FPV HUB

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: English Turbines on June 12, 2019, 12:56:18 PM

Title: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: English Turbines on June 12, 2019, 12:56:18 PM
 Due to a particularly nasty individual in my Club, I now have to have an observer with me at all times if Im flying FPV. This includes both Fixed Wing and Multirotors.

 Been flying FPV on this Club site for more than 3 years now without incident, but this jealous individual (Committee Member) has finally got his way..He must be very pleased with himself.

Article 94 of the Air Navigation Order clearly states that :-
The remote pilot must maintain direct, unaided visual contact with aircraft sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions.
In respect of an FPV flight (which includes the use of goggles or a monitor) :-
The remote pilot must have a competent observer, maintaining direct unaided visual contact with the model at all times.


 Of course, this means I have to stay within (unaided) visual contact of my observer when flying my quads, so that's going to be rather limiting to say the least. If you need to stay within LOS, then there is no point in flying a Quad FPV IMO.
  In fact I would argue that there are some Quad flyers cant even fly their Quads LOS..
  My Quad is at its safest when flown away from the Airstrip over Crop fields and away from other LOS Pilots, and I have explained the obvious to the Committee, but why let common sense prevail..?

 I will be looking for an alternate venue to go Quad flying now for sure....This is why I have a GPS equipped Quad TBH.

   Open to debate, would be interested to hear from others....The Fun Police are winning.

                                                                                                :vulture:


Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: urbanfpv on June 12, 2019, 01:15:36 PM
Don't fly at the club.. simples!

I'm not a BMFA member and never will be, but my friend is a member of the local club where they have banned outright flying of multirotors or flying anything FPV.  Such an inclusive environment!
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: English Turbines on June 12, 2019, 01:26:56 PM
Don't fly at the club.. simples!

I'm not a BMFA member and never will be, but my friend is a member of the local club where they have banned outright flying of multirotors or flying anything FPV.  Such an inclusive environment!

 Hi m8,

  Not surprised at all, this Club actually banning FPV activity outright is playing right into the hands of the Fun Police, but I doubt they have even stopped to consider this at all TBH.

  Wait until is escalates, and they start bringing in new observer rules for LOS pilots operating inside BMFA affiliated Club Sites.

 Its the thin end of the wedge IMO...
                                                                                                :vulture:
                                                                                                 

 
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: atomiclama on June 12, 2019, 02:12:15 PM
That's one of the reasons I don't belong to a club or are a member of any of the organisations.

Can't see the benefit to any of them.

That's me Nobby No Mates standing in a corner of the field all on my own  ;D

Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: English Turbines on June 12, 2019, 02:28:24 PM
That's one of the reasons I don't belong to a club or are a member of any of the organisations.

Can't see the benefit to any of them.

That's me Nobby No Mates standing in a corner of the field all on my own  ;D

 
 Hi m8,
             Yes, they are going to drive FPV (further) underground and the BMFA were quite happy to let that happen I suspect. But, its now escalating....

  As for this registration nonsense where ALL Model Pilots (including BMFA members flying in a Club LOS) have to register is proof of their intentions with the full knee jerk reaction in full swing. If the BMFA dont make a stand and tell them to  :censored:  right off its the thin end of the wedge IMO....
  For starters, the BMFA should outright refuse to give any information about their affiliated Clubs and their Membership listings....

 This is all because of the alleged incident at Stansted around Christmas where some idiot thought he saw a "Drone" and effectively they closed the entire Airport as nobody would take responsibility for NOT closing it.
   This country has gone to the dogs for sure IMO.

                                                                                                   :vulture:
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: ched on June 12, 2019, 06:49:06 PM
 
 Hi m8,
             Yes, they are going to drive FPV (further) underground and the BMFA were quite happy to let that happen I suspect. But, its now escalating....

  As for this registration nonsense where ALL Model Pilots (including BMFA members flying in a Club LOS) have to register is proof of their intentions with the full knee jerk reaction in full swing. If the BMFA dont make a stand and tell them to  :censored:  right off its the thin end of the wedge IMO....
  For starters, the BMFA should outright refuse to give any information about their affiliated Clubs and their Membership listings....

 This is all because of the alleged incident at Stansted around Christmas where some idiot thought he saw a "Drone" and effectively they closed the entire Airport as nobody would take responsibility for NOT closing it.
   This country has gone to the dogs for sure IMO.

                                                                                                   :vulture:
I am afraid it's way too late. Gov are intent on registration system for anything flying over 250 gms!!! BMFA and FPVUK etc, in my opinion didn't push hard enough, but some of them thought planes would be exempt!!!
My personal opinion is it's all about regulating the sub 400ft airspace so the likes of Amazon can pay to use it to deliver more stuff and avoid more tax.

As for BMFA handing data over, I think that would require a court order as it comes under data protection act.

There has be talk of BMFA acting as 'operator' and then it's members don't pay the £16.50 just pass an online test and stick the BFMA reg number on their crafts. But no idea if that will happen.

As for BFMA and fpv, when I looked you had to pass a LOS multi rotor (no stabilisation or gps) test then a specific fpv test and for fpv BMFA also mandated a spotter. I think there was an exemption for planes fpv same as they had a higher limit than the 120m/400ft ceiling for multi rotors.

It's all knee jerk reaction plus regulation to make money, stuff the hobbyists who have a great safety record.

Lets face it the people responsible for the gatwick incident (if there actually were drones) and the people using drones to drop illegal goods into prisons aren't going to register and put reg numbers on there crafts just because the law states so are they?

So stupid laws.............................only get followed by law abiding citizens anyway and change nothing.
Sorry rant over...... :)
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: big a on June 12, 2019, 07:52:58 PM


I am afraid it's way too late. Gov are intent on registration system for anything flying over 250 gms!!! BMFA and FPVUK etc, in my opinion didn't push hard enough, but some of them thought planes would be exempt!!!
My personal opinion is it's all about regulating the sub 400ft airspace so the likes of Amazon can pay to use it to deliver more stuff and avoid more tax.

As for BMFA handing data over, I think that would require a court order as it comes under data protection act.

There has be talk of BMFA acting as 'operator' and then it's members don't pay the £16.50 just pass an online test and stick the BFMA reg number on their crafts. But no idea if that will happen.

As for BFMA and fpv, when I looked you had to pass a LOS multi rotor (no stabilisation or gps) test then a specific fpv test and for fpv BMFA also mandated a spotter. I think there was an exemption for planes fpv same as they had a higher limit than the 120m/400ft ceiling for multi rotors.

It's all knee jerk reaction plus regulation to make money, stuff the hobbyists who have a great safety record.

Lets face it the people responsible for the gatwick incident (if there actually were drones) and the people using drones to drop illegal goods into prisons aren't going to register and put reg numbers on there crafts just because the law states so are they?

So stupid laws.............................only get followed by law abiding citizens anyway and change nothing.
Sorry rant over...... :)

A few errors in there. You dont have to pass any tests at all to fly anything as a BMFA member.

The spotter is not mandated by the BMFA, it is requirement to be lawful and insured. It is entirely reasonable for a club to insist anyone flying FPV has a spotter.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: FPVSteve on June 12, 2019, 08:05:50 PM
I feel that the 250g rule is the only way forward - and the guy giving you grief can do one at that point.

Side note: little point in having BMFA membership if you fly < 250g too.
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: English Turbines on June 12, 2019, 08:14:18 PM
 As an aside, I have in fact passed my Multirotor A Test quite some time ago.....

  What pisses me off the most, is that if they insist my Observer keeps close visual contact while I am Quad flying, I may be restricted to flying within the boundary of the Airstrip, or even closer.  This for example will be potentially more hazardous than if I could have freedom to fly out over the Crop fields. The worst that would happen is the thing will disarm and fall into the crops. Been doing that out to 400 metres with buckets of range in hand for ages now.
 
  Ah well, at least I will be having a change of scene now if I can find somewhere I wont get hassled.

  I hate this country and its do gooders, those and the eternally offended, they are slowly strangling the life out of us.

                                                                                                :vulture:
 
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: English Turbines on June 12, 2019, 08:20:23 PM
I feel that the 250g rule is the only way forward - and the guy giving you grief can do one at that point.

Side note: little point in having BMFA membership if you fly < 250g too.

  Knowing how things work in this Country Steve, they will still insist on an observer, even if its under 250 grams.

 They regularly fly large petrol models in my Club, some over 7 kgs easy. Imagine one of those going Failsafe from 500 feet up...?  Oh, but no, my polystyrene Z84 is far more dangerous, what with its Autopilot should a Failsafe occur.

                                                                                                :vulture:

 

 
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: FPVSteve on June 12, 2019, 08:22:20 PM
Well it's either 250g or above 20kg .... 20kg might be interesting :P
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: English Turbines on June 12, 2019, 08:36:10 PM
 I wonder which boffin wrote this contradictory little Gem....?

(4) No acknowledgement of competency is to be issued in relation toó (a) small unmanned aircraft with a mass of less than 250 grams without their fuel but including any articles or equipment installed in or attached to the aircraft at the commencement of their flight, or (b) flights by small unmanned aircraft of that description.

  Sooooo is "fuel" classed as equipment attached to the aircraft...?....Or will we be flying without it?

  If your model weighs under 250 grams minus Lipo, does this mean you can fly FPV without an observer....?

                                                                                                :vulture:
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: electrotor on June 13, 2019, 12:04:28 AM

A few errors in there. You dont have to pass any tests at all to fly anything as a BMFA member.

The spotter is not mandated by the BMFA, it is requirement to be lawful and insured. It is entirely reasonable for a club to insist anyone flying FPV has a spotter.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Absolutely correct big a.
It never fails to amaze me how much misinformation gets spread around so I'm glad you chipped in there although it may not be what some people want to read.
Also relevant and in defence of the BMFA, they do not tell clubs how to run their affairs; this is up to the individual club, affiliated or otherwise. If you don't like how a club is run, leave it or try to change it from within.
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: electrotor on June 13, 2019, 12:09:28 AM
I wonder which boffin wrote this contradictory little Gem....?

(4) No acknowledgement of competency is to be issued in relation toó (a) small unmanned aircraft with a mass of less than 250 grams without their fuel but including any articles or equipment installed in or attached to the aircraft at the commencement of their flight, or (b) flights by small unmanned aircraft of that description.

  Sooooo is "fuel" classed as equipment attached to the aircraft...?....Or will we be flying without it?

  If your model weighs under 250 grams minus Lipo, does this mean you can fly FPV without an observer....?

                                                                                                :vulture:

I thought this had already been covered but here we go again.
The Lipo is like a fuel tank, so it's weight is counted. The fuel consists of the charge within it, which you would be hard pushed to measure.
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: English Turbines on June 13, 2019, 12:14:10 AM

A few errors in there. You dont have to pass any tests at all to fly anything as a BMFA member.

The spotter is not mandated by the BMFA, it is requirement to be lawful and insured. It is entirely reasonable for a club to insist anyone flying FPV has a spotter.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

  What if the model is under 250 grams...?.....without a Lipo on it..?....Do we still need a Spotter?

     What are the specific exemptions in this 250 gram ruling..?  Does anyone know..?

                                                                                               :vulture:


Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: English Turbines on June 13, 2019, 12:19:16 AM
I thought this had already been covered but here we go again.
The Lipo is like a fuel tank, so it's weight is counted. The fuel consists of the charge within it, which you would be hard pushed to measure.


 Really..?....So, if you are using liquid fuel the weight of that liquid fuel does not count, but if its a Lipo it does..?

   Haha....I'd argue its meaning is ambiguous at best, and technically its complete horseshit....at takeoff, both have "Fuel" which contribute to the overall weight of the craft....End of.

                                                                                              :vulture:



                                     
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: urbanfpv on June 13, 2019, 09:23:11 AM
It was covered here:

https://www.fpvhub.com/index.php/topic,53875.msg281355.html#msg281355 (https://www.fpvhub.com/index.php/topic,53875.msg281355.html#msg281355)

But I got trolled when I had the audacity to suggest that the Lipo was fuel and didn't count.
 :popcorn:
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: FPVSteve on June 13, 2019, 09:33:35 AM
It's all well and good arguing but I think that the weight is more the issue and since a lipo doesn't lose weight as it depletes, it probably should be counted.

I wish it wasn't though, it would make sub 250g much easier ... but you can't really say a plane is sub 250g if it weighs 250g but is carrying a 180g lipo....
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: English Turbines on June 13, 2019, 10:43:14 AM
It's all well and good arguing but I think that the weight is more the issue and since a lipo doesn't lose weight as it depletes, it probably should be counted.

I wish it wasn't though, it would make sub 250g much easier ... but you can't really say a plane is sub 250g if it weighs 250g but is carrying a 180g lipo....

  Hi Steve,

                  (a) "small unmanned aircraft with a mass of less than 250 grams without their fuel"

              Maybe someone has amended the meaning of "Without" in the English Dictionary and not told anyone..? Clearly the clown who wrote it does not have a command of the English language either...."withouts its fuel"

  Whether you take off with liquid fuel or a Lipo, they both have weight and should be counted as such, why should liquid fuel be discounted on the basis that it depletes during the flight? An accident at take off and the extra weights are comparable are they not..? As I said, its ambiguous at best, but the text in red above suits me fine.

                                                                                              :vulture:






                   
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: CurryKitten on June 13, 2019, 10:58:31 AM
Whilst the 250g limit is currently the get-out-of-registration-free card it's important to realise that every other law associated with "Drone" flying is still relevant.  So it doesn't get you out of the spotter rule, or the must-keep-vlos, height rules etc etc.  Whether you chose to follow all or any of them is a completely different subject.
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: FPVSteve on June 13, 2019, 11:19:11 AM
ET ...  I was always under the impression that the "all up weight" included the fuel (i.e. the battery) because that is what would hit you in the face and as such is what actually counts in terms of destructive ability.
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: ched on June 13, 2019, 12:36:51 PM
If you think about it a liquid fuel has a container, the tank. A lipo is the electrical equivalent of a tank, it stores the fuel.
So a lipo, the electrical storage tank, has the same weight charged as discharged.

So I think 250 gms includes lipo.
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: BigT on June 18, 2019, 09:18:19 AM
Itís quite clear if you read the ANO and CAP 1763 http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=9002 (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=9002)

There is no exception regarding an FPV spotter for models under 250 grams. There is an upper weight limit of 3.5 kgs. https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4No1294.pdf (https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4No1294.pdf)


The club committee has a duty of care and has done the same as yours so it can be seen to comply. Personally I wonít fly FPV when anyone else is around, wonít publish any videos on line, will be selling off any long range kit which is probably only worth buttons now. Luckily our club has set up a specific area for quad racing and practice and doesnít really mind what goes on if your there on your own. However, our landlord has got more interested in how we operate due to the increased media coverage.

Out of interest what has your committee said regarding registration and competency testing?
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: English Turbines on June 18, 2019, 07:18:42 PM
Itís quite clear if you read the ANO and CAP 1763 http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=9002 (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=9002)

There is no exception regarding an FPV spotter for models under 250 grams. There is an upper weight limit of 3.5 kgs. https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4No1294.pdf (https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4No1294.pdf)


The club committee has a duty of care and has done the same as yours so it can be seen to comply. Personally I wonít fly FPV when anyone else is around, wonít publish any videos on line, will be selling off any long range kit which is probably only worth buttons now. Luckily our club has set up a specific area for quad racing and practice and doesnít really mind what goes on if your there on your own. However, our landlord has got more interested in how we operate due to the increased media coverage.

Out of interest what has your committee said regarding registration and competency testing?

  Hi Big T,

  Well, it's all about the fact it's a BMFA affiliated Club, like a lot of them are. This means that we are insured by the BMFA and as such should be seen to be complying with any rules or the Insurance may be invalidated.
  I have passed my Multirotor basic test which is a LOS flying test BTW.
As for registering ALL Fixed Wing aircraft as "Drones" for £16.50 per year, most of the members are livid at the very idea, not surprising really.
  This whole deal is all about using "Drones" as a way of taxing us and being seen to be controlled in some way by our useless Government.
   The fee of £16.50 is outrageous considering its a glorified Register on someones Laptop...ffs.


                                                                                               :vulture:

 
 

Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: BigT on June 18, 2019, 07:58:24 PM
  Hi Big T,

  Well, it's all about the fact it's a BMFA affiliated Club, like a lot of them are. This means that we are insured by the BMFA and as such should be seen to be complying with any rules or the Insurance may be invalidated.
  I have passed my Multirotor basic test which is a LOS flying test BTW.
As for registering ALL Fixed Wing aircraft as "Drones" for £16.50 per year, most of the members are livid at the very idea, not surprising really.
  This whole deal is all about using "Drones" as a way of taxing us and being seen to be controlled in some way by our useless Government.
   The fee of £16.50 is outrageous considering its a glorified Register on someones Laptop...ffs.


                                                                                               :vulture:

 
 

Firstly well done for passing the multirotor LOS. The issue with the BMFA and any other insurance, I.E. LMA etc, they are void if the law is broken, it states that in the policy doc you get from the BMFA. In the latest iteration of the on line registration program, there is no separation of "Drone " and "Model Aircraft" as there was in the first and second version. You currently dont have to select one or the other.  Many have pointed out to the developers that they should just have used SUA as well but the word Drone is now firmly established in the general public's mind so it stays.  They also pointed out that there is the Drone Bill before parliament which proposes a ban on top end quad copters, compulsory use of FINNS and transponders.   I was told that over 5000 e mails and letters to the CAA have pointed out that the published figures are wrong.  I was asked my views on the cost of a new 10 year passport, EA rod license and a driving license in comparison to the operators annual fee of £16.50 and remember that the Remote pilot does not pay a fee and only registers and is retested every 3 years.

  Obviously some folks will be both but not all. For example under age children will not pay, display pilots will not necessarily pay.  My best guess is that the fee will go up to around £60 tp £90 or more within 3 years. This is based on the notion that folks will not bother to re register  or will just give up the hobby.
There is still confusion as to which category registration is applicable to the general club flyer. I completed the session 2 weeks before my club mate. At the end I had 2 reg numbers, one for Operator and one for Pilot and he had just one. I am sure it will change again.
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: FPVSteve on June 19, 2019, 09:44:53 AM
It feels like an exercise in making sure that you comply with the rules rather than being able to concentrate on flying safely.
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: BigT on June 19, 2019, 09:49:41 AM
  Hi Big T,

  Well, it's all about the fact it's a BMFA affiliated Club, like a lot of them are. This means that we are insured by the BMFA and as such should be seen to be complying with any rules or the Insurance may be invalidated.
  I have passed my Multirotor basic test which is a LOS flying test BTW.
As for registering ALL Fixed Wing aircraft as "Drones" for £16.50 per year, most of the members are livid at the very idea, not surprising really.
  This whole deal is all about using "Drones" as a way of taxing us and being seen to be controlled in some way by our useless Government.
   The fee of £16.50 is outrageous considering its a glorified Register on someones Laptop...ffs.


                                                                                               :vulture:

 
 

Another thought occurred, years back I got fed up with the behaviour of core members of a flying club I was in so I went off and started my own and ran it my way. Not so easy these days, but a big advantage of multi copters, you donít need a strip or a big bit of land. Just patience and knocking  on enough doors.
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: FPVSteve on June 19, 2019, 10:29:23 AM
I agree with you on one hand BigT but multirotors are also a big draw for not joining a club at all. Part of the fun of flying them is to explore new places which is one thing a club doesn't really give you.

When I was a member of BMFA it was as a country member for that reason.
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: English Turbines on June 19, 2019, 04:49:50 PM
I agree with you on one hand BigT but multirotors are also a big draw for not joining a club at all. Part of the fun of flying them is to explore new places which is one thing a club doesn't really give you.

When I was a member of BMFA it was as a country member for that reason.

  I agree with Steve on this. Unfortunately, and rather predictably, these Drone rules are going to drive the Quad fliers underground, and the casual freestylers too I suspect.
  Expect to find some blokes in a remote grassy meadow flying quads where they want to, free of the rule makers interference.
The wonderful thing about quads is the accuracy and predictability of your flight path, and the smoothness of flight, even in windy conditions. Now I have got used to mine, I have come to realise they make a wonderful smooth and stable camera platform, even without going to the trouble of a Gimbal Camera. I can regularly get 8kms flight distance on my 5 Inch Quad.
  Add in a GPS and rescue mode and you have a go anywhere filming platform with potentially considerable range using real LR gear.
   The best that can happen, is that the BMFA dont play ball with them and neither do the Quad Fan Boys either, although I expect the latter not to be bothered at all since they fly within a confined area anyway when racing.
   Once again, Taxing the easy obvious targets whilst ignoring criminals and idiots causing trouble wilfully.
   
                                              I hope nobody registers TBH.
                 

                                                                                               :vulture:
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: electrotor on June 19, 2019, 05:55:32 PM
Once again, Taxing the easy obvious targets whilst ignoring criminals and idiots causing trouble wilfully.

Or to put it another way, making it easy to find and prosecute those who register.
And whilst they are at it, giving the over-stretched Police even less time to catch the real baddies.

This whole half baked business will do nothing to promote safe flying compared to what the likes of the BMFA has been promoting for years with training and safety award schemes. You pass the online idiot based test, you pays your money and then, whoopee, you are safe to fly.
(BTW other responsible modelling organisations exist too.)
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: ched on June 19, 2019, 06:10:31 PM
Or to put it another way, making it easy to find and prosecute those who register.
And whilst they are at it, giving the over-stretched Police even less time to catch the real baddies.

This whole half baked business will do nothing to promote safe flying compared to what the likes of the BMFA has been promoting for years with training and safety award schemes. You pass the online idiot based test, you pays your money and then, whoopee, you are safe to fly.
(BTW other responsible modelling organisations exist too.)
Well said.
This stupid system is only being introduced to enable the gov to sell off the airspace to the likes of Amazon and plicate the public after the Gatwick mess.
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: BigT on June 20, 2019, 10:28:15 AM
  . I can regularly get 8kms flight distance on my 5 Inch Quad.
  Add in a GPS and rescue mode and you have a go anywhere filming platform with potentially considerable range using real LR gear.
   
                 

                                                                                               :vulture:

And thatís the problem right there. But registration and an open book test is not going to stop it unless a way is found to control the sale of radio equipment.

Let me give you a practical example involving me yesterday. I was playing golf at my private club which is boundaried by houses and farm land. Some Charley was flying one of those VTOL wings over the course at less than 150 ft, and not very well either. It went on for some time, on and off for over 2 hours. Very annoying to me and other players. I learnt this morning that a call was made to the police who attended and discovered it was being flown from the rugby club car park adjacent to the course. Donít know what action was taken. But if it wound me up, imagine what it does to non modellers.
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: FPVSteve on June 20, 2019, 10:39:02 AM
Edit: i didn't read the post properly
Title: Re: Flying FPV and the compulsory Observer rules.
Post by: English Turbines on June 20, 2019, 03:43:31 PM
And thatís the problem right there. But registration and an open book test is not going to stop it unless a way is found to control the sale of radio equipment.

Let me give you a practical example involving me yesterday. I was playing golf at my private club which is boundaried by houses and farm land. Some Charley was flying one of those VTOL wings over the course at less than 150 ft, and not very well either. It went on for some time, on and off for over 2 hours. Very annoying to me and other players. I learnt this morning that a call was made to the police who attended and discovered it was being flown from the rugby club car park adjacent to the course. Donít know what action was taken. But if it wound me up, imagine what it does to non modellers.

  Hi BigT,
                Hit the nail on the head right there....Some Charlie, so probably NOT a BMFA member or someone capable and competent who would not dream of flying even near a Golf Course, let alone over it.
  Same goes for the real idiots overflying the Airports.....and our own Government see this as an opportunity to Tax every BMFA Member and anyone else foolish enough to aid and abet their stupid scheme.
  Meantime, the real culprits go scot free....ruining it for us all.

                                                                                                :vulture: