PFV flying

[moyesboy]

There are a few guys in our club experimenting with FPV stuff.

If you club is mixed fixed wing and helis, does your club allow FPV flying?

Has your club experienced any problems?

Do you know if the FPV equipment used is legal?

[glen_j]

the only frequency available that is legal in the uk seems to be 2.4 for fpv. this can cause problems if used with 2.4ghz radio but fine if using 35mzh the only other issue you have is you need someone on a buddy lead due to the civil air folks. does look like good fun i quite fancy trying it

[Tom Burgess]

i thought it had been outlawed?

[moyesboy]

Perhaps not yet? however it would seem that the authgories have realised that anyone can currently legally control a flying object with considerable accuracy to any destination they please from perhaps 1.5km away, and might want to have a bit more control over that.
From
FPV UK - formerly the British First Person View Model Flying Association

20 October 2009
The CAA have proposed a change to the Air Navigation Order which will outlaw FPV flying (except when flown with dual controls). Please contact your local MP on the subject! Please read our response document here and feel free to use points from it when speaking to your local MP.

[moyesboy]

It seem you don't just need a "pilot in charge" watching the aircraft, while he gives you control temporarily via a buddy lead - but you also need a CAA permission for any model carrying any form of camera!

[Stuart]

Gordon,

As far as I understand this now comes under CAP722 as of Jan this year.

UAV's

[mattydred]

very interesting topic. thanks for bringing it up as i sometimes put a camera on my stryker.

i think if the caa go searching on youtube then quite alot of us could be in trouble if the law/rule is that we need permission from the caa to carry any kind of camera

[moyesboy]

I'm not sure, but I think you can get away with a camera if its use is purely recreational and you are well away from buildings and the general public (ie a remote flying site).

My interest in this is becuase it seems I was unwittingly responsible for an FPV flyaway on saturday when I switched on my Dx7. They agreed it was not my fault as I wasn't to know (and they only just realised the issue). The model was found, but it still rather ruined my enjoyment of the day.

It seems the only practical legal system for the FPV camera is on 2.4Ghz, and due to interferance (swamping of the Rx) the control gear then has to be 35Mhz. However there is also a problem that if a 2.4 tx is operated anywhere near the pilot of the fpv, if he is on 2.4 with the camera, he will lose picture due to any 2.4Ghz equipment drowning out the weak camera signal (limited to 10mW) from the distant aircraft. Same woulds haappen if he was close to a wifi or any other 2.4Ghz system.

If legal FPV is operated from your club field, it will mean a return to a sort of peg board system where every 2.4Ghz tx must be switched off while the FPV fliers fly!

Now I don't mind waiting my turn to fly - its interesting to see other models fly, fixed wing or heli. But waiting while folks sit in deck chairs with their head in a box and the model nowhere to be seen, and everyone else is grounded, certainly will be annoying. And the glorious and safe "no worries just switch on" aspect of 2.4Ghz gear is lost!

[scallybert]

[...]If legal FPV is operated from your club field, it will mean a return to a sort of peg board system where every 2.4Ghz tx must be switched off while the FPV fliers fly!

I don't think that's right.

I think this is covered in the BMFA handbook.

IIRC: Any FPV flying must be conducted with the FPV pilot as co-pilot, buddied to a non-FPV pilot who is 'in command', and able to take over at any time.

Aside from limiting dodgy activities, you can see the practical sense in this from your experience.

That aside, anyone flying with a set-up where another 2.4GHz device appearing will lead to a loss of control is surely taking the mickey.

IMO, you were completely in the clear, and I'll bite my tongue over the FPV pilot.

[moyesboy]

Well, I have some sympathy for the FPV pilot, who bought into a legal camera system, unlike some others. But he's going to have to fly it where nobody else is flying models in a conventional manner, or find another club thats all 35mhz!

[scallybert]

Well, I have some sympathy for the FPV pilot, who bought into a legal camera system, unlike some others. But he's going to have to fly it where nobody else is flying models in a conventional manner, or find another club thats all 35mhz!

Yeah, but he wasn't using it legally (AIUI), or else his buddy would have taken over when his FPV vision went down.

I'm probably being too harsh. Then again, a mate told me how a flying site got lost after someone killed a kid with a plane. (No winners in that one.)

[alioth]

Perhaps not yet? however it would seem that the authgories have realised that anyone can currently legally control a flying object with considerable accuracy to any destination they please from perhaps 1.5km away, and might want to have a bit more control over that.

The rules in the ANO aren't there in place to prevent people with nefarious intent from doing harm, because the rulemakers know as well as we do that if someone were to intend to do someone harm with FPV kit, they probably don't care much about the ANO either.

I'm sure it didn't bother the Sept.11 attackers all that greatly that they were exceeding the speed limit for below 10,000 feet (250 knots IAS), nor that they were not legally rated for the aircraft type they were flying.