Everyone please look at this

To discuss all things relating to flying models via remote video

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby Malcurin » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:45 am

just edited my post after checking the Australian rules on this too , mainly to compare, and they are the same word for word, sorry Australians but you need the 3 person setup also :(
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 BillGriffiths100 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:35 am

No FPV must not be allowed...
Except for the US and other military that can overfly sovereign territories and take pot shots at wedding parties reporters and any one else that catches the eye of the psychotic teenagers they put in charge of it!
Compromising with out of control government is like living with a lion, sooner or later the bloody thing will eat you .

You accept the tyranny of the state when it's not being applied to you, when it is: it's too late.
User avatar
BillGriffiths100
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: London UK

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby rogueqd » Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:24 pm

Malcurin wrote:just edited my post after checking the Australian rules on this too , mainly to compare, and they are the same word for word, sorry Australians but you need the 3 person setup also :(
I'm not sure where you're getting the third person from. The silly buddy box method is quite simple. It's the same as the club training method where the instructor controls the plane and the student flys using a buddy box, except in this case the 'student' is wearing the FPV gear.

The pointlessness of it is illustrated buy some line-of-sight friends I fly with at a local park. The first time they saw me fly fpv they were scared stiff that I'd hit the trees I was flying close to. I knew there was around 5 meters between my plane and the trees, but from 100 meters away they couldn't judge the distance that closely.

The buddy box rule was obviously written by someone who had never actually flown FPV (or maybe just once) and was trying to fit FPV into their 3rd person, looking up from the ground, perspective. Obviously their setup didn't have circularly polarized antennas, a RTL system, probably not even an OSD. The old rules possibly had merit when the first FPV planes ever created were having their maiden flights, but as with all things electronic, we've come a long way since then.


To quote Princess Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
rogueqd
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:52 am
Location: Northern beaches, Sydney, Australia

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby Malcurin » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:33 pm

The pilot in command shall not use the FPV down link.


that's one of the rules For Aussie and NZ for FPV
So who is to use the down link coming from the plane?? According to that, the Pilot cant, then the person on the buddybox cant because he is a Potential pilot so there has to be a 3rd person to view the down link of the FPV camera equipment is going to go to waste

that's how i read that rule in MFNZ and the MAAA Rules since they are word for word the same, making anyone who has used FPV in both country's in the way FPV is ment to be used not covered by insurance if they have crashed .... that is why i asked if i was reading the rules correctly in an earlier post
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 RCModelReviews » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:23 pm

Yep, we're aware of the MFNZ rules -- but as soon as a model flies beyond visual range -- it becomes a UAS which falls outside MFNZ control and into the control solely of CAA.

MFNZ has no provision in its rules (that I can see) for UAS operations.

Likewise, when a model is flown FPV and the "return to launch" function is activated, it ceases to be an RC model plane and becomes a UAS.

For these reasons, we need to know what the actual regulations (not just a discussion paper from 2007) are in respect to UAS.

Bear in mind that not all flying of non-full-sized aviation at the Tokoroa airfield may be classified as "RC model flying" and I do run a UAV company there so *I* need this information as much as the model club does. That CAA can't or won't provide it is very significant.

The area of FPV is another one where the technology has outpaced the rules.

Why is it that I can fly a large 140kph 12Kg model powered with a 65cc motor at distances of 1.5Kms or so (because it's still in "visual range") -- but I can't fly a 50kph 500g foamie beyond a distance of about 500m because it is then "beyond visual range".

What are the safety implications of each scenario? A 65cc brick at 140kph poses a *far* greater danger than a 500g foamie flying at 50kph.

FPV is a very rapidly growing aspect of this hobby and if MFNZ/CAA want to ensure that it is controlled and done safely, they're going to have to work with the FPV community to come up with a set of rules and operating procedures that meet the needs of that group while still preserving safety.

The consensus is that the current rules don't cut it and far too many people simply take the option of ignoring them. Far better to give a little slack and retain some control than to grip too tight and have people think "what the hell -- let's do it anyway".

I think you'd be horrified if you saw some of the FPV activity that's taking place in NZ "under the radar" right now. I've seen examples of very large models being flown at illegal altitudes over major population centers -- using gear that just isn't suitable for the task (no RTL, multiple failsafe events, protracted loss of video, etc).

Anyone can buy the gear directly from China and throw it in any model they like (yes, even a 65cc petrol plane). This will end badly unless (as the SWMAC had planned) we can get these rogue fliers together, teach them all about how to do things safely and get CAA/MFNZ to take a much closer look at creating reasonable rules that will reduce the temptation to fly illegally.

When I suggested a Wings endorsement for FPV on the MFNZ mailing list for example -- that went down like a lead balloon.

It is only a matter of time before there *is* an incident between GA and FPV or someone does some serious property damage by FPVing the wrong kind of model, without the necessary skills in an unsafe environment.

MFNZ/CAA can help prevent that - but not by simply creating a ruleset that is too restrictive to allow FPV fliers to have "fun".

I sure hope I don't re-read this in a few months time and say "I told ya so".

Tokoroa would be the perfect place for an FPV fly-in. Many good landmarks, huge tracts of farmland and some very skilled and experienced FPV fliers to give advice and tuition. I think both MFNZ and CAA would learn a lot from attending such an event too.
RCModelReviews.com, just the facts.
User avatar
RCModelReviews
 
Posts: 2120
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 3:40 am

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby RCModelReviews » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:33 pm

rogueqd wrote:
Malcurin wrote:just edited my post after checking the Australian rules on this too , mainly to compare, and they are the same word for word, sorry Australians but you need the 3 person setup also :(
I'm not sure where you're getting the third person from.

You need the pilot in command, the FPV pilot and an observer.

Since the FPV pilot will not be able to observe (because he's wearing glasses), if the pilot in command has to take control back there must be a third person to act as an observer for him.

Three people to fly a 500g foamie :-)

The silly buddy box method is quite simple. It's the same as the club training method where the instructor controls the plane and the student flys using a buddy box, except in this case the 'student' is wearing the FPV gear.

That's right -- and it's something that would make FPV a fleeting novelty of which most people would quickly bore and move on. Which I suspect is exactly what "the powers that be" would want.

The buddy box rule was obviously written by someone who had never actually flown FPV (or maybe just once) and was trying to fit FPV into their 3rd person, looking up from the ground, perspective. Obviously their setup didn't have circularly polarized antennas, a RTL system, probably not even an OSD. The old rules possibly had merit when the first FPV planes ever created were having their maiden flights, but as with all things electronic, we've come a long way since then.

This is one of my big beefs too. The regulations take no account of the changes in technology and those who make these regulations/rules are often speaking from a perspective of ignorance. Personally, I've probably flown almost 20 hours as an FPV pilot. I've never had a single crash -- or even a hard landing. This is despite (and I fess-up), flying beyond visual range on occasions -- but only in a model that is equipped with RTL so I know that if something goes wrong and the RC or video link is lost, it will not crash -- but simply return to the launch point.

I fly over open farmland where the worst that can happen (and even this is incredibly unlikely) is that a chunk of EPP will hit a 300Kg cow and give it a bit of a fright. If the cow dies of a heart attack -- I'll pay for that out of my own pocket.

But, because those who have never properly explored the limits and the fun of this aspect of the hobby don't understand how very safe it is -- they simply try to wind it up in overly-restrictive rules that force people to go underground (albeit not literally I hope :-)
RCModelReviews.com, just the facts.
User avatar
RCModelReviews
 
Posts: 2120
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 3:40 am

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby rogueqd » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:36 pm

I heartily agree Bruce. My whole reason for not joining a club is that even if I do I can't fly FPV there anyway so what's the point. I'd gladly buy insurance if it covered FPV and I'd love to join a club where I didn't have to worry about people walking across a public field every time I fly, but the Aussie equivalents of MFNZ and CAA (and also MFNZ and CAA themselves) just don't provide that. So I stay under 400ft, don't fly over buildings, and apart from that fly any where and any time I can.
rogueqd
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:52 am
Location: Northern beaches, Sydney, Australia

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby RCModelReviews » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:37 pm

Just for the record -- Gypsy and Les are actually being quite helpful in this matter so don't rag on them too much.

They are one of the few voices of reason and objectivity that might have any degree of influence within the wooden-heads at MFNZ.

Like everyone, they have their right to express an opinion and they are providing very constructive input elsewhere. Don't be too hasty to judge and cut them some slack please.
RCModelReviews.com, just the facts.
User avatar
RCModelReviews
 
Posts: 2120
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 3:40 am

Re: Everyone please look at this

Postby cynr100 » Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:51 am

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 RCModelReviews » Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:04 am

Yep, the true hidden agendas are beginning to unfold.

The Jet fliers were not impressed when our club told them that they needed to move their flight line from the sealed taxiway (where they regularly overflew the dirt bikes -- resulting in two jets crashing into the dirtbike track and narrowly missing people). They didn't want to have to taxi or carry their expensive models over the grass to the tarmac.

It seems that they have decided that convenience comes before safety and the best way to ensure that is to take-over as the domicile club at the Tokoroa field.

Rather underhanded I think and it must challenge the assertions that this is all about improving safety.
RCModelReviews.com, just the facts.
User avatar
RCModelReviews
 
Posts: 2120
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 3:40 am

PreviousNext

Return to FPV

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron