It's not "IF". The question is "WHEN and WHERE"

Post by **jhsa** » Mon May 12, 2014 11:45 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... xInDycb5fY

What the heck was that s**t doing at 2300 feet near an airport? What do some people have in their heads? Not a brain for sure..

João

Post by **jhsa** » Tue May 13, 2014 12:58 am

Another one. these guys are going to kill our hobby. they have no idea of what they are doing..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBnJAe2P4gs

dvogonen · Post by **dvogonen** » Tue May 13, 2014 6:07 am

The stupidity seems to be universal. A local idiot in my home town Stockholm decided it was a good idea to start a hexakopter from his backyard and fly it straight up to above the cloud ceiling. He got to 1100 meters height. The problem with this is that his house is right under the approach to a busy commercial airport. Luckily he did not hit anything. He ran out of battery power while descending and dropped the hex from about 500 meters height. It crashed straight down into a densely populated residential area. Had he hit anyone he would have killed them on the spot. The fools luck continued and the hex hit a tree that broke the fall.

The reason I know about this is that he posted his in flight video on Youtube and bragged about the incident. He was smart enough to pull the video after a few days.

Who knows what he is up to right now...

Post by **jhsa** » Tue May 13, 2014 7:52 am

The fact that he pulled the video out of youtube shows that he knows exactly that he shouldn't be doing it and he knows that he can kill hundreds of people at any moment. So, in that case it is not just plain ignorance. He knows he shouldn't be there and he knows the consequences..
That is a case for tar and feathers. And walk him like that around the airport with his hexa stuck/glued to his head, and a big sign on his back with big letters sayin': "I could have killed some of you"..
Frickin idiot

João

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

Flaps 30 · Post by **Flaps 30** » Tue May 13, 2014 11:54 am

As you say, It is when something will happen that makes the news big time.

The CAA in the UK allow FPV flying under strict rules. So far one person has been prosecuted and fined a large sum in the UK for breaching the said ANO. The CAA have recently increased the weight limit to 3.5Kg along with increasing the altitude ceiling to 1000ft. Just a quick trip to Youtube will reveal a lot of videos showing people in the UK breaking said ANO and in a way bragging about it all. This will be the downfall of (legal) FPV in the UK as it does seem that FPV is attracting a rather nasty group of people to the 'sport' along with those that have no respect for the law or any regulation. One of our local flying clubs has banned FPV outright and I get the impression that others will follow them in the near future.

So how long before the CAA (along with the BMFA) tell the FPV lot to get lost along with a long line of prosecutions by the CAA to follow I don't know. But it should be noted that the fines for upsetting the CAA are eye watering by any standard as they tend to run into the thousands or a fairly long stay in prison.

Post by **jhsa** » Tue May 13, 2014 12:15 pm

something has to be done BEFORE people get killed, not after.. I'm surprised that the authorities allowed FPV until 1000ft. Not near an airport or airfield I hope..
There is another video on youtube of a model (corsair) filming an airliner really close, entering it's jetwash and crashing to the ground. But I'm not sure if it is real or fake.

João

Post by **Rob Thomson** » Tue May 13, 2014 2:18 pm

Requirement is that you have a spotter. Solo FPV / out of visual range is not permitted.

You can fly normal models at 1000ft, so assuming you have spotter - no difference!

I have a meeting scheduled in the next few weeks with the BMFA / CAA to create a new classification.

- below 600g
- below 60m height
- less that 400m range.
- further than 2km from airport/regular flight path.
- more than 60m from built up structure
- etc..

The hope is to allow spotter less FPV within this zone.

The current UK laws do not allow a kite to be flown at more than 60m height. With this in mind, the possibility of this being granted is... Maybe 50%.

The thing with FPV... Is there are too many idiots doing stupid things. It is possible to fly safe, and within the law. Just a bunch of idiots who break the rules, and potentially ruin it for everyone.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Post by **jhsa** » Tue May 13, 2014 3:15 pm

I think some of them don't really know the rules.. Maybe creating a cheap license where people would have to make a test proving that they can handle the equipment, and make sure they know the rules. It's not that hard.. so if someone break the rules, they can not say they didn't know it..
I know, it is regulating

we don't like it.. But I think it is the only way to try to avoid someone getting hurt..

João

Post by **Rob Thomson** » Tue May 13, 2014 3:20 pm

I personally think that is they way it will go - one day!

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Post by **jhsa** » Tue May 13, 2014 3:39 pm

Nothing bad about it IMO.

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

Post by **jhsa** » Sun May 18, 2014 8:47 pm

http://www.extracrew.com/es/info/notici ... los-drones

And here translated from Spanish using Google translate.

MADRID ( EXTRACREW.COM ) - The Association of Commercial Aviation Pilots (COPAC ) has made public , via press release , the need for the Ministry of Public Works properly regulate the use of remotely piloted aircraft - called drones or RPA 's.

COPAC has conveyed his displeasure to the State Aviation Safety Agency (EASA ) for the processing of the Royal Decree for the regulation of air operations with drones , since the period considered insufficient , barely twenty-four hours for the submission of claims to recently proposed by EASA on the issue.

COPAC for the regulation of this activity is not necessary to stop its business expansion , whilst ensuring the safety of operations and preparing pilots operating this type of aircraft , for which it is necessary to have input from professionals and organizations involved.

COPAC for the commercial development of drones in all possible areas of application must conform to rules and following some operational and safety criteria to avoid uncontrolled use, it would involve risks to aviation safety and to people .

In recent months it has proliferated the use of such aircraft by different companies , in some cases operated by people without any knowledge , training or qualifying license for use . In this sense, the COPAC considered essential that professionals that operate drones have a commercial flight license, aeronautical knowledge and appropriate mental and physical fitness to ensure the safety of operations to avoid other aircraft incidents and urges EASA to the regulations currently being developed to collect these requirements.

No comments

João

pixturethis · Post by **pixturethis** » Mon May 19, 2014 1:50 am

I think the way the FAA is going at is all wrong. You can't stop the new " drones" they are here to stay and will only get bigger and more of them. So why not find a different way. I have asked a few company's to see about making a cheap and mandatory device in everything that flys can use to determine other aircrafts in the sky around them. I'm talking about something small and simple, easy to install in a aircraft and use like a hand-held device, for UAV's and something in a cockpit in larger aircraft.Just something that will tell you that another craft is close to you, or on the same path as you. But it would have to be cheap and mandatory for all craft flying. This way people that own old aircraft can use afford it. This is just my 2 cents, an a idea i would like as I do long range FPV for the challenge and it is just what I like. I do my best at watching for aircraft around me and my plane, I use a ABD-S receiver to look out for aircraft, but if they don't use there transponders, I can't see them.
Marc

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Post by **jhsa** » Mon May 19, 2014 8:40 am

The only way to fly FPV safely is to keep flying below the altitude other aircraft fly, don't fly near airfields, the models must be equiped with transponder so they can be seen by the controllers, and the pilot must be equiped with 2 way radio equipment so you can talk to the controllers. And of course the FPV pilots should be certified to fly in the same airspace as the other REAL aircraft. That is why REAL PILOTS take their flight licenses in first place. It's not only you that have to detect aircraft around you. Your model also has to be seen. The way some people are doing the FPV thing will make the authorities take action about it. And so they should. I'm not against FPV. I'm against doing it wrong.

João

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

pixturethis · Post by **pixturethis** » Mon May 19, 2014 10:51 am

I'm not against it either, I just want to see it grow as it will. It needs to be safe for everyone in the sky's. The transponder is a good idea, have you prices one lately ? There are so many small full sized aircraft that don't have them. That is why something new has to come about. If the control tower had to deal with everything flying, they would be overwhelmed. That is why I'm saying it has to be something that every pilot is responsible for. Make the pilot responsible for it, not the government.
Marc

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Post by **jhsa** » Mon May 19, 2014 11:05 am

pixturethis wrote:I'm not against it either, I just want to see it grow as it will. It needs to be safe for everyone in the sky's. The transponder is a good idea, have you prices one lately ?

Do you have a price for a human life??

There are so many small full sized aircraft that don't have them.

Yes but they are not allowed everywhere. And they do have a radio at least, so they can report their position to the controller. That's how it works in some airfields for example. There is still someone controlling the airspace that must know where you are and coordinate the traffic.

That is why something new has to come about. If the control tower had to deal with everything flying, they would be overwhelmed. That is why I'm saying it has to be something that every pilot is responsible for. Make the pilot responsible for it, not the government.
Marc

And then there is the problem of the knowledge. Every pilot that is certified to fly an aircraft took a flight license, he went to school to learn about the rules, aerodynamics, navigation, and all the stuff that makes a pilot. also they must have regular health checks done. Being a pilot is not just getting into an airplane and fly it. There's much more than that. And if someone wants to share the same airspace, he has to have the same knowledge and qualification. The same goes to the aircraft.. OTHERWISE IT IS DANGEROUS for other people flying and for people on the ground. There are rules for FPV. A couple of them are:
The use of a spotter and the use of a teacher trainer setup. That means, no long range FPV and stay below the real aircraft.. everyone that don't do this should not be doing FPV.

G550Ted · Post by **G550Ted** » Mon May 19, 2014 1:17 pm

Excellent response João. As a (now retired) professional pilot with over 50 years of military, commercial and private experience and a FPV RC flyer I completely agree with all you have posted on the subject. There are couple of things that I would like to add to what you have said.

Depending on where in the world one flies, the requirements for radio and/or transponder operation vary. Even in the very large volume of airspace where neither is required, and considering that ATC controller separation of traffic does not exist for virtually all visual flight rules operations, the one thing that has not been emphasized is that it is the pilot's responsibility to see and avoid . To date there is no acceptable equipment or procedure for any UAV to accomplish this. That is why even the most sophisticated and expensive UAVs (operated by various militarys around the world) must operate them only in designated airspace free of other air traffic. Even the smallest of FPV models pose a serious risk to light manned aircraft, and larger long ranging (and illegal) FPV models are a hazard to all aircraft.

Even the 400' maximum altitude limit for FPV operation does not guarantee safe operation when out of LOS. Manned aircraft are authorized and do operate below 500' in many areas, some at very high speed on military training routes. No transponder, "pie in the sky" gadgets or wishful thinking can insure separation from manned aircraft, and the theory of "big sky, little airplane" fails when it comes to protecting human lives. The hazard increases with the FPV idiots "cloud surfing" and high altitude flying.

Ted

Post by **Rob Thomson** » Wed May 21, 2014 2:22 pm

Agreed.

That is why I am personally pushing for:

Below 60m, less than 400m, less than 600, no airports etc.. Then No spotter.

Anything else - well that should require a spotter. Long range and out of los is not an option.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Post by **jhsa** » Wed May 21, 2014 2:31 pm

600m is about 2000ft I think. That is still too high I would say. Also no flying over people and property is a must.

João

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

Post by **ShowMaster** » Wed May 21, 2014 3:21 pm

I was cornered at a Los Angeles tv people party by a network news copter pilot. He was really concerned about model RC "drones" as he called them, being in his airspace. Seems they fly lower and in more unsuspecting air space areas, many over residential as we all know when we're trying to sleep. I'm not sure about nitetime safety?
I'm sure if he ever has his airspace invaded by one of our toys it'll be recorded and make all the big news outlets.
Same has always been for our RC planes but they expect that if they fly near or over an established RC field. Not so with with FPV setups. No telling where they're launched from. Most at my open field never put any ID on their planes or quads when flying FPV. They laugh about the cut and run option.
I'm sure someone will get the presses attention and we'll not like the outcome.
In the USA, the AMA is bragging that they have worked out a safety plan for FPV for their members to keep the piece. Of course you have to pay and join and agree to follow their guidelines. Not needed of your rouge and don't have any ID on your model. So, pay $60 a year, follow the rules, or fly for free and no rules. What's the bite on that ha ha.
It's also serious fire season here in La. No water/rain, super dry brush. 2 big lipo quad crash fires already in the last 6 Mo. More for lipo planes in general. All at the field and out out by many fire trucks and water drop copters fortunately. Hopefully no one will do this in a populated brushed area.

Post by **Rob Thomson** » Wed May 21, 2014 8:29 pm

jhsa wrote:600m is about 2000ft I think. That is still too high I would say. Also no flying over people and property is a must.

João

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

Auto correct messed up my post.

It was 600g weight.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Post by **jhsa** » Mon May 26, 2014 2:17 am

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2158667

João

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBnJAe2P4gs

G550Ted · Post by **G550Ted** » Tue May 27, 2014 9:37 pm

Here we go again, DAMMIT!

Not only another incident, but also a very poor and ill-informed report by the duty "expert".

Ted

Post by **jhsa** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 2:48 pm

Guys, enjoy it while you can cos it won't last long anymore..

http://www.dronethusiast.com/complete-r ... l-airport/

The big problem now starts being the lack of knowledge. Look at this guy, if he knew what he was doing he wouldn't have published the video on his site and with his name.. I would say, most of the people don't know what they are doing, because as I said before, we need to know much more than just to fly an aircraft to be a pilot.. This is getting out of control now and our hobby in general will suffer when something bad happens. And by the looks of it, it won't take long..

So, I think that the best that could happen to our hobby now and to control this situation, would be to allow model flying ONLY on club airfields like it was many years ago. Why?
1- There wouldn' be models flying near airports anymore without the people there knowing about it..
2 - everybody would have to be insured
3- Like it was some years ago, the older guys in the clubs assisted the newcomers, making sure they did learn the safety rules concerning model aircraft handling..

Evereyone who wants to FPV somewhere else (that includes business air photography people) would have to take a flight license for that type of aircraft, and obey to normal air traffic procedures.

Maybe then accidents would be avoided.. Something has to be done before a catastrophe happens, not before.
Also, see the link below for another situation:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30932395

João

Philipp · Post by **Philipp** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 3:47 pm

I do not like the regulative approach, but I have to agree with the licensing requirement.
Everybody who wants to fly his Phantom or anything else heavier than e.g. 100g in a congested, urban or somehow regulated area would have to get a license for it, and doing so without the proper license should be prosecuted the same way driving a car without one is. Every 12 year old can fly his quad below an Autobahn or highway bridge these days, making these things as dangerous as an actual car in the wrong hands.

However I am not with you on the club / hobby airfield discussion. I personally enjoy flying my electric aircraft on a nearby field. One out of five passerby stops and watches for a minute or two, some of them are very interested in the hobby or the technical details, and me and my buddy like to answer their questions. I do not see myself as an advocator of the hobby, but I definitely help its reputation.
You cannot stop every idiot who wants to fly his toy somewhere it clearly does not belong to do so. If you force every enthusiast and hobbyist who obeys to regulations and laws to fly their planes and aircraft only on club sites however, you basically take away all the good people of the community from the fields and parks, but leave the ones who do not care about the hobby and the community anyway, doing stupid things as reported by you and others.

Stupid and dangerous actions of some uneducated (or plain stupid and dangerous) individuals do not kill the hobby, the assumption made by the public and politicians that these individuals represent the hobby does.

Post by **jhsa** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:10 pm

I can't see other way to control things.. I confess, I don't really like to see model airplanes and helicopters in parks where children play.. People were already killed by models that way.

We are responsable people but many are not, and the thing is, if the laws come we will all suffer one way or another. So, if we were confined only to our club field, I think it would be better than not flying at all.. Then the authorities could better control also..
Another thing I'm in favor is the clubs providing flight training to new members and giving them a certificate after a test. People now don't know the risks and dangers from handling a model aircraft.. I remember that a few years ago we were taught that.. Not anymore..
I also think modelers should always have a valid insurance coverage..

João

Philipp · Post by **Philipp** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:34 pm

I'm definitely with you regarding the insurance, everybody screws up someday or has a mishap, you have to be covered in this case.
Clubs offering a free or cheap training and maybe some kind of certificate is a very clever way of educating and fascinating people about this hobby, nobody could argue against this.

The main problem that underlies this discussion is the fast progression of technology and simultaneously (maybe even as an effect of this) the decay of common sense and the understanding of the matter.
It is great that all this stuff became as inexpensive and accessible as it is nowadays, I do not have to tell you that

However, given a certain amount of weight, power and speed, these things cannot and never could be considered toys anymore. This never changed, what changed is the perception by the people. "Oh hey, it is iPhone compatible, how hard can it be to fly this thing? My 14 year old can fly Apaches on his Xbox, he'll have this figured out in minutes!" Heck, even the 1S 800mAh LiPos powering some parkflyers should not be considered toys.

Speaking of parkflyers however (by parkflyer I mean electric or glider, balsa or foam, somewhat below 200g), I think they can even enhance your trip to the local park. You just have to see the look on some of the less spoiled kids when they see a plane like this up close. Some manufacturers classify their planes rather nicely, they give recommendations regarding minimum age, pilot experience and even where to fly responsibly in respect to the speed, weight and flight envelope of their stuff. This should be mandatory and somehow unified for all the RTF, ARF and BNF kits, just like the ratings on video games. This way parents would (or at least should) be forced to first educate themselves and then their kids about the stuff they put under the tree.
If however somebody thinks flying his 2,5kg camera equipped hexacopter or even a 300-class heli at your local park next to the soccer playing kids would be a good idea, whack him good and plenty. Or, the German approach, threaten him that you will call the 'Ordnungsamt' who will educate him about what he is allowed and not allowed to do in this wonderful country

Post by **jhsa** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:00 pm

Ha ha.. Yeah.. I have friends who were driving boats in a lake near by and had problems because someone called those guys.. And they were with boats, not even aircraft with cameras

The problem with the models is not only the weight but also how fast and big are the props pulling those models. A prop as you know can make a lot of damage, even on a very light model..

I remember the first thing I have learnt back in the 90's when I started in the hobby. The guy who was teaching me told me:

"We are at the runway now, people always stay behind us.. no one is allowed in front of us.. Imagine a line from your shoulders to the infinite and parallel to the runway. Your model should NEVER, EVER cross that line and fly behind it.."

This is the kind of thing that is lost now.. There are very few people that know this kind of thing.. And that scares me when I'm at the flight line..
believe me, there are situations that i hide behind a car

João

bob195558 · Post by **bob195558** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:49 pm

Hi João and Philipp,

I also do Not like the regulative approach as it end up being overbearing and will hurt our RC-Hobby,
as you may find yourself saying, remember when we could have fun fly RC models.
Regulative approach will outlaw the RC Hobby completely to protect us from ourselves.

If the Only place to be able to fly is at a club / hobby airfield this will kill the RC-Hobby.
I believe it's a very bad idea.
1). There are No club / hobby airfield around where I live and if there was they would be so over regulated and expensive and with the long drive to get there, it will just kill the RC-Hobby.
2) I believe the regulative approach will in times hurt our hobby and we have seen this already happening to forbid newly developed technology from being used like the FPV in the USA.

Side note: I was thinking with FPV if they made the FPV Goggles to do one eye to be eye on the model
and the other eye to be on the FPV screen, like the fighter pilots need to do when they fly there fight jets.

Philipp wrote:You cannot stop every idiot who wants to fly his toy somewhere it clearly does not belong to do so. If you force every enthusiast and hobbyist who obeys to regulations and laws to fly their planes and aircraft only on club sites however, you basically take away all the good people of the community from the fields and parks, but leave the ones who do not care about the hobby and the community anyway, doing stupid things as reported by you and others.
Stupid and dangerous actions of some uneducated (or plain stupid and dangerous) individuals do not kill the hobby, the assumption made by the public and politicians that these individuals represent the hobby does.

I agree with Philipp that regulative approach will Kill the RC-Hobby and only the bad idiot people will still be out there.
The results will be the RC-Hobbyist will be pushed out of the hobby because it will be outlawed.

Educating new people coming into the hobby with the people who are already in the RC-Hobby now,
is the way to handle it.

I could speculate an RC Regulative Panel stopping new RC radio firmware developed by a fabricated possibility that it maybe harmful to what ever they want to make up to justify there restrictions in order stop further firmware development.

I have seen this behavior in the USA as I see our leaders being purchased to undermine the USA Constitution and in this way are subverting the people's responsibilities to be responsible in the first place.
Only a few people are not being responsible with there behaviors
and some time no one is doing anything that is unsafe.
Our leaders some times fabricated a possibility to restrict a freedom.

You can not legislate or regulate people to be perfect, but you can legislate or regulate people to be enslave by its leaders.
I think when the USA Constitution is removed all the peoples of the world will be under a very bad one world dictatorship.
I know I am off subject here, but I see this subject being connected to the danger of us all losing our freedoms altogether.

I do understand when in heavily populated areas there maybe a need to have a safe area to fly
in with normal safe procedures and that's as it should be.
But what is being done many times, is to apply these same regulations for a heavily populated area,
over the whole nation where there is a very small-populated area with no airports and plane flying any anywhere around.
Heavily populated area restrictions are not needed where there is a very small population.
There is very little danger where there is nothing to be endangered.
Lets not punish everyone for what a very few people may do.
Lets protect our freedom, because if we do not fight for our freedoms we all will lose them faster.

Bob B.

ReSt · Post by **ReSt** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:03 pm

Philipp wrote:I'm definitely with you regarding the insurance, everybody screws up someday or has a mishap, you have to be covered in this case

It's already actual law in Germany (since, I'm not sure, around 2008 or so) that you MUST have an insurance. Since that time, personal insurances are no longer allowed to cover the risk of flying models what was possible up to that time.
And you have to have this insurance for every little model, even the 10g ones, that you want to fly outside.

Reinhard

Post by **jhsa** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:12 pm

The problem is not only the populated areas.. it is some (too many) people thinking that they are pilots.. No, model flyers ARE NOT pilots unless they own a flight license.. it takes much more than being able to fly an aircraft for someone to be a pilot..

The way it is going, it's becoming out of control. And if it gets out of control it will be forbbiden for everyone, good and bad.
I agree that for being allowed to fly models people should do a little course where they learn how they fly, how to safely handle them, and all the how to fly safe keeping clear of people and property.

João

openrcforums