Everyone please look at this

To discuss all things relating to flying models via remote video

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby Hallmark » Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:04 am

cynr100 wrote:
RCModelReviews wrote: the guy who's been trying to get us kicked off the field for a long time and who assaulted Ron in front of a dozen or so people.

Not too late to lodge a complaint of common assault, that should keep the nutter busy. Once that gets judged, in favour, that then leaves him open to civil action for damages. Assuming NZ law is comparable to AUS.
Anyway it costs nothing to lodge a complaint with the constabulary :idea: :)


Is this the same goose who crashed his plane too? Seems I should make a complaint about the ACTUAL safety concerns this man brings to the RC fliers??? :roll: :roll: :roll:
"I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter." Winston Churchill
User avatar
Hallmark
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:21 am

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby lesterpk » Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:05 am

Beyond visual range isnt the issue with CAA. On the video (you now the one I'm talking about) he's reading out his height and quite clearly well above 400ft within 4km of an aerodrome without approval of the Director of CAA, hence breaking law 101.205 a 1 iii and possibly 101.207 by being more than 4km and 400ft at times without operating in a danger area or having a NOTAM.
Being BVR and not having a safety pilot on a buddy box is against MFNZ rules, not CAA.
lesterpk
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby A10FLYR » Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:45 am

Is that the video where they pan over to the pilots aircraft still on the ground? ;)
Dean,
A10FLYR
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:15 am
Location: Denver CO. USA.

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby Hallmark » Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:51 am

lesterpk wrote:Beyond visual range isnt the issue with CAA. On the video (you now the one I'm talking about) he's reading out his height and quite clearly well above 400ft within 4km of an aerodrome without approval of the Director of CAA, hence breaking law 101.205 a 1 iii and possibly 101.207 by being more than 4km and 400ft at times without operating in a danger area or having a NOTAM.
Being BVR and not having a safety pilot on a buddy box is against MFNZ rules, not CAA.


I thought this was about crashing into a control tower? No?? How is it that when one thing is proven to be utter crap, out come the let's find another excuse police?

Oh he reads out his height. Was that another YouTube production? Because I saw on TV the other day that some bloke called Superman was flying around saving the world... Enough said?

I fly BVR all the time and so do thousands of pilots all over the world - it is only these silly old farts who decide that's not safe because we don't want to do it that cause these issues not the pilots who fly safely, in appropriate areas and with spotters all over that keep things under control.

How many injuries/deaths have been caused by FPV flights in a BVR sense? NONE! In fact most accidents involving FPV occur while both the pilot and spotter(s) are taking off or landing. :P

The military have UAVs that crash all the time (one recently in the US in a suburban area) and there's no model flying organisation jumping on them - why? - because the military would tell them to boot off!

The way to get things brought into the modern paradigm is to lead using example and sometimes that involves bending some rules or making productions and publishing them publicly to generate debate.

Also your comment flies in the face of the suggested issues here which is that the CAA has received complaints from an 'unknown' source and they reported this to MFNZ. MFNZ acted in concert with the local government and arbitrarily closed SWMAC down with no real proof of anything except what they say, which to date has been pretty much nothing!

This uproar is not about who did what to breach the rules, but about how certain bodies use their positions to impose rule on others without exercising due process and affording natural justice.

Your continued defence of these draconian practices ameliorates your position (as previously stated) and only substantiates my comments that you are an agent of these fellows, therefore commit your words to a letterhead or stop trying to fight their battles for them. They have an executive who still have done nothing to justify their position!!!

PS: Where is the 400' pole so we can ensure we stay under that height???
"I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter." Winston Churchill
User avatar
Hallmark
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:21 am

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby cynr100 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:46 am

"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself."
Sun Tzu

This is going to die on the public interest vine very soon, so, Bruce if you do have ammo in the cupboard now is the time. (I have been keeping up with NZMAA news link).

Time to use the law for your own ends ;) make/lodge written complaints to the statutory bodies don't warn the protagonists just do it. The best form of defence is to distract your attackers.
Not enough time in the day for all my crazy ideas, I'm not slow, I'm just pacing myself
User avatar
cynr100
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:37 am
Location: Cairns, Australia

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby lesterpk » Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:59 am

A10FLYR wrote:Is that the video where they pan over to the pilots aircraft still on the ground? ;)


No its the video posted on the XJet channel (I cant link to it from work) where the guy does a short maiden flight of a Skywalker, then goes for a long flight with a new aerial, reads out distance and height regularly to those around from his goggles, then loses control/contact and crashes around 2km away (or so the video caption says, measured using Google earth its more like only 1km away). The last height he said before the crash was 500m. The camera pans in the direction of the model and Bruce says its out there somewhere, looking over the tree line to the northwest of the runway. Then they are seen leaving in a car and on return with a pile of broken foam and other bits are asked where it came down, they mention it was found in a paddock between Dumphries Rd and the tree line. Plenty of houses and and what looks like some commercial glasshouses in the area.

So, unless the guy and Bruce faked all that then smashed a model to make it more entertaining (known to happen at SWMAC) then I'd say its real. That and another poster elsewhere knows the pilot well enough that he's stayed at his house and been shown the original video etc.

Hallmark - good on you for flying safely and in safe areas, I'd like to try FPV myself one day and it will also be done safely and in accordance within the rules so my insurance is valid because I know if I hit something even vaguely expensive I'll be financially ruined without insurance cover. This pilot flew over an unsafe area (why head toward town when to the east is km's of open farmland?) and at one point in the video even says words like "gee theres a lot of houses down there" and he got caught out when he had a failure. This pilot deserves to be pilloried for it, and the SWMAC let it happen on their field, filmed it and uploaded it the net for entertainment.

Why even bring up military UAV's, MFNZ or any model flying organisation has no jurisidction over them so its pointless arguement.

Funnily enough I spent a part of my morning personally emailing with Bruce a few times (five at last count) on an area of law that I thought might be helpful to him and his club (Bruce can confirm that if he wishes) , so your assertion that I'm an somehow agent of MFNZ can really just be laughed at. I can see that MFNZ have done some wrong, and I will rightly take them to task over it elsewhere where they'll actually see it.
The thing is here it seems Bruce is the messiah and has not and cannot do any wrong when the available evidence is contrary, but you arent willing to acknowledge it.

MFNZ have justified their position, you need to head over to http://www.parkflyers.org.nz and see the MFNZ response that has been posted.
lesterpk
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby bmsweb » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:12 am

From the NZMAA Site wrote:On Monday June 25, representatives of MFNZ, some members of the SWMAC and the CAA met with the SWDC to discuss this situation. The meeting was positive and productive and we await the outcome of the Council's decision. We are confident that the use of Tokoroa airfield will be retained for responsible MFNZ members. The future of the SWMAC remains largely in their own hands.

Barry Lennox
MFNZ President

Dave Wright
MFNZ Secretary


This is the last part of the post from NZMAA on their forum, can someone comment of what the outcome of this was?
User avatar
bmsweb
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 11:46 am

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby Malcurin » Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:36 am

Gypsy wrote:
First Person View
First Person View (FPV) flying makes use of video piloting equipment. It is a system whereby a radio control model aircraft is piloted, not through direct line of sight, but by using a live video downlink from an on-board camera allowing the pilot to experience a 'cockpit view' and to control the aircraft from the visual perspective of the on-board camera.
An FPV equipped Model Aircraft shall be flown by two Members utilizing a buddy-box system, or equivalent. The pilot in command shall not use the FPV down link.
The pilot in command shall have flown the model prior to FPV operations
The pilot in command shall maintain visual contact with the model and shall be able to immediately assume control of the model in the event of a problem without any action from the other party.
The operational range and flight path of the model shall be limited to the pilot in command’s visual line of sight.
The pilot in command shall be solely responsible for the safety of the flight.
FPV equipment shall only be used in aircraft that do not require either a Large Model or Gas Turbine Permit to Fly.
Reliable operation of the buddy-box and a clear handover protocol shall be
established prior to every flight.
A successful radio equipment ground range check with camera equipment turned both on and off shall be completed before the first flight of the day. This shall ensure that the range of the model control system is not significantly degraded by the operation of the FPV equipment.

From a separate Post ( don't know if its the same person or not forgive me if its not )

I'd like to try FPV myself one day and it will also be done safely and in accordance within the rules so my insurance is valid because I know if I hit something even vaguely expensive I'll be financially ruined without insurance cover.


My question here is more Id like the rules explained here as To my understanding of the rules FPV is the Pilot in command of the Model isn't allowed to be watching the FPV signal coming from the plane,
So the person watching the plane has control of it with the transmitter on a buddy box system, then there has to be at least 3 people out on the flying line. One who wants to see the signal, one who is controlling the plane ( Not allowed to watch the signal) and One on the buddybox in case something goes wrong ( may be in control of the plane and therefore cant watch the signal coming from the plane)
So this makes it that if you wanna see what its like from FPV your not allowed to control the plane, only allowed to watch , if you want to control the plane you cant watch,
is this correct?

So as i am reading the rules as they were written here, this makes any FPV that anyone has ever done because the pilot of the plane usually is the one with the goggles on and flying the plane that way Illegal in New Zealand.... wow there goes all the fun of FPV in New Zealand .....
interesting

and i checked the Australian rules on this matter and they are the exact same word for word
Thanks
Mike
Last edited by Malcurin on Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Turnigy 9x with ER9X and back light FrSky DHT 8ch DIY, FLD-02 Telemetry Display Screen
AXN with 6x4 prop .... AWESOME!!!!!!!
Canterbury Sailplanes Jazz 60 and Eraser 60
Dyna-flight Butterfly ( under construction )
Malcurin
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 8:24 am
Location: Matamata New Zealand

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby S-rob » Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:03 am

Gypsy wrote:I don't know about CAA regs but NZMAA Club Manual Section 6 Safety page 8 ................

First Person View
An FPV equipped Model Aircraft shall be flown by two Members utilising a buddy-box system, or equivalent. The pilot in command shall not use the FPV down link.
The pilot in command shall maintain visual contact with the model and shall be able to immediately assume control of the model in the event of a problem without any action from the other party.
The operational range and flight path of the model shall be limited to the pilot in command’s visual line of sight.


so what the point of fpv ($$$), if you have to follow these rules ?? Are those rules just for insurance coverage ??

Does anyone in NZ actually allways follow these rules ?? Im guessing not.
S-rob
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby rogueqd » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:42 am

Those rules are, well, stupid. If you test your gear properly you can easily go beyond visual range. The FPV electronics are among the least likely to fail. Most likely is a servo or ESC and what difference will visual range make if one of those fail. You're more likely to avoid hitting something if you keep using FPV then if you let a visual pilot take over. Lastly, if you do lose control of your plane due to some kind of radio interference, a decent Return To Launch setup is again more trustworthy than a visual pilot. A buddy box? Was that written in the 1970's?
rogueqd
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:52 am
Location: Northern beaches, Sydney, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to FPV

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron