I think this particular piece of kit, or something very similar has already been posted about here. Now the FAA are going ahead with airport trials. Two questions immediately come to mind.
1. Will it be any use against supermarket plastic bags? ;D
2. Who is then liable if the UAV crashes and causes injury?
The second question presents a legal issue if the UAV was causing a potential, yet not actual problem with other aircraft but was not causing any other problem until control was taken over. How can the AUD operator know that he is forcing a safe landing? Could be over a freeway or congested area. Tough one legally.
http://www.blighter.com/news/press-releases/130-british-counter-uav-technology-auds-selected-by-faa-for-us-airport-trials.html (http://www.blighter.com/news/press-releases/130-british-counter-uav-technology-auds-selected-by-faa-for-us-airport-trials.html)
I bet Richard Madeley's wondering if they do them in green to blend in with his garden.
Looks bloody brilliant, military looking helicals do look the biz :)
Quote from: electrotor on June 01, 2016, 02:23:30 PM
I think this particular piece of kit, or something very similar has already been posted about here. Now the FAA are going ahead with airport trials. Two questions immediately come to mind.
1. Will it be any use against supermarket plastic bags? ;D
2. Who is then liable if the UAV crashes and causes injury?
The second question presents a legal issue if the UAV was causing a potential, yet not actual problem with other aircraft but was not causing any other problem until control was taken over. How can the AUD operator know that he is forcing a safe landing? Could be over a freeway or congested area. Tough one legally.
I don't think it would be tough legally at all. I can't really see any court siding with the drone operator in this scenario. In the same way they don't when police chase fleeing suspects in cars and an accident happens. It's deemed to be the fault of the criminal.
This crap is no match for my Dragon Link V2. Bring it on :)
So how does this actually work then? Are they saying that they can bind directly to a Rx onboard the aircraft and take it over? Wouldn't FHSS stop this and issue a RTH?
Or - does it jam the GPS and adjust the altitude so that the drone simply falls out of the sky because it thinks its at a higher altitude than it is? What if it isn't flying in GPS mode though?
Quote from: iPeel on June 01, 2016, 02:56:02 PM
I bet Richard Madeley's wondering if they do them in green to blend in with his garden.
Of all the people to spy one with a drone, they chose Richard and Judy :laugh: Of all the people to choose to see naked via a drone I can think of barely anyone I'd fly further away from. Barf!
Quote from: Steve W on June 01, 2016, 05:41:12 PM
So how does this actually work then? Are they saying that they can bind directly to a Rx onboard the aircraft and take it over? Wouldn't FHSS stop this and issue a RTH?
Or - does it jam the GPS and adjust the altitude so that the drone simply falls out of the sky because it thinks its at a higher altitude than it is? What if it isn't flying in GPS mode though?
Looking at the aerials it's got I'd say it will jam 2.4, 5.8 and gps. So a phantom will go into lost mode and either just hover or attempt a landing on the spot using its baro.
Quote from: Steve W on June 01, 2016, 05:44:20 PM
Of all the people to spy one with a drone, they chose Richard and Judy :laugh: Of all the people to choose to see naked via a drone I can think of barely anyone I'd fly further away from. Barf!
Could of been looking for his daughter
Quote from: Loopdreams on June 01, 2016, 03:04:09 PM
I don't think it would be tough legally at all. I can't really see any court siding with the drone operator in this scenario. In the same way they don't when police chase fleeing suspects in cars and an accident happens. It's deemed to be the fault of the criminal.
In a car chase the police do not take control of the fleeing vehicle so the driver is still culpable for his actions. However if they did take control and it crashed I think the legal position would be difficult to establish. Certainly the pilot of the UAV could be prosecuted for illegal flying but once he has had control taken over surely he cannot be held responsible for any subsequent damage or harm. At that point he is merely a spectator.
Exactly - If a police officer took over someones transmitter while the aircraft is airborne, then surely the officer is culpable if there's a crash and/or injury?
I don't see how this is any different except for it taking away ALL control as opposed to transferring it to someone else.
Not sure this is a good solution tbh!
No, that would be like a criminal trying to argue that they weren't at all responsible because they ran over a spike strip or they lost control after their car was rammed by the plods in theirs. I think there's a pretty well established principle here that the authorities can take those sorts of risks free from culpability where it's deemed to be in the public interest.
Being responsible for flying in a bad location surely doesn't equate to you being responsible for your drone subsequently crashing into a pushchair because a copper took away your means of control.
Edit: grammar
It might not appeal to your sense of natural justice but I'm fairly sure that's exactly what would happen in this example of a drone potentially coming into conflict with an airliner.
Quote from: Loopdreams on June 01, 2016, 07:30:35 PM
No, that would be like a criminal trying to argue that they weren't at all responsible because they ran over a spike strip or they lost control after their car was rammed by the plods in theirs. I think there's a pretty well established principle here that the authorities can take those sorts of risks free from culpability where it's deemed to be in the public interest.
The police may disable the fleeing vehicle but at no point, spike, ram or whatever, do they take control of it. That's the crucial and fundamental difference between your analogy and this system being trialed. Surely the UAV operator reliquishes further responsibility once control is taken over by another party.
See you in court. ;D
the police are extremely careful when and where they deploy spike PRECISELY for this reason... THEY are responsible for whatever damage occurs from the use of that particular tool. They have to undergo rigorous training and pass countless assessments just to be allowed to "make the call" of whether to use spike strips or not.
If the police decide to deploy spike strips on the approach to a school and this then causes the car to lose control killing some children, the police will be responsible for that, not the alleged "criminal".
You see it all the time, the police make a decision to hold back and sometimes stop the pursuit all together if they feel their actions would contribute to even more dangerous driving from the fleeing vehicle.
Agree ^
This is being trialled at airports ostensibly in order to prevent an accident more serious than any which would likely arise from the drone falling to the ground (whether *you* think that it will or won't is irrelevant to the discussion). If you think that any court in the land is going to hold the authorities responsible after making that call and instead maintain that they should have let the drone continue it's flight potentially coming into conflict with a full size aircraft well then I think you're being a bit daft.
Scenario...
Drone is flying towards an airport. Airport authority uses this device.
Drone falls onto a road and causes incident
Airport authority is responsible for that incident not the drone pilot, they decided to use the device whilst the drone was over a road instead of somewhere safer.
I'm not sure where you're getting your logic from.
No the drone pilot would be responsible. There would be no drone to shoot down if the operator was flying legally.
There would be no drone pilot if his mother hadn't given birth to him... Should his mother be held responsible?
Heck, make dji responsible because they made the drone.
Yes there's a chain of events leading up to the incident but ultimately it was the most recent action that directly caused it.
Either way, what I will agree with us that it is not our place to make the ultimate decision in the courts.
Quote from: BlueFlyer on June 02, 2016, 07:11:31 PM
Scenario...
Drone is flying towards an airport. Airport authority uses this device.
Drone falls onto a road and causes incident
Airport authority is responsible for that incident not the drone pilot.
I'm not sure where you're getting your logic from.
From the obvious and well established principle that the Police/authorities are allowed to take certain risks with public safety if they can demonstrate that they did so in good faith and in order to prevent a greater danger. If this principle was not in operation then a huge range of Police operations would not be possible. As you rightly pointed out they have to operate with care but it doesn't alter the principle one iota.
There would have been no road accident if the operator was left in control....
Your move.
Wouldn't like to come across one of these !
http://chinanecom.en.made-in-china.com/product/MvWEcihVANkf/China-Uav-New-Drone-Remote-Controls-High-Power-Jammer.html (http://chinanecom.en.made-in-china.com/product/MvWEcihVANkf/China-Uav-New-Drone-Remote-Controls-High-Power-Jammer.html)
That thing's likely to disable the fillings in your teeth let alone your drone! No-one's going to be able to browse the Internet, unlock their car or open their garage within 10 kilometres of that thing.
I especially like the way they got to the total power output (127w), by totalling the power at the different frequencies together, a sign they really know what they're talking about.
Quote from: BlueFlyer on June 02, 2016, 07:18:17 PM
There would be no drone pilot if his mother hadn't given birth to him... Should his mother be held responsible?
That's a silly argument. The operator is the one breaking the rules and therefore presenting the potential danger to an airliner. He / she is the person responsible for not flying near the airport not those protecting it.
Quote from: Steve W on June 02, 2016, 07:18:57 PM
There would have been no road accident if the operator was left in control....
Your move.
The planes are supposed to be there, the car are supposed to be there, the only thing that isn't is the drone, therefore the drones operator is responsible for any repercussions through their own actions of irresponsibility.
Quote from: Coyote on June 02, 2016, 08:56:55 PMthe drones operator is responsible for any repercussions through their own actions of irresponsibility.
But the drone operator didn't make the drone crash/land on the road.
I think the point here is that this could go on and on, and until there's actually an incident that sets a precedent, no-one will know for sure.
With direct reference to Articles 138, 166 & 167 of the ANO (UK only) I still maintain that culpability would be difficult to establish.
Article 138 – Endangering safety of any person or property
'A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.'
All model flying activity is controlled by this article of the ANO and it is important that the operator of any model aircraft should bear this in mind at all times.
Article 166 – Small unmanned aircraft
'(1) A person must not cause or permit any article or animal (whether or not attached to a parachute) to be dropped from a small unmanned aircraft so as to endanger persons or property.
(2) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made.
(3) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must maintain direct, unaided visual contact with the aircraft sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions.
(4) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft which has a mass of more than 7 kg excluding its fuel but including any articles or equipment installed in or attached to the aircraft at the commencement of its flight, must not fly the aircraft:
(a) in Class A, C, D or E airspace unless the permission of the appropriate air traffic control unit has been obtained;
(b)within an aerodrome traffic zone during the notified hours of watch of the air traffic control unit (if any) at that aerodrome unless the permission of any such air traffic control unit has been obtained; or
(c) at a height of more than 400 feet above the surface unless it is flying in airspace described in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) and in accordance with the requirements for that airspace.
(5) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must not fly the aircraft for the purposes of aerial work except in accordance with a permission granted by the CAA.'
Article 167 – Small unmanned surveillance aircraft
'(1) The person in charge of a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not fly the aircraft in any of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) except in accordance with a permission issued by the CAA.
(2) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (1) are:
(a) over or within 150 metres of any congested area;
(b) over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons;
(c) within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft; or
(d) subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), within 50 metres of any person.
(3) Subject to paragraph (4), during take-off or landing, a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not be flown within 30 metres of any person.
(4) Paragraphs (2)(d) and (3) do not apply to the person in charge of the small unmanned surveillance aircraft or a person under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft.
5) In this article 'a small unmanned surveillance aircraft' means a small unmanned aircraft which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition.'
NOTE: The provision of data solely for the use of monitoring the model is not considered to be applicable to the meaning of 'surveillance or data acquisition'.
A great deal of this is about the person in charge. Yes I can see the justification for intervention to prevent the continued flight but if control is taken away from the original operator surely the onus is shifted or at least cannot be laid at the door of the original operator.
Surely we already know that you can lose control of your aircraft, and not be in charge of it anymore, (have it fly away, nearly hit a bridge and wash up on a beach) and you can still be prosecuted?
Quote from: Ratty on June 03, 2016, 01:04:49 AM
Surely we already know that you can lose control of your aircraft, and not be in charge of it anymore, (have it fly away, nearly hit a bridge and wash up on a beach) and you can still be prosecuted?
Don't get me started on that one. It was a farce and a colossal injustice not helped by the solicitor, judge, CAA inspector and, sadly, the accused.
>:(
Quote from: Ratty on June 03, 2016, 01:04:49 AM
Surely we already know that you can lose control of your aircraft, and not be in charge of it anymore, (have it fly away, nearly hit a bridge and wash up on a beach) and you can still be prosecuted?
In that particular instance, control was not taken away from the pilot by a second party.
If you can't setup an APM properly and that results in a fly away then of course you're responsible.
Quote from: BlueFlyer on June 03, 2016, 08:07:45 AM
If you can't setup an APM properly and that results in a fly away then of course you're responsible.
And if you are flying in controlled airspace illegally, you are also responsible as well.
Responsible for flying in restricted airspace, not for causing an accident on the ground when someone had taken control away from you.
Bad analogy #13290:
You're riding your bike on the pavement illegally, but safely. Policeman decides to grab you, you lose control and speed wobble into a pushchair, sending bits of small child everywhere.
Who's fault is it?
It would depend I guess on what actions the court deemed reasonable and what the copper said about the incident. However, you'd get laughed out of court when you started trying to argue that you were riding safely on a pavement or flying safely over a road in front of an airport. In both cases you were an accident waiting to happen and the authorities are legitimately entitled to act if they believe that by doing so they were protecting the public. Even if their actions in that one instance caused an accident. This really isn't difficult.
Quote from: Steve W on June 03, 2016, 11:49:59 AM
Bad analogy #13290:
You're riding your bike on the pavement illegally, but safely. Policeman decides to grab you, you lose control and speed wobble into a pushchair, sending bits of small child everywhere.
Who's fault is it?
Yours for riding a bike on a pavement illegally obviously.
Obviously? Even if, had the policeman not reacted and caused the accident, you could have gotten past with no incident?
It seems to me that the policemans actions in that case only escalated the situation from an inconvenience to a horrible accident. Which is pretty much how this drone-killing could pan out.
What's worse? Someone riding illegally but going on their way and noone getting hurt, or someone riding illegally and getting pushed into the path of a pram while someone tries to stop them?
Same with the drone - let it fly illegally until it comes down under control (then deal with the pilot), or take it out and potentially hurt someone.
Also, how is this not "endangering an aircraft"?
:+
Quote from: Steve W on June 03, 2016, 01:43:49 PM
Obviously? Even if, had the policeman not reacted and caused the accident, you could have gotten past with no incident?
Yes obviously, I would have thought it would be easy enough to understand. Getting past with no incident does not make it correct, right or just to do. With your impaired logic you are then saying that speeding in a built up area in your car is absolutely fine "as long as you get away with it." See how idiotic that sounds ?
Honestly, this is why the legal system is so pathetic with people trying to split hairs and try to dodge responsibilities and avoid consequence for their actions.
Laughable attitudes.
I think a more appropriate example would be when a police "stinger" is deployed to bring a suspect's car to a halt as safely as possible. In this case there are risks with the car losing stability after the tyres have been punctured and I would imagine that the suspect would be still considered to be responsible for the car at that point.
In the case of deploying a stinger, my understanding is that authorisation needs to be obtained prior to deploying it, which probably has a rudimentary risk assessment carried out during the authorisation process. It's this part which may well be missing in something like the anti-drone technology.
Coyote - illegal doesn't always mean dangerous. But creating danger while trying to enforce legality seems counterproductive to me.
I'm sure you'd have something to say if you were casually flying your tricopter, one of these guys took it out and you landed in prison for manslaughter after it landed on a car causing them to pile into a lorry.
Or to put it another way...
Are you honestly telling me you've never ridden a bike on a pavement in your life? Would you have felt responsible for the accident if someone tried to enforce the law and ended up pushing you head on into a push chair that you'd have otherwise missed? You'd blame the person who pushed you - surely?
Whilst the UAV is in the control of the modeller, he is clearly in charge of it and responsible for any illegal flying or incidents.
After control has been taken over by another party I cannot see how the modeller can be held responsible for the actions of that other party.
With reference to the ANO the onus is on the person in charge. Whilst the actions of the other party may be entirely justified, the ANO very clearly places the responsibility on the person in charge, not the person who was previously in charge.
The stinger analogy fails because after its deployment the police are NOT in control of the vehicle. Its all about who is in control at any one time.
Quote from: Steve W on June 03, 2016, 03:01:27 PM
Coyote - illegal doesn't always mean dangerous. But creating danger while trying to enforce legality seems counterproductive to me.
Counterproductive it might be, totally unnecessary as well because the person acting illegally shouldn't have been. That's why its called illegal lol
QuoteI'm sure you'd have something to say if you were casually flying your tricopter, one of these guys took it out and you landed in prison for manslaughter after it landed on a car causing them to pile into a lorry.
I wouldn't have anything to say if I was flying in restricted airspace illegally, that was my choice to and I would face the consequences of my actions. You seem to be forgetting, none of these "examples" would have ever been a situation of any kind if the person was not committing an illegal act. End of story, no ifs or buts, it was their own willful action.
If however I was flying in a totally legal manner then I would not admit responsibility because I was doing nothing wrong to instigate the response.
QuoteAre you honestly telling me you've never ridden a bike on a pavement in your life?
Of course I have.
QuoteWould you have felt responsible for the accident if someone tried to enforce the law and ended up pushing you head on into a push chair that you'd have otherwise missed? You'd blame the person who pushed you - surely?
The person who pushed was at fault, but the person who pushed my couldn't have pushed me if I was not there like I should have been in the first place.
You seem to have a great problem with taking responsibility for your own actions. It seems you are only interested in passing the blame to get yourself off the hook for something you instigated. As long as you can blame someone else for you doing something wrong in the first place you are happy with that.
Steady on fella, getting a bit personal there - Of course I take responsibility for my own actions (flying illegally) but I wouldn't be happy if I was up in court for hurting someone because someone else saw fit to take my control away and then caused an accident.
Not entirely sure why THAT is so hard to understand to be honest.
Their actions would amplify both my illegal action, and the potential consequences of it - supporting that course of action seems a bit bizarre to me.
Try looking at it another way.
Let's say you are off on your hols and as you're driving up to the airport a Phantom type quad comes smashing through your windscreen, injuring you or a member of your family.
Who would you hold more responsible?? The authorities for trying to protect the busy airspace or the Phantom pilot who shouldn't have been there in the first place?
Quote from: Spookfish on June 03, 2016, 03:57:58 PM
Try looking at it another way.
Let's say you are off on your hols and as you're driving up to the airport a Phantom type quad comes smashing through your windscreen, injuring you or a member of your family.
Who would you hold more responsible?? The authorities for trying to protect the busy airspace or the Phantom pilot who shouldn't have been there in the first place?
easy one that... I would hold responsible whoever was in control of the phantom at the moment it impacted my windscreen.
Hmmm interesting.
What if the system that brought down the quad was fully automated??
Quote from: Spookfish on June 03, 2016, 04:13:43 PM
Hmmm interesting.
What if the system that brought down the quad was fully automated??
It isn't. I've been doing some reading up about it there will be a human element (aka the "operator")
another thing I actually found out is that although that press release states;
"Using AUDS, the operator can
effectively take control of a drone and force a safe landing inside or outside the airport perimeter."
They're relying upon the "drone" to have failsafe capabilities such as autoland or RTH upon loss of control link. There is absolutely no way they can take control of the drone, the system is purely DISRUPT and NEUTRALISE using RF inhibitor technology on the following bands: GNSS, 433MHz ISM, 915MHz ISM, 2.4GHz ISM and 5.8GHz ISM/WiFi
This is pretty much the airborne version of a stinger strip.
It's 3 systems rolled into one... system 1 detects the drone (up to 6 miles away), system 2 tracks the drone (using different types of cameras and software tracking), and system 3 blasts high power RF signals at it in order to disrupt the C2 (Command and Control) signals.
At no point do they actually take control of the drone.
So if you're flying a simple self build quad with no safe-land or RTH capability, this will just make it drop to the ground in a very UNSAFE manner.
There will always be a human in the chain to make the decision for exactly the reasons we've been debating in this thread. No action is without consequence and the human element will be responsible for making the judgement call as to whether knocking the drone out of the sky is the safest course of action for any particular scenario.
The operator will have to answer for his decision and be prepared to justify it in a court of law.
Rules of engagement eh? I wonder if they'll have a little white card.
Funny thing is... no one posting on this thread is likely (I hope) to be flying where they are going to be brought down by one of these devices anyway so it's a pointless debate really.
Quote from: Spookfish on June 03, 2016, 05:01:44 PM
Rules of engagement eh? I wonder if they'll have a little white card.
stapled inside their little green card ;)
Quote from: Spookfish on June 03, 2016, 03:57:58 PM
Try looking at it another way.
Let's say you are off on your hols and as you're driving up to the airport a Phantom type quad comes smashing through your windscreen, injuring you or a member of your family.
Who would you hold more responsible?? The authorities for trying to protect the busy airspace or the Phantom pilot who shouldn't have been there in the first place?
The Phantom pilot with no shadow of a doubt. After all if the authorities were not bringing it down then it could hit another vehicle, a vehicle carrying hundreds of people instead.
It is a mute point on here though, none of us will be the ones that fly like this. It's those idiots that are going to force the hand of the authorities to do this. The authorities would be more than happy to not need or use these tactics to ensure a safe airspace.
I've already established that this particular system doesn't actually take control of the drone... but if it did, then technically the "drone pilot" would no longer be the phantom owner, it would be the AUDS operator. If the operator does indeed have actual full control of the drone and decides to land it on a road rather than in a safe location then surely the AUDS operator is fully responsible.
however, this isn't the case... in the event of a phantom coming close to an airport and the AUDS system kicking into action, the phantom would do whatever the owner has told it to do in the event of a RC link loss. Therefore I would 100% agree that the responsibility would lie squarely with the phantom owner. He should have programmed failsafe to RTH, hopefully back to where the owner is standing which you would like to think is not in the middle of a road.
If he has messed with the default settings or built a drone without RTH on RC link loss, then yes he is responsible for what happens once the AUDS has disrupted his RC link.
To add...
I think it would be safe to assume that if the AUDS operator decides to "down" the drone, it would be part of his/her procedures to do so only when said drone is over a safe area. After all, this is about public safety
The whole thrust of my argument all along is based on who is in control at any one time. I had accepted the press release which states :
"Using AUDS, the operator can effectively take control of a drone and force a safe landing inside or outside the airport perimeter."
If however that is not the case then there's a whole different slant. If I understand you correctly Blue Flyer it is utterly misleading to state the above and much more correct to state that the AUD blocks control of the UAV. I wonder why they can't just say that clearly and simply? Wooly language is OK if you're talking about cuddly toys but not if you're talking technical. There's a world of difference between takes control and blocks control.
Quote from: electrotor on June 03, 2016, 07:03:36 PM
The whole thrust of my argument all along is based on who is in control at any one time. I have accepted the press release which states :
"Using AUDS, the operator can effectively take control of a drone and force a safe landing inside or outside the airport perimeter."
I too was arguing my side based upon that line in the press release. But looking deeper, that's not the case.
the use of the word "effectively" means they're not explicitly taking control, merely generating a cause that has an effect on the drone. It's perceived as a form of control... I do this, it makes something do that, therefore I am controlling what happens to that thing.
Otherwise they would be able to say in the release "The operator takes control of a drone and lands it safely"
They're assuming that the effect of their RC link inhibition would be that the drone returns home or autolands.
Therefore I have altered my stance.
Quote from: electrotor on June 03, 2016, 07:03:36 PMI wonder why they can't just say that clearly and simply? Wooly language is OK if you're talking about cuddly toys but not if you're talking technical. There's a world of difference between takes control and blocks control.
because at the end of the day, it's all marketing. They want to sell their product, the best way to do that is with woolly language and vague claims.
Could you imagine if they just said "we jam the control frequency and the drone drops out of the sky" lol
Quote from: Steve W on June 03, 2016, 11:49:59 AM
Bad analogy #13290:
You're riding your bike on the pavement illegally, but safely. Policeman decides to grab you, you lose control and speed wobble into a pushchair, sending bits of small child everywhere.
Who's fault is it?
just for lolz...
If the policeman pushed me off the bike, then got on the bike and rode it into a pushchair sending bits of small child everywhere, then the policeman is responsible for the baby death.
if the AUDS actually takes control (which it doesn't, this is just a f'rinstance) of the drone, that's the same thing.
If during a high speed pursuit, the police manage to get the driver out of his car, and a policeman then jumps in and continues to drive the car into a school playground surely the policeman is at fault.
if the AUDS actually takes control (which it doesn't, this is just a f'rinstance) of the drone, that's the same thing.
Thing is they say they block GPS - so the drone couldn't RTH as it wouldn't know where home was any more... what if it RTH'd into where it thought home was when the jammer was on ... say, directly into the flight of the Airbus that was previously close to :D
They couldn't modify the GPS to make it land directly below, without knowing the original RTH coordinates.
Fail safe has to be throttle idle anyway doesn't it? RTH still is not a legal feature yet?
Quote from: Ratty on June 03, 2016, 08:18:28 PM
Fail safe has to be throttle idle anyway doesn't it? RTH still is not a legal feature yet?
Yea I think so - RTH would be pointless anyway if we were flying VLOS only :P
It would save a lot of argument if they just shot the bloody thing to pieces - thinks - one of those 1200 rounds a minute gatling type guns !
(http://s33.postimg.org/5ze4z64gr/gatling.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/5ze4z64gr/)
Quote from: Ratty on June 03, 2016, 08:18:28 PM
Fail safe has to be throttle idle anyway doesn't it? RTH still is not a legal feature yet?
There's no requirement for your radio equipment to even have a failsafe capability, however if the failsafe function is available it's just part of the guidance set out in CAP 658 and considered "best practice" to have it set your model to throttle idle or off. Remember, this is "guidance" from the CAA, this is not the ANO itself and therefore not enforceable by law (electrotor is probably more au fait with this than I)
However I do recall some discussions a while back where they were considering the inclusion of RTH or autoland as an acceptable failsafe setting if available, especially for multirotor aircraft where this would be preferable to what happens if you simply throttle off.
edit: found the link
https://bmfa.org/News/News-Page/ArticleID/2127/Advanced-Failsafe-Options-for-Rotorcraft
unfortunately, whilst they appear to be making head way, they're still stuck in the past when it comes to RTH on fixed wing models