Jump to content

First Person View (FPV) flying


Recommended Posts

this scenario is reminiscent of flight simulators that allow users to follow close up to the aircraft on the monitorof a computer; and as such i can see it being of benifit to a person who can master the flight sim/ ? i think it wiil need a lot more thouhght about whether it is safe or not >and as for the buddy link option this is an exercise in futility
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can understand the BMFAs stance given that models can be piloted out of visual sight using an FPV system. Not sure what you mean by futility, are you speculating that FPV flyers wont comply with the guidelines?

I guess the reason people fly FPV is because it's fun and a different way of enjoying the hobby. It's not really of benefit to anyone in particular, just to those who enjoy doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

absolutely reasonable guide lines just think how easy it would be to a) accidentally fly out of range and b) possible loss of fpv equipment signal. both scenarios have potential for serious consequences. I am aware that this technology is used in a form by our military for recce and as such they do fly out of visual range on occasions but then in a war zone health and safety does kinda slip a bit and we are involved in a sport not a war lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do modellers really need this, or is this another commercial gizmo being forced into our hobby.              Has anyone thought of potential dangerours uses the system offers in the wrong hands.  

  What has been developed here is a Radio Controled Vidio assisted Guidance System, but it sound much nicer to call it First Person Viewing (FVP) which is really nondescript.  I can not understand the CAA giving this the green light as there is currently a proposal to alter the NAO to make in flight data gathering subject to CAA permission.

Quote:      It is proposed that the Air Navigation Order to be amended to require the operator of an Unmanned Aircraft System with a vihicle component mass not exceeding 20kg to obtain CAA permission before flying if the aircraft is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data aquisition.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that public cctv systems have to be registered under the data protection act or similar, I can understand why any craft capable of a carrying out a similar role would also need to be registered. On the other side of the fence, I can also see how unworkable it would be to have to register such systems. How would you notify the general public of A) its existence and B) who controls it. A notice on the plane would be ineffective to say the least. however I suggest that workability aside some legislation may be required so that in the event that this sort of equipment is misused the perpetrators can be held to account by the powers that be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flying FPV is about as close to a pilot's eye view as you are likely to get, more realistic than a simulator and more interesting as the flight can be over known areas.

I think Terry maybe confusing two issues - FPV and UAV flying. A UAV is capable of autonomous flight using stored data to define a flight path. Modellers are already flying them and using them to photograph for example fields or single objects, collect data etc. The building and flying such an aircraft is a serious challenge to ensure it will fly the correct path under varying wind and other conditions. I believe it is these craft operated for commercial purposes that the CAA is looking to license.

Irrespective of laws and regulations the bad guys will always do bad things and it will be very difficult to stop them using the available technology. We must also ensure that we don't legislate or impose rules for everything and recognise the practicalities of policing our rules and regulations. Putting a camera on a plane has been going on for years and any suggestions of registering the use of a camera will be unworkable.

My initial reaction to the BMFAc statement is they have got it about right to ensure safe FPV flying.

regards Peter 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sound comments Peter. While I totally agree that trying to regulate the use of camera's on model planes is and would be unworkable, you can be sure that due to the "bad guys doing bad things" the situation will occur when the authorities will feel its necessary to do so. The distinction between rc aircraft and UAV's is a fine one and if you look at the man portable UAV's in use by our boys in Afghanistan etc there really isn't much in it at all. basically its an electric powered hand launched fixed wing similar to the multiplex twin star except for the single folding prop, with a ground link real time video on board allowing the ground commander to see over the hill so to speak. The pilot is able to use the same video link to control the craft when it is out of visual range. Ok at the min it has an auto pilot of sorts to allow the pilot to leave it to its own devices temperarily. (it simply holds the craft in a circling pattern at altitude). Now that this capability is coming within in the reach of the general public, the potential for the "bad boys" is all to obvious. So I suspect the legislation will be here soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

just to support my argument on UAV's being very little distance from simple rc aircraft while not the item in use by British forces it is the one used by the American infantry controlled from a laptop and playstation style gamepad made from a composite including kevlar can withstand over 200 rough ground landings before breaking anything now why can't my planes do that? oh and has a radio range of app 15 miles and flight times in excess of 80 mins
http://forums.modelflying.co.uk/sites/3/images/member_albums/28234/AIR_UAV_Desert_Hawk_Held_lg.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we should confuse what we do with what the military do.

In looking again CAA Proposals at the CAA proposals for <20Kg aircraft the issues seem to be about safe flying near buildings. They say about model fliers:

Model aircraft enthusiasts generally operate away from centres of population (for safety and to avoid complaints about noise), and fly well within visual range (as the purpose of the flight is to see the aircraft fly).

regards Peter


Edited By Chris Card - Moderator on 03/05/2010 11:14:22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True Terry but think about it - the technology isn't new for those keen to get their hands on it - folks driven to do something bad could have used FPV years ago now - as they could simple 35MHz models 30 years ago.... within visual of course.

Incidentally I love your comment about FPV being 'forced' on us. Made me laugh that did  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now that just smacks of a nostalgic wish for a percieved better time I'm not convinced that it was that much safer  just that we percieve more dangers these days due to the power of the media and this is going of thread  the top and bottom of it is that we will end up regulated in any FPV flying we do! and how much depends, to some extent, on the good old BMFA's input on our behalf

On the comment about not confusing our hobby with what the military are up to let me say that I was trying to point out that FPV flying is not dissimilar to the small UAV's they use and I'm sure that thier controll systems will eventually work their way down to us. as I'm sure their video link technology has giving us and the gen public access to their capabilities hence the likely need to legislate eventually

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the BMFA rules at http://www.bmfa.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/first-person-rc-conditions.pdf  are exactly right. In order to maintain the distinction between model flying and UAVs we need to ensure that the plane is flown for recreational purposes, within range of sight, by a responsible person.  UAVs are legally different: flown for military and commercial purposes, beyond line of sight, and often autonomously.   If this distinction blurs the various authorities may consider that model flying should be restricted, to our probable detriment.  We should support the BMFA position, and encourage others to do so, too.

I've flown planes with video cameras on board for several years now, including cameras with radio downlinks that showed real time video from the cockpit on a screen to other people on the ground (not including the pilot - so no need for a buddy-box system).  It's amusing, instructional, and generates a lot of interest among other modellers, and the general public.  FPV is an extension of this, which if properly managed, could give another aspect to this interesting hobby.    I hope it is successful.

Any technology can be abused (cars, guns, knives, glue,...) so society has to accept restrictions (licensing, limitations, etc,...) and model flying is no different in principle. Let's try and make sure that genuine modellers are not guilty of abuse adn thus inflict damge on themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having just come home from the flying field where I had a couple of excellent sorties using my new FPV setup I was heartened reading the article and dismayed by the comments. The BFMA seem to have it right except for one small point. The head tracking units use the trainer port on the transmitter. So how the &*^&^& do I hook up another transmitter as well. Mind you, I always make sure I have 2, yes 2, observers keeping track of the plane, which is always in sight, and I HAVE had video failures, while in the debug stage, and had to hand off to an observer/pilot on hand. Like anything new there will always be those who fear it, well I have some sorry news for those people. It is here and it is here to stay. The gear is readily available off the shelf at affordable prices and it is opening new doors of experience and excitement for us aeromodellers. So if you try to squash it you will drive the users underground (is that a pun?) So like a lot of new technology that is fun why don't we embrace it and assist those that want to use it to do so in a safe and fun way. PS: We didn't always have buddy cord compatible transmitters but still managed to train pilots, even if we did have to drag the transmitter from their clenched, sweaty, trembling hands when things were about to go belly up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

I have an FPV system called Fat Shark and an OSD device (BlackStork) and a magnetic driven Head Tracking device (MagTrack) by AvionicsRC.com. Using the OSD should negate the disorientation aspect which a flyer could find themselves in. I'm still trying out the FPV and the OSD will be fitted soon to create a short video. I'm currently using FPV set up to look at the weaknesses and the benefits - finding out before I go full FPV/OSD.

1. Flying and videoing is absolutely fantastic capability - you have the pilot's perspective and for those who want to fly a "warbird" then this is a smashing tool

2. The transmission can be affected by a wireless network set up - my own Laptop caused interferrence with the network card trying to connect out in my "airfield".

 3. The buddy system, that made me smile. FPV will mean you can go higher and still be in control and still be in line of sight. OSD (SatNav+ info) with full information of direction, height, battery strength, location, where to fly back to the TX point, angle of decent/rise means you have MORE information than the buddy who's supposed to be the "master"!!

In Spain recently a record was set with OSD and FPV of 2800 metres height, the RC plane was landed within feet of the operator.  http://seemyworldonvideo.com/view/201/highest-fpv/

4. Flying beyond view. Well that's sort of impractical, it's ok when flying high BUT you have to remain within your close local area as trees etc will knock  into the signal if you fly low and this can be seen with the interferrence on the display screen. I've been experiencing this in the video I did yesterday, I tucked behind one of my trees and the signal broke up.

I'm in favour of FPV, it adds another dimension and will appeal to users. The equipment is cheap for in the air but dearer for on the ground stuff.

I'll make an OSD video soon

Dafydd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well.....er......,

  the BMFA guidelines seem to be saying that the Civil Aviation Authority think FPV is only legal if  you have a buddy box system.  And if the activity is not legal then the BMFA insurance is not valid.  Maybe Michael and Dafydd have their own insurance, but we need to be aware of this.

I agree it will be great fun, and we all want to do it! I was happily video-ing with a FlyCam yesterday and just wishing I could do FPV!

At 2800 metres they probably were out of sight! Must have been near the radio range limit too? Of course, in the event of failure,  you could program an intelligent  fail-safe device to take over and fly the plane back to known GPS coordinates, at a specified altitude, so that it could be recovered.  Oh, but then you'd have a UAV, and that's a different legal situation again! shucks!

Richard  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this magazine questions the BMFA to find out what systems they have tested? I doubt they are even aware of how good some OSD displays are and their use with FPV. Has the magazine tested..tried out the OSD devices yet? Perhaps a report could be given to the BMFA.

Setting up a buddy system to comply wont be a big issue just an inconveinience. A spotter and a mate to participate and talk to is always good - that's what I like anyway.

Side event: 2800 metresflight  - yep way out of sight from what I've seen of the video. Up as high as Google and field mapping planes. The video also reveals the additional electronic equipment used and that wasn't off the shelf FPV.

Dafydd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view is that FPV will be the 'next big thing' in RC flying.  It may not be your thing, but I see no reason to be concerned about the principle of the thing.

I'd be interested to know what is available to UK based flyers, especially from those with first hand knowledge.  I would say that 'head tracking' from the pilots head movements to camera movements are necessary to be able to fly properly.  The ability to have that along with an On Screen Display seems to me that we half way to the full cockpit!

stu k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...