/944802?pg=embed&sec=944802 and the videos where some idiot has bought his first plane, stuck a FlyCamOne on it and launched it from his the middle of his street (which is already illegal under the existing ANO if it recklessly endangers people or property).

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Hi David (Ashby), and David (Turner)!

 

the "David" in my last response was "David Turner" not your good self. "David Ashby"! My fault entirely for the confusion! Sorry.

 

I was responding to a question David T. had asked -  why people seemed so "down" on FPV. I was simply replying to him that I did not think that people were particularly down on them. Myself, as I say, I wish them good luck even though I am not tempted!

 

Finally to David T - you're right that human 3D perception via stereo imaging is less effective with distance - but it is still effective and even at quite large distances it is still our principle depth perception tool. At distance we do pick up other clues - some of which can be picked up via a camera - but I' afraid, unlike what you stated, paralax isn't one of them - you need two eyes to detect paralax effects!

 

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother on 27/11/2009 11:54:24

[David Turner]

In response to BEB.

 

 

I should have specified "motion parallax"...for which you need only one eye.

 

I can't find any source that supports your assertion that "stereo imaging" is effective at large distances.

 

 

Simondale's video offering is an inspiring example, I think. All the better for being in slo-mo. How can you fail to be tempted by stuff like that?

 

 

Edited By David Turner on 27/11/2009 12:20:56

[Lee Smalley]

can i just attempt to get this thread back on topic guys !!

 

we are looking at new technologies here (at least in modeling terms)

and as a result of that there may be a few restrictions imposed early on until the tech is proven and safe (ish) methods of working are established there is absolutly no-one here who wishes to see it banned or anything as silly as that, but what is clear is that there are a lot of unknowns (as the lenth of this thread shows) and a lot of people with misguided ideas (myself included)

 

Can people remember what happened when the automobile was first brought out, yep you had to have a guy walking in front of it with a red flag

now im not promoting that idea but what i am saying is that sensable pecautions need to be taken in the early days of new tech until we can satisfy ourselfs everything is ok, and i am sure in time and with the hard work of people like Simon Dale and the guys from the FPV association the CAA will come round to the idea of relaxing the rules

 

quotes like  "Lee Smalley: Perhaps if you were flying FPV this year you would have avoided the accidents number 2 and 3 on your list "

dont help ! and only serve to depress me !

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Posted by David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 27/11/2009 05:26:47:

Hi Simon, You're the chairman of the BFPVMFA - are you hopeful that the CAA will reconsider your case? Just out of interest what's the position in the USA? Are flyers there less restricted?

 

Hi David,

 

I do have a meeting planned with the CAA and DfT for the New Year.  I intend to take with me some equipment to show them and also a wise man or two (amazingly enough our treasurer has been doing FPV for more than 10 years).  (David Turner would be a good choice too - even though he's never flown FPV!)

 

Whilst I wouldn't say I'm very positive about the likelihood of a U-Turn on this (I've been speaking to the CAA for several months on this now with no sign of that) it will be interesting to see them look me in the eye and keep a straight face whilst telling me that my 600gram FPV Fox (with panning camera and GPS OSD) poses an unacceptable danger to public safety!

 

If we can demonstrate that we are a sensible group of people, just like the rest of the RC modelling world, perhaps they will give us some kind of exemption.  Afterall if Freeflight flyers are trusted to use their considered judgement to fly their models in a safe and responsible way (IE free flight is not banned in the ANO) then I don't see why FPV flying, which gives infinitely more control, should not be allowed.

Edited By Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 27/11/2009 12:52:35

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Posted by Lee Smalley on 27/11/2009 12:50:14:

can i just attempt to get this thread back on topic guys !!

 

we are looking at new technologies here (at least in modeling terms)

and as a result of that there may be a few restrictions imposed early on until the tech is proven and safe (ish) methods of working are established there is absolutly no-one here who wishes to see it banned or anything as silly as that, but what is clear is that there are a lot of unknowns (as the lenth of this thread shows) and a lot of people with misguided ideas (myself included)

 

Can people remember what happened when the automobile was first brought out, yep you had to have a guy walking in front of it with a red flag

now im not promoting that idea but what i am saying is that sensable pecautions need to be taken in the early days of new tech until we can satisfy ourselfs everything is ok, and i am sure in time and with the hard work of people like Simon Dale and the guys from the FPV association the CAA will come round to the idea of relaxing the rules

 

quotes like  "Lee Smalley: Perhaps if you were flying FPV this year you would have avoided the accidents number 2 and 3 on your list "

dont help ! and only serve to depress me !

 

Hi Lee,

 

You make some interesting points, and sorry to rake up the season's crashes!

 

As far as I am aware there has never been an injury caused by FPV flying.  FPV flying with an Easystar or similar scores "2.5 - Low risk" on the CAA's risk assesment template.  The CAA have yet to produce any credible evidence or risk assesment which demonstrates that FPV flying is anything other than perfectly safe and a reasonable pursuit.

 

As a very subjective example...Personally I have yet to crash an FPV plane in 4 years of trying and (sorry to rake it up again!!) you had 4 crashes this year  

 

For the CAA to ban an activity based on no understanding, no consultation of FPV pilots, no demonstration of the sport/ activity and equipment/ pilots, etc. is in my view a little too much.  I wish they had consulted the FPV community as I'm sure they would have a different point of view after having seen the sport in practice and the equipment involved.

 

Banning solo FPV will stifle development.  For example the changes to the ANO will prevent me from flying FPV anymore and so my future efforts in developing new products, safety guidelines, best practice, etc may well be lost.  And they'll be many more like me.  We can only hope that development continues in earnest overseas, somehow is noticed by the CAA, who relax the rules and we can start flying again.  A long shot...

 

The changes to the ANO will also mean that the BFPVMFA will most likely disband because the £5m liability insurance offered for solo-FPV is of no use to anyone any more (you can't insure an illegal activity) which again will be a bad thing for FPV flying.

 

Also a CAA consultation takes around 2 years from start to finish.  If we could even persuade them to consider changing the rules back again (which is extremely unlikely in my view) then there's a 2 year lead time to change the ANO.

 

Its interesting that you use the story of the man with the red flag as an example of sensible rules and regulations!  Most people use this as an example of extremely over zealous rule making.  The man with the red flag was clearly way OTT and completely negated all of the benefits of the motor car.  Its a good example of what not to do.

 

All the best

 

Simon

Edited By Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 27/11/2009 13:29:21

[Myron Beaumont]

Simon

May I just wish you the best of luck. If it wasn't for folks like yourself promoting your equipment  (& dare I say fighting off uninformed opposition from "non-believers" & sceptics with no facts under their belt) We'd still be in the dark ages .

In the case of aeromodellers we'd all be in the age of the wright bros and speaking german.

Reminds me of a certain Mr.Mitchell (spelling ? ) Who happened to have a design ready and able to do a certain job ! (with a bit of tweaking! )  & the

Mosquito designer ---The list is endless . Can you tell me ,by the way,if the technology is even partly British ?

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Hi Myron,

 

Thanks!

 

At FirstPersonView.co.uk our camera units are made up (by me and my old man) in the UK.  The 5-14V input, dual output 5v/12V step up/ step down "motherboard" circuit board is printed and assembled in Kent and then we solder on the connectors and pig tails to connect to the transmitter and camera itself.

 

The system that we created for Hobby Lobby in the USA (the only FCC approved FPV system in existence) was designed and built by an RC modeller in the UK, FCC tested by a lab in the UK, assembled by the company in Kent, packed in the specially printed boxes with the goggles, camera, receiver,etc. by us in the UK and then shipped off to Tennessee.  (This all provides useful input into the UK economy if nothing else!).

 

I wouldn't say that we lead the world in FPV innovation (although a Brit. based in Switzerland is half of the team who developed the gyro head tracker/ EzOSD/ Tracking Antenna/ Diversity/ etc) but if it wasn't so hard to do it in the UK perhaps there'd be more innovation*.

 

* We've said nothing here about the problems that we face with Ofcom.  We are limited to 10mW on 2.4GHz and 2.4GHz video is incompatible with 2.4GHz radio gear.   We're testing 5.8GHz equipment but at the maximum 25mW allowed by Ofcom its not much cop.

 

 

[Myron Beaumont]

Simon

As they say down Cornwall    --  "Proper Job" . I might just be able to help re: USA .

 PM me if you want  No promises but you never know !

Myron

 

[Peter 'Ivanna Crashalot' Savage]

This one looked pretty good, if not a bit irresponsable, luckily it did not injure anybody, but what is to stop a military UAV from failing and crashing then hurting someone? If you have good equipment i don't see how it would be any different

[Pete B]

Nothing at all, Peter, no technology is infallible. Whilst, so far as I'm aware, such UAV's are not presently being used over populated areas in the UK by the authorities, if one crashes in a 'theatre of war' and by some chance actually hits someone, then this will just be considered collateral damage..........

 

Pete

[Peter 'Ivanna Crashalot' Savage]

Why not just make sure you have adequate 3rd party insurance for the unlikely chance that it may damage someone/someones property...

[Pete B]

Well, taking the extreme example, no insurance payout is adequate recompense for suffering injury or death! It's much better that the accident does not happen in the first instance.

What should have surprised me, but doesn't, is that it would seem no consultation was made by the CAA of practitioners before the proposals were made. The problem is, government will automatically go to the organisation they see as representative of a particular group, in this case the BMFA. Whether the BMFA should have sought time from the CAA to consult flyers is for others to decide - I don't know if they did or not.

As the CAA is just another government quango there might be recourse to an Ombudsman or a legal challenge to the ruling.

Otherwise, once again, the little man suffers the arrogance of authority.........

Pete

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Hi Pete,

 

You're quite right that it would be of little comfort to the family in the horrific and extremely highly unlikely event of killing someone but BFPVMFA members do have £5m public liability insurance for all FPV flying (even solo - whilst it is legal).

 

You're also right that the CAA asked the BMFA exclusively regarding model flying and the BMFA didn't consult any actual FPV pilots.  A real shame but not too surprising.

 

I am working with the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council and the Better Regulation Executive as I believe that the consultation was not properly carried out for the reasons mentioned above.  I have also complained to the parliamentary ombudsman through my local MP.

 

Unfortunately you are again right that we are very much the little guy and we are very much suffering at the whim of regulator.

 

All the best

 

Simon

Edited By Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 27/11/2009 17:35:27

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

With regards to a legal challenge I know that the British Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association were successful in getting a CAA implemented law relating to their sport undone in a Judicial Review.  Unfortunately I also know that the legal fees were in excess of £12,000.  The BFPVMFA has no such funds!

[flytilbroke]

I see that Easystar and similar models are Always being cited. So ok if that is what is being asked for. Only specified models allowed. That however is most definately not the case is it? Add all the items being promulgated as part of the proposed equipment which will show all the navigational information, as legal requirement. Then I have no doubt almost all FPV pilots would much prefer just being attatched to a pal's Tx via a buddy lead.

 

 All FPV pilots have no wish to be restricted to lightweight foam models, I know of some who wish to use FPV in thier normal IC and Electric models for example, 1/5 and 1/4 scale size Models.

 

It does no good whatever to argue the use of equipment which in reality will not be part of actual practice. The very opposite of what is being argued for, is the likely oucome. The People who have the duty to make and enforce the Air Navigation regulations have a much bigger duty of care than to accept unfounded claims that only "foamies" would be used.

 

Yes, I would like to use FPV, I am not however so narrow focussed as to be blind to other opinions on what can be accepted as safe within the jurisdiction of National Air and Public safety.

[Peter Miller]

NEWS ITEM!

 

Tonight About Anglia reported that it is possible/likely that UAVs will be used to patrol the coast looking out for drug smugglers..

[David Turner]

Flytilbroke.

 

What would the FPV pilot have to do in order to convince you that he could reasonably fly both safely and solo?

[Peter 'Ivanna Crashalot' Savage]

Just the other day the Selex Galileo UAV crashed somewhere in wales

 

If your going to try and avoid the problem completely why not just stop model flying full stop aswell as full size flying? and cover everyone in bubble wrap then put them in individual boxes and put into safe storage

Edited By Peter Savage on 27/11/2009 18:36:15

[001]

I have never seen a FPV model flown. Just out of interest, are they taken off and landed in FPV.?

[flytilbroke]

Posted by David Turner on 27/11/2009 18:33:49:

Flytilbroke.

 

What would the FPV pilot have to do in order to convince you that he could reasonably fly both safely and solo?

 

Posted by Peter Miller on 27/11/2009 18:24:36:

NEWS ITEM!

 

Tonight About Anglia reported that it is possible/likely that UAVs will be used to patrol the coast looking out for drug smugglers..

 A lot less than it would take to convince you that the BMFA is a good thing. Got me  out loud that. I have not said that an FPV pilot cannot fly safely. Just not the two together, Safely and Solo within most of the UK where it would take place. Plus of course I am I believe in with the majority with that opinion. Given time my opinion may change. By the way, did I mention other people and National Air and Public Safety?

 

Second Item,,, Oh look, That thing is invading my privacy, It is taking photo's of ,,,, Not that I am against any reasonable means of catching the bad guys.

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Posted by flytilbroke on 27/11/2009 18:17:25:

I see that Easystar and similar models are Always being cited. So ok if that is what is being asked for. Only specified models allowed. That however is most definately not the case is it? Add all the items being promulgated as part of the proposed equipment which will show all the navigational information, as legal requirement. Then I have no doubt almost all FPV pilots would much prefer just being attatched to a pal's Tx via a buddy lead.

 

 All FPV pilots have no wish to be restricted to lightweight foam models, I know of some who wish to use FPV in thier normal IC and Electric models for example, 1/5 and 1/4 scale size Models.

 

It does no good whatever to argue the use of equipment which in reality will not be part of actual practice. The very opposite of what is being argued for, is the likely oucome. The People who have the duty to make and enforce the Air Navigation regulations have a much bigger duty of care than to accept unfounded claims that only "foamies" would be used.

 

Yes, I would like to use FPV, I am not however so narrow focussed as to be blind to other opinions on what can be accepted as safe within the jurisdiction of National Air and Public safety.

 

I think that's exactly what we're saying when suggesting a 1.5kg weight limit when flying solo.  Only certain types of models: low mass, low inertia types with low airspeed - when flying solo.  Perhaps other types of aircraft require a buddy lead arrangement.

 

I don't think anyone would be too worried about a requirement for an OSD when flying solo either.  Makes sense to me and I can't think of an FPV pilot who doesn't have an OSD.  Much easier to pay £160 for an OSD than find a willing FPV buddy when I want to go flying for 30 minutes on Tuesday lunchtime in my experience...

Edited By Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 27/11/2009 19:13:39

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Posted by flytilbroke on 27/11/2009 19:12:54:

Posted by David Turner on 27/11/2009 18:33:49:

Flytilbroke.

 

What would the FPV pilot have to do in order to convince you that he could reasonably fly both safely and solo?

 

Posted by Peter Miller on 27/11/2009 18:24:36:

NEWS ITEM!

 

Tonight About Anglia reported that it is possible/likely that UAVs will be used to patrol the coast looking out for drug smugglers..

 A lot less than it would take to convince you that the BMFA is a good thing. Got me  out loud that. I have not said that an FPV pilot cannot fly safely. Just not the two together, Safely and Solo within most of the UK where it would take place. Plus of course I am I believe in with the majority with that opinion. Given time my opinion may change. By the way, did I mention other people and National Air and Public Safety?

 

Second Item,,, Oh look, That thing is invading my privacy, It is taking photo's of ,,,, Not that I am against any reasonable means of catching the bad guys.

 

Your second item is a completely different topic and is covered by the article 98A of the proposed Air Navigation Order.  Any aircraft with "surveillance apparatus" must not be flown within 150m of congested areas.  IE people and property.

 

Nobody, AFAIK, has any issue with 98A of the proposed ANO changes.

 

Please lets keep to the real issues under discussion.

Edited By Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 27/11/2009 19:18:55

[David Turner]

It was a serious question, Flytilbroke.

 

I 'm trying to determine what conditions  you would deem to be necessary in order for the FPV pilot to fly solo. Presumably you think that  there is some set of criteria which would permit solo flight.? Or, perhaps not.

 

 

 

 The BMFA...?

[Jay28]

There should be a serious concern for all if solo FPV is made illegal. FPV pilots will be forced to leave their quiet country fields and fly at local club sites, where "buddies" are more readily available. The problem with this is they will be bringing their 2.4Ghz video transmitters with them. These VTX's hog a large part of the 2.4Ghz band and are not compatable with 2.4Ghz radio systems at all. If a vtx is accidently switched on whilst your using a 2.4Ghz radio, your model could be falling from the sky or flying off  in to the distance, whilst you have absolutely no control over it.

 

Wouldn't it be safer to leave the FPV pilots flying alone in the country away from harms way?