By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more

Member postings for Bearair

Here is a list of all the postings Bearair has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.

Thread: CAA prosecutes flyer
05/04/2014 18:41:29

As outlined by Pete b here

Taken from that page:

"At first it would appear that FPV flying would fall under article 167 for small unmanned surveillance aircraft because the ANO definition of an unmanned surveillance aircraft is as above in 167(5). However in situations where a camera is used for the sole purpose of controlling the aircraft the flight is not considered surveillance or data acquisition. CAP 722 article 3.4 in Section 3 Chapter 1 page 2 refers to this, copied here: “The provision of image or other data solely for the use of controlling or monitoring the aircraft is not considered to be applicable to the meaning of ‘Surveillance or Data Acquisition’ covered at Article 167 for SUSA.”

However if the video is captured in some way and used for other purposes the CAA considers the flight to have been for data acquisition and article 167 does apply."

 

Edited By Bearair on 05/04/2014 18:41:51

05/04/2014 18:37:52
Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 05/04/2014 18:28:23:

My understanding would be that indoor flying does not break the law - provided the model is not equipped with a camera or other device that transmits data.

BEB

I think you find it is the recording of that data that is the issue so a FPV would be perfectly legal but line of site with a key fob camera that records would not be. The camera, how you fly it FPV or LOS are not the issue only the recording there of.

Thread: The FrSky revolution - very worried men?
05/04/2014 11:31:14

Chris, been looking at the Horus again I really like it but its that waiting thing again! Been saving patently for 2 years and to be honest the moneys burning a hole in my pocket!

05/04/2014 09:24:46

I know John the Profi 9 does not look that good, but when you actually hold one, then it fits me perfectly.

I do not like screens at the bottom of the TX, and I like to have just the switches I need on the TX. The side switches that others find annoying I find perfect. And I am very reluctant to buy any 2.4g gear with an external aerial.

All of which might seem trivial to others but I know what I like and am willing to pay for it.

05/04/2014 08:57:26

BEBs comments about Futaba hit a note with me, Graupner were bought out by SJ and since then have been doing very nicely with the Hott system. I understand it is the fastest selling RC in Europe (although that might be pre Taranis).

I suspect there will always be one or two "premium" brands. There are always those willing to pay extra for a real quality product or name. Think of Leica in the camera world.

I have been waiting 2 years now for the MPX Profi 9 and it still hasn't hit the shops. My loyalty to the brand is being tested, added to which the MPX is not as versatile as the Taranis but cost £645 to £139. I will be buying a new radio in the next few weeks but still cannot make up my mind. If Frsky had a transmitter with better ergonomics it would be a done deal.

Edited By Bearair on 05/04/2014 08:59:09

Thread: CAA prosecutes flyer
04/04/2014 18:44:53
Posted by John Mccullagh on 04/04/2014 18:27:06:

So Does the caa rule allow you to fly within 50 m while recording video by fpv /drone or not? i am confused more now than when i read the earlier posts thanks john .

Edited By John Mccullagh on 04/04/2014 18:37:36

Right forget FPV that has nothing to do with it , that is only the way the plane is being piloted.

If ANY model plane is fitted with a recording device it is subject to the Unmanned surveillance regulations and therefore not allowed within 50m of any structure. Thats how I understand it to be.

Thread: Road Rage. Very bad experience - Why are people like that ?
04/04/2014 17:56:34

Got attacked in a car park about a month ago. Guy said I had hit his car door, I didn't but his son about 20yrs old punched me in the face and then he jumped on my back. When the police arrived they were going to arrest me, but thankfully it was all on CCTV and there were 2 witnesses who saw the entire thing. I had literally just come out of hospital after a heart attack!

It is a mad world!

Thread: CAA prosecutes flyer
04/04/2014 14:55:54
Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 04/04/2014 13:12:36:

I stand by what I said Bearair. He had an autopilot, some sort of flight controller. The plane was either capable of or was indeed flying autonomously. The device is therefore clearly a UAV, by definition. Furthermore its equipped with a camera. He's posting about it on an FPV thread. All of this in my view places it fairly squarely in the field of FPV - this is not just some average run of the mill R/C flyer.

But whether that falls within your definition of FPV in some restrictive sense is really frankly immaterial to the case, as it clearly falls within the CAA's definition and the courts - as they have proved.

I really see no point in me continuing this debate as I nothing to add to that. In you very many previous posts in this thread, you clearly hold a different view - then we can only agree amicably to differ and leave it at that.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 04/04/2014 13:13:57

My definition of FPV is that stated here. There is no where in the court or CAA reports any mention of FPV in the reported incident that is the subject of this thread.

We can disagree amicably by all means but that does not get away from the above facts.

Au revoir

Bearair

04/04/2014 14:34:21
Posted by Mr.B. on 04/04/2014 13:30:45:

What follows is wild speculation and conjecture (a bit like being in the main stream media really). Given that the AC was not fitted for FPV, this looks to me like an attempt to fly under the bridge by autonomous control. The AC is not lined up on the centre of the bridge (indeed it is lined up on the pier) but keeps nudging left, and the let down is miss timed leading to it buzzing the bridge then ending up in the drink. I think Mr Knowles has shown very poor judgement before and during the flight and in dealing with the aftermath. This is reflected in the judgment. I don’t think the specifics of this case have much impact on ‘normal’ club type flying (ie spending your Sunday flying round and round the same field).

I agree with your wild speculation and conjecturesmiley. However I am not sure about the impact on the normal club flyer. One third of BMFA members are country members thats 12000 modelers, some will be in clubs but even so that leaves a lot of people who do not fly in clubs, then there are those who do not choose to be a member of the BMFA. It appears to me that is a lot of people who are out there doing things that the average club flyer has no knowledge of. In my opinion we need to be reaching out to those people, model flying is changing rapidly so rapidly that I certainly was unaware of the technology this man may of been using, I think that some of the comments here suggest that I am not alone in this.

04/04/2014 13:11:22
Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 04/04/2014 13:04:13:

I've already explained to you that the facts, as were known at the time that post was made, indicated that this was an FPV flight. It's subsequently been established that this was not the case but I'm not prepared to spoil the continuity of the thread by selectively removing posts that don't suit you.

I suggest you just ignore the posts you don't wish to read and the discussion can remain on-topic. The only one taking it off-topic now is you, as far as I can see.smile

Pete

Are you posting this as a moderator, in which case by forum rules I cannot argue with you?

04/04/2014 12:46:43
Posted by John F on 04/04/2014 12:33:17:
Sorry John but there is nothing wrong with the rules as you clearly cannot compare recreational flying with commercial. The purpose of each are completely different.

I am more surprised that the exception to the term"fpv" seems to be the focus with more guesswork than I ever thought possible.

The facts are in the video and the fact is he ran away from court, not wishing to deal with the situation. He was found guilty in his absence. If he went to court he may well have been successful but he opted to run so there is nothing other than the evidence presented.

Edited By John F on 04/04/2014 12:35:18

Edited By John F on 04/04/2014 12:36:07

Its quite simple really FPV is flying the model by a video link a video link was not fitted to the aircraft concerned. In post 4 BEB refers to the FPV community and FPV. My exception to this post and the use of the term FPV is based on the FACT this was not anything to do with FPV.

04/04/2014 12:22:08

I think he was using something similar to this and flying the model as a autonomous aircraft. Again i have no proof of this but he does state in his letter to the BMFA that he had a APM fitted.

I have no idea how these work or indeed that they even existed.

04/04/2014 11:53:35

I took that to mean he had a gps type telemetry unit on the model, which was reporting the models location back. but as I understand it he did not have a video tx on the plane and the CAA seem to confirm this. Could you make course corrections as gentle as those we see just using that type of unit?

Edited By Bearair on 04/04/2014 11:54:24

04/04/2014 11:39:25

It looks like that to me, but then the question is how could he see it to do the course correction, apparently the plane was not equipped to fly FPV. The fact that the CAA did not proscecute for breaking FPV regs so I assume that he is telling the truth there. I think, but I have no proof that he was using a computer to fly the model. He "preprogrammed" the flight If anyone knows about whether this is possible I would be interested to know.

04/04/2014 10:58:22
Posted by Wingman on 04/04/2014 10:37:27:

If you fly anything near a Defense related establishment you are going to get 'done' - the guy is a dork!

He says he runs a TV repair business - in this day and age who gets their TV repaired? - no wonder his business is making a loss - going bankrupt will do him a favour and hopefully he won't be able to fly anything ever again - I repeat, the guy is a dork!

Just what do you think posts like this will acheive, if you think hes a dork why do you not ring him, his business is advertised.

This is a very serious situation for model flying in this country and attitudes like this will make the situation worse not better in my opinion.

Just as others were quick to accuse the FPV community wrongly ,for which I notice some do not apologise, demonising one man or a group is only going to make it worse.

Edited By Bearair on 04/04/2014 10:59:43

Edited By Bearair on 04/04/2014 11:13:25

04/04/2014 10:47:02
Posted by avtur on 04/04/2014 10:27:15:

I can see why the bridge crossing has apparently attracted attention and why it has been described as a near miss.

It seems like the aircraft flew a long shallow descent, while this might not have been under the control of the pilot, it didn't appear uncontrolled in terms of flying erratically, very strange.

Could that be in fail-safe mode but where it wasn't set up correctly ???

Edited By avtur on 04/04/2014 10:28:35

Reading lots about this, I get the impression that the model was fitted with some kind of stabilization system, and/or a return to home system. If I understand it correctly he might of been using a system where you use gps to fly the plane and plot its course on a computer, basically you launch the model and it does the rest. In all honesty my knowledge of all these new systems it very limited. Trying to comprehend it with the hype around the Drone factor, anger from both sides and what I think is a reluctance from the guy to answer a straight question with a straight question is very difficult.

I think there is a whole lot of technology out there which I for one and I think others here are not even aware of. IMHO we all need to discuss this, without laying blame or singling out one part of the rc flying community.

04/04/2014 01:06:39
Posted by PatMc on 04/04/2014 00:01:31:
Posted by Bearair on 03/04/2014 21:36:17:
Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 03/04/2014 17:29:53:

The problem is that he pleaded guilty so cannot appeal against conviction, unless there were serious failings by others in the procedure. All he can appeal now is the sentence, AFAIK.

Pete

Yes I think that your right on that.

We shall see if it becomes a major issue for the whole modeling fraternity. The more I read about this the more I think non of the parties involved have exactly shone!

I don't know which other parties haven't shone.
From this report in the Westmorland Gazette he's the only one who wasn't at all bright. Because he'd left the building before the trial began a guilty plea would have had to be assumed, even though he'd previously pleaded not guilty. And he relinquished any chance to explain his loss of control story in person.

Have you read all the information on this or are you making your assumptions based on a local newspaper?

03/04/2014 21:36:17
Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 03/04/2014 17:29:53:

The problem is that he pleaded guilty so cannot appeal against conviction, unless there were serious failings by others in the procedure. All he can appeal now is the sentence, AFAIK.

Pete

Yes I think that your right on that.

We shall see if it becomes a major issue for the whole modeling fraternity. The more I read about this the more I think non of the parties involved have exactly shone!

03/04/2014 15:42:40

This is how they do it in the USA, interestingly Trappy's lawyer is interested in the case here!

Maybe we shall see an appeal!

Thread: First kit build slope soarer
03/04/2014 13:52:18

Hi Richard,

All Stans models go together very well and are excellent VFM, he fly's every design regularly so they all do what they are intended to do.

The Pzazz was designed as a 60inch racer well back in the day it was a "crunchie" class. It will fly quite a bit quicker than some of Stans other models. Personally if I was still a learner then I would go for something like the Stage 2 with ailerons. It will fly slower and be more forgiving. But you will not outgrow it for a very long time if ever!

But your best bet is to give Stan a ring he is very helpful and will give you good advice I am sure.

Roger

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Subscribe now
Slec
CML
Sussex Model Centre
electricwingman 2017
Sarik
Advertise With Us
Latest "For Sale" Ads
NEW POLL - has the pandemic altered your event safety perceptions?
Q: Has the covid pandemic deterred you from attending shows and events in 2021?

 No, I'll be attending just as many as I usually do
 No, but I'll choose my event with greater care
 Yes, I'll attend fewer events going forward
 Yes, I wont attend any where previously I have

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!

Find RCM&E!