New FPV rules effective March 2014

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Here's something people could try next time they're at the field...

Get someone to fly a quiet model well within the limit of their comfortable vision. Turn your back on the flying area for a few seconds while they fly in a random direction and then turn to face it. Find the model. Try it a few times.

See how many times you spot it within 10 seconds. I suspect that however good your vision is, you'll find it much more difficult than you anticipate.

Now try it at the limit that they can fly comfortably.

[PatMc]

Posted by Gazza58 on 17/12/2013 19:07:53:

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 ?

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

The pilot is the one in charge therefore responsible for keeping within the altitude limit, the observer will have to inform the pilot when he is reaching his visual limit.

I only mentioned checking the altimeter after a flight with ref to your doubt at being able to see a model at 1000ft.

Is your patch in any category of controlled airspace ? Do the people who fly there have any means of checking their models' altitude ?

[PatMc]

Martin, it's easy to lose sight of a model by glancing down at the Tx display whilst flying it at a distance. For my own satisfaction I often limit the power run on my E-gliders to 30 secs then cut & glide. Climb is always very steep so the model is viewed "tail on". I now discipline myself not to look down at the time display when I think time is nearly up but rely on the Tx audible alarm or risk spending several frantic seconds trying to re-locate the model which is invariably stalling & losing precious height.

[Erfolg]

Although the discussion is very interesting, sometimes I feel that not all can see the issues that are potentially limiting.

I would take as an example the 30 mph speed limit for road vehicles. Travelling at 30 mph may not necessarily be appropriate at all times, particularly if in court.

I can see the "competent" observer potentially being an issue. How do you demonstrate that you are competent when challenged? I have experienced this type of issue when the concept of "SQUEP" was introduced, that is a suitably qualified and experienced person. Seems easy, the person holds an appropriate academic qualification, and they have can show an employment record where they can show experience. It is when you auditor starts nit picking, how relevant is the educational level achieved, is the employment record that relevant? At the end of the process, many may not want to be an observer if they are potentially going to be put through the wringer and may be held liable for some failing.

It is much the same with altitude, on all but the finest days, it could be difficult to justify even half the max limit.

But with most things, there is no issue, unless something goes wrong. Then it becomes apparent why you need to be prepared to push a book down your pants and put together a excellent argument, of how you were aware of all the regulations, took appropriate measures to fully comply.

Yet push the boundaries, you are potentially in serious trouble, if called to account, however seemingly unreasonably.

I wish the FPV modellers well, and hope they go carefully, build up evidence why the boundaries can be further out.

[Gazza58]

Hiya Pat.

To answer your question. I have no means of checking the height of my Wot4 other than by complete guesswork. I can assess four hundred feet within maybe a hundred feet or so but am not so sure I could estimate a Wot4 at one thousand feet with any degree of accuracy. The only time we get out of the way of full size is when the helicopter comes over or maybe a microlight

The expansion of Southend Airport has lead to their applying for controlled airspace but this is still at the discussion stage.

Several clubs fly very near to this location and I know of a local club that fly at an active full size airfield at the same time as the full size aircraft.

As for looking down at my transmitter to alter a trim..? Never. I'd lose sight straight away. I know because I've done it.

I now hold my transmitter up in front of my face so that I can continue to see my model and see the trim buttons.

I'm not sure that I'm any clearer on how both FPv pilots and observers can assess a model at one thousand feet other than by the pilot viewing the telemetry.

Gazza

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

air navigation order (a legal framework which governs all flying activity in the U.K.)

covers fpv also

also flying within controlled airspace.

apply common sense you'll be ok, got mine off my mam and dad.

if you feel rules have been incorrectly laid down for fpv.

contact B.M.F.A. /C.A.A.

fpv lads at our field fly to these rules we are ok

[PatMc]

Gazza, the BMFA handbook gives guidance on model flying sites close to aerodromes.

Keeping within the height limit doesn't come under the observer's responsibility, it's purely up to the pilot & he has got telemetry.

Remember that 1000ft will be the limit not the goal.

[Gazza58]

Thank you John.

The only consideration here is when something goes belly up. I have never seen common sense used or even discussed in court.

Gazza

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by PatMc on 17/12/2013 19:45:18:

Martin, it's easy to lose sight of a model by glancing down at the Tx display whilst flying it at a distance. For my own satisfaction I often limit the power run on my E-gliders to 30 secs then cut & glide. Climb is always very steep so the model is viewed "tail on". I now discipline myself not to look down at the time display when I think time is nearly up but rely on the Tx audible alarm or risk spending several frantic seconds trying to re-locate the model which is invariably stalling & losing precious height.

Totally agree - which is one reason that I enjoy telemetry with voice synthesis.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Gazza58 on 17/12/2013 20:40:12:

Thank you John.

The only consideration here is when something goes belly up. I have never seen common sense used or even discussed in court.

Gazza

yes gazza just err on side off caution, you'll be fine. modellers get too worked up at times

its a hobby, element of risk yes. impossible, no

[Bandit]

Posted by PatMc on 17/12/2013 18:53:33:

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.

I thought you weren't allowed to fly over 1000ft with any rc plane?

[PatMc]

Posted by Bandit on 17/12/2013 22:42:34:

I thought you weren't allowed to fly over 1000ft with any rc plane?

What makes you think that ?

[Bandit]

Yes or no?

[PatMc]

What's the question ?

[Bandit]

I thought you weren't allowed to fly over 1000ft with any rc plane? Is this true or not?

[Delta Foxtrot]

I fly at a club close to an airport in cat c or d controlled airspace. We have an altitude limit of 400 ft at the club which I think was at the request of the local atc. We also have to use a buddy lead system when flying fpv. I fly fpv with a osd so that I can see my height above the field and it is alarmed and warns me if I exceed 400ft. When flying line of sight it is much more difficult to judge 400 ft.

I doubt that the 1000 ft limit will apply to controlled airspace such as ours as we regularly see light aircraft flying close by below 1000 ft. It will be interesting to read the guidance plus any exclusions in full when available.

[PatMc]

Posted by Bandit on 17/12/2013 22:54:30:

I thought you weren't allowed to fly over 1000ft with any rc plane? Is this true or not?

No it's not true.

Ref BMFA members' handbook P21.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by david fillingham 1 on 17/12/2013 22:55:01:

I fly at a club close to an airport in cat c or d controlled airspace. We have an altitude limit of 400 ft at the club which I think was at the request of the local atc. We also have to use a buddy lead system when flying fpv. I fly fpv with a osd so that I can see my height above the field and it is alarmed and warns me if I exceed 400ft. When flying line of sight it is much more difficult to judge 400 ft.

I doubt that the 1000 ft limit will apply to controlled airspace such as ours as we regularly see light aircraft flying close by below 1000 ft. It will be interesting to read the guidance plus any exclusions in full when available.

correct david. you already quoted the height limit yourself 400ft in this case

guidance is already there in bmfa book, plus any updates are given out

[PatMc]

David & John, models under 7kg are not subject to any specific height restriction but they must be flown so as not to endanger full size a/c so local air trafic patterns etc must be taken into account.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

david has a 400ft limit at his club

that's his limit pat

[PatMc]

That's why I made the ref to local air traffic patterns John.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

im lucky pat our club has no limits

other than what insurance dictates

if your in controlled airspace, informations there for you to sort it, which davids club has

[Erfolg]

Having read the discussion, I think all, although perhaps not registering all salient points. I do think from the discussion there is one term that needs defining, if it has not been done already.

That is the term "competent observer".

The obvious first question is, what makes a person competent to observe.

The second is, what is the role and duties.

In the case of some incidents, all the above could be questioned. It could be that this role is anything but trivial, rather being central to the FPV flying experience.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

wish you luck with that one

will get a 100 answers and insurer could challenge them all. seems to be a question for CAA and others to answer

our club does it as follows, observer is qualified to fly solo (A test standard) he has enough common sense to take job seriously.

[Erfolg]

John

The issue tends to arise when the regulator and courts get involved. Most of the time it does not matter at all.

When in court, there is a tendency for you to be required to demonstrate compliance. Particularly if the observer can be argued not to have avoided what ever happened. Phrases such as "you clearly did not display you or are competent or perhaps, you undertook your role in a less than competent manner, as this is what ...................... and should have been avoided,