FPV Issues

[Stuart]

OK Guys

Some of you might be aware but a certain group of FPV'ers took a dislike to my very frank and direct approach on FB that we need to very careful what we do when it comes to FPV especially.

I spoke with the CAA even last week on the issue and believe me when I say that the CAA are very much watching FPV and peoples info is being harvested from videos to online discussions and people who are seen to be ignoring the rules because "They" know best will be in for a wake up call if not very careful.

I've watched loads of video's of people who seem to believe they are some kind of FPV God and can achieve world records in distance or altitude or just plain stupidity flying up roads.

I'll attach some files for you to read.

These are few Freedom of Information Act letters that show the various aspects of FPV and how others are enquiring on the use of UAV's in this country. One I know is from a hobbist.

But rest assured people are looking at the DRONE Community (Ignore the word FPV) because as far as the sensational media goes they class your model as a DRONE and any data they can get to show its dangerous fuels others that want to see your wings very much clipped.

The Rules are fairly sensible and we ratified in partnership with the CAA, FPVUK & BMFA recently some changes to these that expand the envelope of fun shall we say.

BUT

The problem I'm having is that some cannot seem to keep to the current very simple and safe guidelines - simple things like just having a spotter seem to be beyond some to understand why. Flying over roads, near buildings even so much so that to the lame person you know that it goes wrong it will land on a house or worse a kid.

My attitude is well if people can't behave now then they won't behave with the new rules, if anything it will most likely just make it worse. Therefore we need to tighten the rules NOT make them looser.

This is why on FB I told some to grow up because I don't have one issue with picking up the phone to the CAA and passing on a persons details if I feel they are a danger to the persons around them and the hobby.

Some will not like my attitude as they did and ironically banned me...

So please please please

Take heed - read the attached - think about the people asking for this information and why they might be and the consequences of breaking some very simple rules.

Rules that can be revoked just as quick as awarded if the right situation presents itself.

Our contact at the CAA made a comment that really got my attention.

"I'm busying working on the larger UAV's at present, but I keep coming back to the smaller stuff"

My translation

"I need to focus on the larger ones but the smaller ones keep getting in the way"

We need to work with the CAA and not become a thorn in there side otherwise we are not helping ourselves when we need there supportive ear should the dog muck hit the fan.

[Angelos]

Therefore we need to tighten the rules NOT make them looser.

Tightening the rules does not stop people breaking them. Enforcing the rules and making the consequences more severe might. However, most likely it will just make the few black sheep go "underground" and not posting their naughty videos in public. As long as it doesn't bring our hobby to the media spotlight it's a good enough start for me.

Of course you also have the wannabe aerial photo/videographers with zero RC experiencing that buy a (usually) DJI Phantom with no idea that there are aviation laws covering the operation of their new toy. And then they go fly it over a marathon, festival, etc. An idiot catches the media attention. Recreational FPV pilots get the blame.

[Stuart]

Most likely the darker element will want to underground to avoid if the rules where tightened up. Which is why i would mucb prefer people just wake up and take note of there actions. Not just think about themselves but open there eyes to the bigger picture.

Hence ive said before we need to get better at self policing. Less of the turn a cheek....

But equally i find it extremely difficult to say we should sit around a table with the CAA to discuss extending the rules when certain people cannot keep to the current.

[electricsceadu]

stuart
i may also upset a few but i agree with what you say
it only takes a few idiots to spoil the unmanned flight freedom that we currently have
be what ever your choice of craft
the first thing that needs to be done is to use a little common sense when flying

if uav/drones or whatever you wish to call them are seen as a public nuisance then the caa will be looking at all types of model flying with a view to restricting there use

[electricsceadu]

would it be worth pushing to get a safe operating guide and navigation law guide in all uav/fpv types kits
this way we will be doing something pro-active that the caa can see

the media will be another thing as they'll make a mountain out of a molehill on any story they can

[Angelos]

My worry isn't the few black sheep of the RC community as much as the 100s - 1000s RTF systems sold to inexperienced members of the public. Most of the time I see "private drones" mentioned in the news there is also a photo of a DJI Phantom. Let's see the DJI marketing... Flying beyond visual range? And how about that map of a populated area?

[dw45]

I think the manufactures or importers should include a copy of the relevant laws on operating these so you can't deny ignorance of the laws, plus it will bring to the attention of the new owner there are laws in operating these.
I have been asked by many colleagues at work about getting one, not one knew there are restrictions on where you can fly them etc. the general public must be informed you can't just buy one and fly it where ever you like.

[jwatts007]

Stuart is the RCHA & BMFA the conduit for the CAA too police our hobby or are they the conduit for there paying members too contact them and tell them what we want and need...all I can see is both the RCHA and BMFA being misused here at the detriment of some paid up members...

[Mark_T]

Stuart is the RCHA & BMFA the conduit for the CAA too police our hobby or are they the conduit for there paying members too contact them and tell them what we want and need...all I can see is both the RCHA and BMFA being misused here at the detriment of some paid up members...

The answer is neither really.

The CAA do not specifically 'police' our hobby, they set out the guidelines and rules for the use of shared airspace and we fall into the categories of use that they cover.

Similarly the BMFA, RCHA, FVPUK etc. do not merely tell the CAA what we 'want and need' they work with the CAA to negotiate for changes that are in our interest.

Part of that negotiation process has to be establishing credibility by supporting the legal framework that is currently in place while working to make improvements to it for our benefit.

You don't get to the table by completely ignoring the current legal limitations and encouraging other people to do the same.

If some paid up members are currently breaking the existing rules willfully, then they have no right to expect support from their organizations for those activities and should not be surprised if those organizations cooperate with the CAA to their detriment.

The CAA have so far been very cooperative and open to making changes that help us all. As long as this stays something that is dealt with between our various representative bodies (BMFA, RCHA, FPVUK etc.) and the CAA then I can only see things getting better. However, all it takes to change that is for there to be sufficient complaints or evidence of continued willful breaking of the rules by members of these organizations and their credibility goes down and hence their ability to negotiate is reduced.

In short, if you really can't manage to fly within current legal limits, at least have the good sense not to make life harder for everyone else by posting about it in public, it just makes it more difficult to get the rules changed in our favour.

[Stuart]

As far any association is concerned none of us hold any regulatory powers. But our common goal should be to ensure that the hobby is done safely and is preserved for ALL to enjoy. The CAA doesnt hold one body infavour of another there key goal is to make sure that they have routes to as many as possible to exclude none.

But to simply look the otherway and ignore what is going on is not my style. I tend to tackle issues head on and do something before it gets beyond a point that we can influence the outcome.

Hence we need to get our house in order now.

I have a few measures coming which i hope will make the broader community aware plus others.

[scallybert]

Be under no illusions what an awkward position our organisations are in (RCHA, BMFA, etc).

In other fields, the authorities (legislators, police, etc) have a track record of shutting down the whole activity; rather than enforcing the law, and prosecuting the few people breaking it and causing the problem.

eg venues losing licences because of (genuine) road safety issues caused by a minority of people near to the venue. [Or bringing in laws that have no effect on the problem people; but mess things up for everyone else.]

Stuart is absolutely right to take this seriously; not just for the sake of FPV enthusiasts, but for RC flying as a whole. However, experience suggests it will be a difficult path to tread...

[Jamin_00]

Everybody yes, not just drones.

Look at how many vids there are of people doing massively high stall turns and more so, auto's. Happens ALL the time but no one says a dicky bird there?

Nick Maxwell at RCHA last year was climbing for ages, easily 1000ft.

[Angelos]

Everybody yes, not just drones.

Look at how many vids there are of people doing massively high stall turns and more so, auto's. Happens ALL the time but no one says a dicky bird there?

Nick Maxwell at RCHA last year was climbing for ages, easily 1000ft.

Ben, I don't know if the law has recently changed but I don't believe there was an altitude ceiling for LOS flying. BMFA has LOS altitude records at around 1,6Km if I remember right.

[jimmyhorns]

Ben, I don't know if the law has recently changed but I don't believe there was an altitude ceiling for LOS flying. BMFA has LOS altitude records at around 1,6Km if I remember right.

Iirc if you are under 7kg and flying los then there is no altitude limit.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Jamin_00]

So if my quad is in los I can fly it at 2000ft??

This is confusing.

So if its LOS there is no distance nor height restrictions?