New FPV rules effective March 2014

[Bandit]

**LINK**

[David Ashby - Moderator]

News also on the BMFA site.

[Bandit]

1000ft

Even as an FPV-er I think 1000ft is out of LOS.

[Pete B]

Speaking as non-FPV'er (but never say never!) I'd say this will be welcome news for that branch of the hobby. 400ft was a fairly restrictive limit but understandable whilst the authorities had a chance to see how it went in practice. The fact that there seem to have been few, if any, incidents seems to have reassured the CAA that a relaxation is in order and this should reduce the frustrations of the FPV'ers. Adjusting the height limitation must surely lower the temptation to push the envelope.

The increase in max AUW will mean that model size can increase from the relatively small Easystar/Bixler type to models around the 2m span mark, with better flight characteristics thanks to the lower wing loading and easier visibility at height.

Particularly with the larger model, I wouldn't say 1000ft is out of LOS - small, yes, but many of us with 2m or larger sailplanes regularly fly at that, or much greater, height, with no issues of visibility and control.

This might expand the number of those interested, too, as I'd imagine more than a few would have wondered whether it was worth the investment for the limited scope the rules offered.

This height and AUW increase does, of course, make the existence and role of the observer more important than ever, as the possibility of conflict has unquestionably increased. I'm sure responsible FPV'ers will understand and accept that, in the interests of everyone, such a condition is necessary.

A good day for the FPV'ers, I think, and no downside for LOS fliers, as far as I can see....

Pete

[Bandit]

I find FPV'ers not a problem to fly with at the patch as they are normally up high.

Quads are slightly more stressful as you don't see them easily so I don't like flying with them flying.

I'd like them make it necessary to have Return to home.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

you confuse me bandit, 1000 foots too high and you want to impose return to home.

regulations have just been relaxed, get yourself off flying

[Bandit]

1000ft is fine when a huge number of FPV models will be multi rotors you cannot see at further than 100ft and they still want it to be LOS?

Like I say RTH would be safer at 1000ft than an observer so no confusion as far as I am concerned.

What I am saying is 1000ft and LOS wont work well with many FPV models.

I know FPV-ers normally stay fairly high but fairly high is like 400ft or so, I'll try 1000ft with my big FPV plane but I think it'll be so high the observer won't really help, but then I will report back once I have tried it.

[Pete B]

There are two issues here, I think - fixed wing and quads. In either case, it makes sense for the model to remain within the visibility of those at the launch point and that will depend on the size and type of model.

Obviously, a 1500mm+ span fixed-wing FPV will be easier to see at a distance than a typical quad of, what - up to about a metre span?

I am concerned at your apparent interpretation of the role of the observer, though. He's not there to give the FPV'er a running commentary on how the model is behaving but to keep a look-out for other aerial activity, surely?

I'd have thought that, at 1000ft, the observer becomes even more essential than at 400ft.....

Pete

[scott cuppello]

The role of the observer is collision avoidance......I wouldn't want them to be concentrating on what I am doing!

[Bandit]

I guess that comes down to interpretation.

From what I been told at our club the observer needs to be able to see what the plane is doing if things go wrong like if you loose video feed which has worked well for me at up to 400ft. If the observer is looking about and not at the model then you could loose the model or worse..

If the observer is for collision avoidance only then makes it easier for me, no need to have anyone on the flight line as they can call out if they see traffic, insurance will cover everything else thanks for the info.

[Pete B]

I think you really need to read the rules again, Bandit, if you haven't done so already...

Selecting the relevant parts of that page:

2) The person in charge is accompanied by a competent observer who maintains direct unaided visual contact with the SUA sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions and advises the person in charge accordingly.

7) The person in charge must ensure that:

• a) the competent observer is fully briefed on the planned flight and what is expected of him/her taking into account the prevailing conditions;
• b) the competent observer understands that he/she must stay directly adjacent to the person in charge and maintain direct unaided visual contact with the SUA at all times, to visually and aurally monitor the airspace for other aircraft and the takeoff and landing area for any persons;
• c) the competent observer has been instructed on the actions to take in the event of another aircraft being spotted and a risk of collision is assessed; and
• d) the competent observer understands that he/she must advise if the SUA is proceeding beyond the point at which he/she is able to monitor its flight path sufficiently to identify a risk of collision.

And as for leaving what remains for the insurance to sort out............

Pete

[Frank Skilbeck]

While the observer is there primarily for collision avoidance, having somebody watching you model is not a bad thing in case you lose the video link, that way somebody can confirm that the RTH is actually working or if you need to retake control. Lots of instances in the US where the RTH has caused the quad to fly away.

 

But if with these new relaxed regs in place, if FPV continues without incident then you can see further relaxation, but it could go the other way if there is any incident reported.

Edited By Frank Skilbeck on 16/12/2013 14:31:02

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

up to 1000ft size of model dictates height limit.

if observer can't see it he's no longer your observer, is he ?

if you wish to use rth, fine.

why impose it though, rest of flyers don't have to use it.

if you believe it guarantees a safe return every time, your mistaken.

could fly into a full size while not under your control.

[Bandit]

So some say the observer is to watch it, some say not

Oh dear! What are us FPV flier to do

Forget it

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

simple, rules say observer must maintain direct unaided sight of sua

[scott cuppello]

Lol......is this a wind up? How did a little common sense turn into another pointless internet argument? The MAIN role of an observer is collision avoidance......who therefore OBVIOUSLY needs to keep an eye on the model in order to be effective in that role!!!!........come on guys, it's not that hard!

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

What worries me here is that my interpretation of the original rules (and the way we implemented them at our club) was that the pilot in charge was the observer who had the master transmitter on the buddy lead. This meant that the FPVer was free to buzz around in his semi-virtual world while the PIC monitored the flight and airspace in the same way that any instructor would with a pupil on a buddy lead.

Perhaps this interpretation was incorrect but it seemed to make sense for safe FPV operation but now the "observer" appears to be very much a set of (not necessarily experienced) eyes which have been briefed by the PIC who now has total control over the operation.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I agree Martin, I interpreted the original rules in exactly the way you summarise - the observer was the PIC for the flight. And like you I saw some sense in that arrangement. The idea that the observer is not now the PIC is departure from that. But furthermore the suggestion that s/he does not necessarily have to be sufficiently skilled to take control if needed is a second departure.

BEB

[PatMc]

The original rules require a buddy lead with the PIC in visual contact at all times & able to take control as he/she feels necessary. To fly without a buddy lead the PIC changes to the FPV pilot & has a number of restrictions added. The main additional restrictions are to the weight of model & altitude. None of the restrictions apply when flying with a buddy lead as per original rules & IFAICS it's only the parameters of the weight and altitude restrictions that are being increased.

I don't see any ambiguity or problem understanding the old rules or the conditions of the exemption either as it stands or as it is to be changed.

Edited By PatMc on 17/12/2013 15:48:49

[Gazza58]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 16/12/2013 14:44:19:

Posted by Bandit on 16/12/2013 14:19:23:

And as for the final comment - frankly, words fail me! Breathtakingly irresponsible is all I can say.

Please go to a small island somewhere, where your actions can't have any impact on me!

BEB

Australia perhaps ?

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Having checked out the links, I have to admit to having missed the detail of the original changes from the CAA. While I would normally be wary of the powers that be restricting activities unreasonably, I feel there's been a step in the wrong direction here - especially in upping the maximum weight limit.

As far as I can see, there's no requirement for the observer to have any model flying experience which, if they're given the responsibility of advising the PIC that the model is getting out of visual range, would put them at a serious disadvantage. Secondly, what if the PIC's eyesight was vastly inferior to the observer's - not an unlikely scenario given the age profile of the hobby - with the old system, the PIC had ultimate control of the situation and could ensure the model was within comfortable visual range at all times. Should a failure of the visual link occur, the PIC has to find the model in the air before being able to control it and even with excellent vision, re-focussing quickly to long range vision to pick up a very small object is a skill not many people tend to acquire.

Pat, having read it, the exemption is perfectly clear to understand - and it's that clear understanding that makes me rather more worried than I was before!

[ken anderson.]

good eye's reqd for 1000ft...

ken Anderson ne..1 .say no more dept...

[Gazza58]

I have never FPV'd but can see the attraction of 'being' the pilot of a model aircraft and more or less understand most of the discussion here. What I cannot grasp is that without telemetry how can the two man team, pilot and observer accurately determine the height of the model ? Four hundred feet is possible to judge give or take, but is one thousand feet straightforward ?

I was once asked in court 'how far can you see at night officer ?' to which I replied 'well on a clear night, I can see the moon'. Nowadays, I am not sure I could see a model at one thousand feet. Am I missing something simple ?

Gazza

[PatMc]

All FPV flying is done with telemetry - there would be no "V" without it. It doesn't take much to have an altimeter on the display & AFAIK that's common practice.

I fly non FPV but haven't had any trouble seeing my model at over 1000ft, the altitude being checked by refering to an onboard altimeter after the flight. In the very near future I'll be getting audible feedback of the altitude during a flight.

[Gazza58]

Thanks Pat. I understand that the pilot would be able to see the telemetry during the flight but how would an observer know or is this not relevant ? I didn't realise that all FPV displays show an altimeter.

Checking an onboard altimeter after the flight is too late for an observer or are we looking for problems that in practice never rear their heads.

The only reason I am asking this is that the patch I fly from is on the approach to an airport.

Gazza

Edited By Gazza58 on 17/12/2013 19:23:00