FPV HUB
Advanced search  

News:

Who's Online
  • Dot Guests: 64
  • Dot Hidden: 0
  • Dot Users: 1
  • Dot Users Online:
* Site Sponsor
* Random Gallery Items
DSCF6004

Views: 1761
Posted by: n00b@FPV
in: Stuff
DSCF0398

Views: 782
Posted by: Coyote
in: Coyote`s Album
raptor50 (7)

Views: 540
Posted by: mattydred
in: raptor 50
All equipment in

Views: 4879
Posted by: Coyote
in: Coyote`s Album
Venturi Wing Laminated

Views: 1650
Posted by: ROVguy
in: ROVguys Album
* Latest Gallery Items
IMAG0786

Views: 1919
Posted by: Njoro
in: FPV Stuff
Ground Station

Views: 2492
Posted by: Njoro
in: FPV Stuff
IMAG0165

Views: 2368
Posted by: Njoro
in: FPV Stuff
IMAG0161

Views: 1344
Posted by: Njoro
in: FPV Stuff
zeroG Raptor

Views: 1684
Posted by: Njoro
in: FPV Stuff

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 12:02:37 AM 
Started by electrotor - Last post by BigT
Still not a nice experience though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 2 
 on: Yesterday at 11:27:37 PM 
Started by electrotor - Last post by Steve W
Thing is that's happened once in god knows how many flights you've done - barely worth worrying about. You weren't doing anything illegal, simple as - doesn't really matter if they got in the huff about it.

 3 
 on: Yesterday at 10:50:48 PM 
Started by elmattbo - Last post by electrotor
I think you're being unfair. It's scientific, acknowledges it's own limitations and infinitely adds to the previous knowledge of these collisions in controlled conditions (which previously was zero).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand the report, because I write reports on matters scientific. But as I said what concerns me is the people who don't understand it and what they will do to our hobby based on their lack of understanding.

 4 
 on: Yesterday at 06:51:31 PM 
Started by elmattbo - Last post by elmattbo
I think you're being unfair. It's scientific, acknowledges it's own limitations and infinitely adds to the previous knowledge of these collisions in controlled conditions (which previously was zero).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 5 
 on: Yesterday at 06:27:25 PM 
Started by electrotor - Last post by BigT
Not quite as easy as that as I found out earlier this year. Flying LOS at a "proper" club site in the middle of nowhere, testing out a tracker with a vrc on it, I was overflown by an india99 at about 1000 feet. 25 mins later I had a visit from an interceptor and spent a rather testing hour being quizzed. Luckily I am genned up on the legals so was able to defend myself despite the fiction these two where spouting regarding FPV, air traffic, permissions,   etc etc. I just happened to have a CAA England East Chart in my kit from my PPL days so I could prove they where talking baws, plus my BMFA card and insurance.  They also went over the inside of my van. 

 I had my kit photographed, my ID taken down, the whole embarrassing think was videoed by bodycam. When I pointed out that I was also recording the session they really did not like it. Eventually they left with a "we know who you are and where you fly now so be warned!".  It was just luck that I wasnt flying FPV as that was the plan for later on that day.

I tell you it has made me think about chucking the long distance FPV and just keeping the small quads going.

 6 
 on: Yesterday at 06:08:09 PM 
Started by electrotor - Last post by Gundummy
Just seen the article in the guardian.

Load of bollo* lol..... catch me if you can.... I'll be flying sensibly away from airports...

 7 
 on: Yesterday at 06:03:22 PM 
Started by electrotor - Last post by electrotor

So it infers that it can be any form of unmanned aircraft. BUT the logo at the top of the piece is of a Phantom plus the video at the bottom is of a quad!!


Exactly. Gloriously muddy.

 8 
 on: Yesterday at 05:57:43 PM 
Started by elmattbo - Last post by electrotor
So now we have "Small Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (drones)".
And within this we have quadcopter drones and fixed wing drones.

It is interesting to note the rather restricted remit of this study. What immediately comes to mind is the distinct lack of rotary wing drones. Given the amount of "hard" material (metal, carbon fibre, etc.) in the blades, structure and motors of many helicopters I would have expected even a mention of this. Also when testing the fixed wing models no consideration was given to wing mounted or pylon mounted motors. It could of course be argued that nose mounted motors present the worst case. If that is so, are we to assume that only electric motors were considered? No chunky 2 or 4 stroke types?
Then there's
"However,some factors could not be replicated, for example:
 the aerodynamic pressure on aircraft structures during flight
 the internal pressurisation of the cockpits
 the low temperatures experienced in flight which could change the way that drone and aircraft materials would behave during an impact
"

OK so perhaps I am being a bit critical but the testing was rather limited and the report itself clearly states :

7.1 Whilst this work considers the severity and nature of damage of a drone collision with the windscreen or tail rotor of manned aircraft, it does not consider the likelihood of such a collision. In order to understand the full risk picture and develop riskappropriate mitigations, it is recommended that a better understanding of the likelihood of a collision is developed and that other manned aircraft components are also considered. Any existing or future work looking at collision likelihood should be considered in order to fully understand the risk picture.
7.3.2 The study considered a limited number of aircraft components and drone types. It is recommended that consideration should be given to conducting further similar work which would cover a wider range of scenarios, and further improve the
modelling capability.


What concerns me is that publications which appeal to the largely brain-dead and ill informed advisers to the law makers will latch onto this limited study.

 9 
 on: Yesterday at 05:44:14 PM 
Started by electrotor - Last post by BigT
One major thing that hardly ever seems to be addressed is the definition of a drone. Even the Airprox Board, by their own admission, do not have a definition yet happily use the term in their reports. I have even asked the CAA but have failed to get a response of any kind.

Is it a multicopter?
If so then state that. It does leave a problem for hybrids though and I suspect they will become more popular.

Is it any form of unmanned aerial vehicle or system?
If so then all model flyers will be affected.
But where does this leave control line or free flight? Actually some control liners also use r/c for ancillary functions and free flight is arguably the most potentially dangerous as no control is possible after release.

Oh dear, what a can of worms has been opened. And can you really expect the Police, who will have to enforce this, to understand the important differences? They have better things to do with their reduced resources.

Steam partially vented.


Actually all Unmanned Arial Vehicles are wrapped up in the ANO. So thats free flight, control line, rockets, rc models unless flown indoors, etc etc.  That is why the 250 grams has come into play. It will exempt, micro models.   Further subsections of the ANO cover UASV which to anyone else is anything with a recording camera on (even if that is a remote recording) and live video transmission , even a tethered kite or balloon.
 
Yep its confusing because the official EASA web site refers to them in this article https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/civil-drones-rpas thus:

"Unmanned aircraft (most people call them ‘drones’) is a sector of aviation that is developing very fast and has a great potential for producing new jobs and growth. The term ‘unmanned aircraft’ includes very large aircraft similar in size and complexity to manned aircraft, but also very small consumer electronics aircraft. Especially the smaller ones are increasingly being used in the Europe Union (EU), but under a fragmented regulatory framework." So it infers that it can be any form of unmanned aircraft. BUT the logo at the top of the piece is of a Phantom plus the video at the bottom is of a quad!!

https://youtu.be/5Xs_eVx4nuw

As I mentioned earlier, they have not even started to consider the "home built" side of the hobby. Either fixed wing or rotary. 






 10 
 on: Yesterday at 04:11:16 PM 
Started by elmattbo - Last post by elmattbo
Some much called for science!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/drones-and-manned-aircraft-collisions-test-results

Of note for me/us is the greater threat to general aviation (non bird strike resistant and away from controlled airspace) and the magnified effect of harder drone parts (I'm thinking carbon fibre miniquads here, see the results).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10