First Person View (FPV) flying

[Dafydd Bevan]

Hi,

I realised while "off PC" an additional point and it seems that Stuart is touching on the very same point. The Head Tracking device I use, MagTrack is linked to the TX using the same connection a "buddy box" would utilise and I presume other head Trackers would also utilise the same set up. I question whether the BFMA has actually used, or have use of, the FPV systems that are functioning today?

Insurance is also relative to the contributors and the risk element. In my opinion the risk of endangerment from a RC flying object is significantly low, certainly less than a Tractor driven on road. I wonder therefore whom in the BFMA (insurance set up) came to the conclusion that FPV's have to adhere to a buddy system.

I'm raising these points as I have an interest in FPV and it is what enticed me to take up RC - I saw the potential.

Stuart, I fully agree with you. The headtracking element will give the FPV Pilot the peripheral vision needed to retain additional control of the situation. To look along the wing of your plane to sweep along the whole area. Besides being a delight  linking your head to camera movement adds an additional dimension to RC flying.

Who wants to fly a Spitfre? Hands up!

I would recommend an FPV Pilot have an OSD set up - it is essential information displayed in a readable format.

Dafydd

[Dafydd Bevan]

Right, I'm "off PC" and I'm out to fly my plane in my airfield.....

Dafydd

[Richard Sharman]

Dafydd Bevan wrote (see)

.......I have an interest in FPV and it is what enticed me to take up RC....

So, you're new to RC?  As someone who has been doing RC for 40 years, and has seen "the next best thing in RC" quite a few times in the past, can I just offer a few words of wiser council? I know, in the enthusiasm of the moment, you probably won't like it, but this sort of thing has happened in the past.

Firstly, I don't think attacking the BMFA is the right approach.  Someone there has put some careful thought into the recommendations, probably with the object of keeping the CAA happy, while allowing enough flexibility for modellers to do interesting things.  This is very good and we should support it.  The CAA usually takes a very severe view of all flying activity, and could probably close model flying down altogether if they thought it endangered life or property (which it sometimes does, I have to say).  It's not a question of what the BMFA has or has not tested, it's a question of what the CAA will accept.

Secondly, whether the standard insurance is valid is not "relative" to anything.  If the BMFA's insurers say that only CAA approved activities are insured, then that's the situation and we can't change it.  If you are flying un-insured you are committing a  reckless, and possibly criminal offence.  We have to stay within the guidelines, while arguing for better rules.

I see you have a problem with head movement, and I can agree that head controlled camera movement is a desirable function -- although I'm not totally convinced you actually need it. Having taken and reviewed countless aerial videos over many years (and used numerous flight simulators) I would say there is a long way you could go without this function.  However, if you really want it then you are going to have to allocate 2 RC channels, using 2 Tx units, until such time as Futaba, JR,and the others come up with a 2 socket Tx.  Actually, you really want to use 2 Tx anyway: one Tx would be the flight system, with buddy box control from your observer/safety pilot, and the other Tx handling the video control system.  Yes, this mean 3 Tx units and 2 pilots on the flight line, and 2 Rx in the plane,  but, hey, this is a new technology, and you just have to do what's needed!

good luck, and stay legal, please.....Richard

[Peter Seddon]

The Magtech headtracker does not allow a further buddy box connection but the TrackR2 does - so I am told. The TrackR2 would meet the BMFA/CAA requirements.

regards Peter

ps You cannot easily use a headtracker with JR gear as they only allow channels 1-4 to be controlled via the buddy box.  

[Michael Boland]

There is you know, a very simple solution for us FPV flyers. Insure ourselves, as I have done, and then you can tell the BMFA to take a flying leap. You control freaks still don't see it, do you. If you put up walls there will always be those that just go around them.

[Dafydd Bevan]

Richard Sharman, Thank you for your opinion. Please don't impy or infer activities are criminal with out due reference to the acts and sections of written or case law. I feel affronted that you should have implied I was carrying out or even participating in such an action. I'm appalled!

I am entitled to question an organisation (BFMA) that attempts to impliment a bafoon policy without due reference to the growing technology and great desire of those who are FPV minded. 

I should have written "take up RC again" as I flurted with it some 28 years ago.  With all due respect for your "time served" and the 40 year sentence. It doesn't mean an old lag cant learn something new and it doesn't mean you've learnt anything.

Thank you for your opinion - while I disagree with it, I respect your right to write it, though greatly disappointed by an inference within the content!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Richard Sharman]

Dafydd,

  Please don't get upset just because someone poses a different point of view - and thank you for your comments, which I appreciate.  I tried hard not to criticise anyone individually, just to raise a concern when I saw some of the more "enthusiastic" comments.

  I carefully didn't suggest you were doing anything wrong, because I don't know.  But  my point about flying without insurance is still valid though -- anyone who flies without insurance is reckless and endangers us all. Would you drive without insurance? I was a SMAE member for many years, and generally support BMFA, though I have no brief for them.  But they do generally work for the good of RC, so I support them, even if I don't always see eye to eye with them. I use their insurance, as do 30,000 other modellers, and if they say something's not valid, I have to accept it, or go elsewhere.  As a matter of fact when I was doing some advanced aerial video recently i did get separate insurance.  But sidestepping the BMFA isn't the issue -- flying is regulated by the CAA, and it's what they think that matters.  They might well rule that FPV is not allowed except in certain circumstances, just like they rule that flying in controlled airspace is not allowed, and pulse jets are restricted.  I suspect the jury is currently out.  In the meatime the BMFA has done us a service, and we should be glad.

In my 40 years of modelling I've learned a lot, and I've often been near the forefront of new technologies, such as aerial video, and intelligent control, so it's unfair to suggest I don't know a thing or too!  I support your interest in FPV, and I appreciate your enthusiasm.  I want to do it too, but I do want to do it safely .  We all want to do new and exciting things, but sometimes our enthusiasm has to be tamed a little. I wish you good luck with the technology, and hope you'll show more of what you can do soon! 

[Dafydd Bevan]

Thank you Richard, I read with interest your comments. Just to make this clear - I fly with insurance and I fly safely. I think FPV should be with a co-Pilot and I have no problem with that.

I've just been flying with buzzards today - that's all.

I look forward to others comments.

Dafydd

[Andy Harris]

Couple of things to add:

   a) UAV technology could be a real benefit for RC, particularly in radio failure situations (fly back to starting point, stay within these GPS limits etc).

   b) FPV allows height limits trangressed way beyond that of visual contact flying.  It only takes one model to get close to full size and the CAA will have an understandable reaction.  If the full size was a passenger plane heaven help our hobby.

Andy 

[Dafydd Bevan]

Andy, thank you - they are really valid points.

From my own experience I would caution anyone who thinks FPV will let you fly anywhere for any amount of distance. The video image transmitted is only semi-reliable, interference from a wireless network can be seen clearly, as can the interruption of all TX/RX signals from mobile phones and of course trees, buildings etc. The mobile phone issue can have a dire effect on one's aircraft as well - a video shows you the cause but doesn't stop you losing control of the aircraft!.

I currently use/test the FPV system to check the video being received - this is done after flying or viewed by a "buddy".

Dafydd

[Ralph Yeates]

I am ordering my unit today and I have to say I expected some opposition to this new exciting part of our hobby. I like to think that I fly safely and I usually leave the club site when there are more than 5 people there as I cant stand the "Club Experts". We have people that hate heli's and some that love them.
I would not fly FPV unless I had an assistant that had visual on the plane and the ability to take control should I become disorientated,  as I  do not want  the expense of replacing the full cost of the lost model and FPV equipment.
Michael I am interested if you could let me have the details of your insurers as am sure some one will want to impose the BMFA rules on me with the buddy box system.  We never fly alone as the Local police helicopter has a tendency to flew directly over our field why? I have no idea maybe we are criminals masquerading as modelers in their eyes    I agree with all the safety aspects but think that until it matures then we need to tread carefully on this new aspect of our hobby and not curtail it.
 There is a lot on the safety side on the rc groups site and some very useful information they also have their opponents.

[Michael Boland]

Ralph, I am in Australia, so unless you are too I don't think the Insurance would be valid. If in doubt about what is happening with fpv check this link out http://www.rcmovie.de/video/99b8619b6349165556f6/FPV-Air2Air-Wasserflug-einer-BV-138

[Erfolg]

As with all technologies, once developed, they are difficult to undevelop etc.

If this technology were to be band in the UK, development would almost certainly continue else where.

Unfortunatly we in the UK live in a country, where at present a distorted view of health and safety, is the norm. How real are the risks, can they be controlled to a level that is acceptable, to the modeller and the wider community. It suprises me that the authorities will happily use flying spy devices, in the pursuit of potential or actual wrongdoers, which appear to be in breach of the CAA regulations and others rights to privacy. The BFMA did apparently bring the regulations to various government agencies attention. My fear is that the Goverment will permit their own agencies to operate, in a potentially unsafe manner, with this type of technology, in built up areas. Whilst we agonise about the potential for harm and just accept undue regulation.

Some regulation/codes of operation will be required, but please do not rush to hamstring ourselves, until the real risks are understood.

The commercial uses of this technolgy could be quite large. Perhaps our Australian friends using such a machine to overfly an outback farm. Aerial survelance of pipelines, power lines/cables.

Yet i can understand why goverments will fret about the dangers from terrorists, whilst wishing to give their forces access to such devices, and seeking to deny the enermies the use of such devices. A battle of counter measures has probably already started

I will continue to fly my toy planes by ground based observation.

Erfolg 

[gordon rigg]

So piloing your FPV yuo can fly really high, and even out of line of sight. Once the technology is better and the link to your screen is more reliable then even higher and even further.

Of course I am sure you will not stray into controlled airspace.

But you are not on your own in uncontrolled airspace.

There are many air users flying visual flight rules in uncontroled airspace. They are all required to keep a good lookout for eachother. Man carrying aircraft are generally large enough to seen easily. A model aircraft may not be. Good as a pan and tilt camera system might be you will not have anything like a complete image of any traffic close to your model.

Even a small model is large enough to cause a problem to a light aircraft, or hurt the pilot of a hang glider, paraglider or microlight.

I'm sure the CAA will soon try to curtailthe flying of these FPV's. Pretty soon there will be a million unmanned observation drones up there watching over us so they won;t want FPV's as well. Our recreational aircraft  will be loaded down with instruments to warn them of our prescence, probably pricing all recreational avaition out of the sky. So if you want to fly for real, go and do it now - becuase I don't think it will be possible for most of us for much longer.

[Michael Boland]

How much doom and gloom can we stand ??? If we all thought like g rigg we would just hide in the darkest corner of our houses and be too afraid to do anything. And if the sky is filled with police drones, then make your FPV or RC model look like one too The best place to hide a tree is in a forest. Seriously, if you expect the worst, the worst will happen. At our field I have taken just about every member up as a passenger, and those more experienced have handled a full flight with ease. The nay sayers were much more receptive once they had experienced the rush of flying from the cockpit of the model. As for any registered model field (which is where this should be done) just how many RC aircraft stray above 400ft and out of the boundaries of the model field. Has anyone ever been to an "old timer" contest, they sometimes endanger satellites and how many years have they been doing this? and how many manned aircraft have they brought down? But I guess there will always be those that go screaming off into the distance the moment any new technology appears. To all those not afraid to have FUN, many happy landings.

[Erfolg]

Micheal

In many ways I hope this FPV is a flash in the pan, as you suggest. As if it became main stream, I feel that restrictions, with a financial implication would be enforced.

As for the drones, operated by the authoratie's, I am also apprehensive, as most of this type of activity is driven by revenue raising and compliance with government dik tat. Although passed in the name of Crime Prevention, Health and sSfety etc.

Erfolg  

[Crash dummy]

 I have read the debate caused by the RCM&E article on FPV with great interest.

I am living in Southern Germany and a member of the "Deutscher Modellflieger Verband". This is our version of the BMFA and it has provoked me to ask the DMFV what their opinion on the subject is!

For what my opinion is worth, i think that all aspects considered, the BMFA have set down a pretty reasonable set of rules for FPV flying of model aircraft. We all know that nobody can legislate for lunatics and as such ALL  responsible model pilots will remain within those rules.

May the full weight of law come down on those who dont!

I guess we could all come up with a theory of how and why the BMFA is wrong, but as was pointed out in other posts,this will occur with EVERY technical developement .... So work within the rules and in my humble opinion you and those unsuspecting folk on the ground will remain safe!

Regards,

John Barber

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Hi John and welcome, I'd be interested to know what the DMFV think when you receive their reply.

[Crash dummy]

Hi David,

I will let you know! Clearly this is a subject that does not only apply in the uk!

Regards,

John.

[Erfolg]

In the "Proffessional Engineer" the October publication, there is an article on remote, piloted airrcraft, "The pilots a robot".

It would seem there is a lot of commercial interst in the development and testing of "Autonomous Flight" aircraft. The artical outines that BAE,Quintiq, EADS, Thales and Rolls Royce are in discussion with the CAA. The devices appera to be targeted at a very wide role, ranging from survillance of cilvilian areas through to military activities. It is specifically noted that operation in normal airspace without restrictions in their operation is the target of the developers. It then goes on to discuss issues such as computer failure.

It seems that the PFV type operation is going to become a commercial/military reality.Big busuness and government, having a major interst. I hope that BFMA is sucessful in protecting the hobby interest, that these big players will care little for. You can imagine the the police for one would not want one of our models getting in their way, if and when they start operating these devices in the community.

I think there is alot at stake potentially for us modellers both at PVF and ordinary flying levels.

There are also some good articles on the GE open-rotor fan blade engine, the Nasa sucessor to Concorde, Norton motor cycle, as well as the normal mainstream subjects.

Erfolg

[Crash dummy]

  Many thanks for your view Erfolg,

  As they say in the "house" ... I refer to my previous answer!

 The fact is that the people who will abuse this system are already doing just that! ... Please accept the fact that FPV flight is a realistic option for r/c pilots today.

Stop coming up with conspiracy theories and aim towards a BETTER set of guidelines than the BMFA have so far come up with. Aim to help our hobby and improve the guidelines, not just pour cold water on them. Finally,if you think for a single second that the military are going to to "pinch" our technology, then  i would think again if i was you.

Regards,

John.

[Crash dummy]

 Here is a thought ....

 Perhaps model model flyers ( in whichever country they live) should approach their government for a statement on this subject?

A new thread perhaps?

John.

[Ralph Yeates]

wonder if the day will come when we get chased in our FPV planes by police FPV planes with blue ligts on asking us to pull over   under the BMFA rules will both the pilots be charged or just the pilot in charge ?
before you all start spamming me "yes it is a light hearted remark " ie a joke

[Erfolg]

John

This is not a conspiracy theory. It is simply drawing attention to a published articicle. There are commercial and security interests in this type of technology.

The sums of money and vested interests in secring and developing, devices in this area are real enough to make our hobby interests of little consequence to those with power and influence. That is unless the BFMA fights our corner effectively.

Consider, that the government is switching us all to digital television. Is it purely to provide us with a better service. Or may be ther are commercial benefits from licencing the frequencies that will become available? If you consider that viewing the governments actions in these matters as a "a conspiracy theory" so be it.

Erfolg