FPV Flying -- SAFETY!

[twinturbostang]

I feel that one of the first topics we should discuss is the safe flying and operation of model craft while in a FPV "mode". Many of the opponents to FPV flying feel that it is "not safe". I believe it is our duty as FPV flyer's to not only operate in a safe and secure manor, but to also show to others the steps that we take in order to assure we fly as safe as possible. By doing so, I believe we will promote, in a positive fashion, FPV flying. So I'm going to list a few items here, and also mention (in my opinion) what safe practices should be. My hope is that this thread will grow and include more notes from others.

1) Equipment
First of all, I believe it's important to use good quality components. And this not only goes for FPV flying, but RC in general. Inferior products often result in inferior performance. Most important are the transmission/receiving components, both of the RC control link and the video downlink. Since this is the FPV forum, I will focus on the components that are specific to FPV flying. A good quality camera should be utilized that has adequate resolution to easily see the planes attitude, location, and proximity to other objects. Perhaps more important is the video downlink system. Many "cheap" tx/rx combos can be found in places such as ebay. These are often "Hong Kong specials". And while some may in fact be of decent quality, I believe the consensus (and from personal experience) is that higher quality components are available from other sources. Yes they will cost more, and one's budget will ultimately dictate what components can be used. But in general, the higher the quality you can get, the better. You definitely do not want the video downlink to disappear while flying FPV. So you will want tx/rx components that are of good quality and have good transmission range. There are additional safety measures that can be taken in the event of loss of video link (see item 5). But these should only be used as supplemental safety devices, and not used to try and overcome a deficiency somewhere else in the system.

2) Experience
Do not attempt to fly 2 miles away from yourself, with headtracking, in high winds, near sunset, on your very first FPV flight! :) That is of course an exaggeration. However, FPV flying is entirely different than line-of-sight flying. You get a completely different perspective, and during your first flights, it is VERY easy to become disoriented or loose track of where you are relative to your flying field. It may be different than line-of-sight flying, but it shares one very common aspect... it takes practice, practice, practice to become proficient at it. The best thing to do is to start off slow and work your way towards more complicated flights, longer durations, or farther distances. It's also a good idea to know your field! Google Earth is an indispensable tool. Learn your flight location, objects around you (trees, buildings, etc.), and try to put yourself in the plane before the flight and imagine what it might look like from different points of view on the field.

3) Spotter
Possibly the most important safety item to FPV flying, is to have a spotter with you. This is someone that maintains visual line-of-sight on the aircraft during flight. In the event of problems, your spotter can guide you as to what needs to be done to return safely home. Even better is if the spotter is attached to your transmitter via the trainer port. This way, if the video feed is lost, the spotter can take control of the aircraft and return it to the field. He can then either land the aircraft, or give control back to you if the video link returns. It's my belief that a spotter should be used whenever it is possible to do so. I understand that this is not always practical. So one should use one's best judgment in determining if it is safe to fly without a spotter or not.

4) Location
Another important point, and possibly an area of discussion. Where is it safe to fly FPV? I would hope that most people would agree that flying over largely populated areas, busy highways, and other areas of high population density are not safe areas to fly. And this again, goes for R/C flying in general, not just FPV. This is another case where I believe one should make a logical and sound decision as to whether or not safe flying is possible from their location.

5) Long Distance
This is a hotly debated topic relative to FPV flying. By the nature of FPV flying, it allows us to fly outside of visual range. So then the question becomes... how far can I fly away from myself? And there are LOTS of things that go into this decision, including ALL OF THE ABOVE items. Of course you will need high quality components, and transmitters with sufficient power to overcome the distance traveled. Long distances will require a good accumulation of FPV flying experience and a good knowledge of the surrounding area. It should only be done in remote areas where the risk to human life and property is minimized. And spotters can still be utilized to assist the pilot. An additional hardware component can also be used here, and is recommended for long distance flying. That is the GPS return to home device. This allows, in the event of loss of either RC control or video link, the plane to be guided back safely to the flying field via a GPS navigation device. Normally a GPS receiver will be interfaced to a device that will steer the plane in the correct direction to return to the field. Sometimes a "co-pilot" leveling device is also necessary. This keeps the wings flat and level during any maneuvers the GPS device commands. Again I want to stress that it is my belief that long distance flying should only be done by experienced FPV pilots, that are familiar with and check for safe operation all of their equipment, and that do so in a location that is safe. It should also be important to know the limitations of one's equipment. Don't go trying to fly 5 miles away with a 10mW transmitter! ;)


Well, that's it for now. I hope this will spur additional discussion in how to keep FPV flying safe. And of course, HAVE FUN! :)

[JMSTECH]

Thanks Twinturbostang for the write-up. I agree that we should practice safe FPVing, besides a terrible mishap would make FPVers look bad :(

I realize that since VRFlyer has produced some inspirational videos, many has jumped into the bandwagon, myself included. But I hope they take the time to read your post and realize the importance of saftey first!

JMS

[VRflyer]

Good job Twinturbostang

It's was possible for me to fly safely over houses or in park like you can see in my videos. I use a styrofoam planes, my equipement is the result of many years of work and with severals hours of video-piloting, I do one pass over houses to get a good video shoot. But after i get it, I don't need to fly there again, the sky is so big, why stay over houses. Don't try it unless your equipement and your skill are up to the task.

[Majortomski]

How about getting a pilot's liscense so you have some idea of what it is like to navigate by sight from the plane?

How about petitioning the FCC for secure frequencies so that you aren't clobbered by some kid with a park flyer on 72 Mhz?

[twinturbostang]

How about getting a pilot's liscense so you have some idea of what it is like to navigate by sight from the plane?
Well, that's why I recommend starting off with a spotter, and preferably someone that is attached via the trainer port. That way if you get into trouble, be it video drop out or just loss of visual reference, the spotter can bring you back until you get your bearings. At first, yes, it is a bit difficult. But you quickly get the hang of it. The last time I flew FPV was at a flying club that I had never been to before. Never seen it in person. Yet I had absolutely no trouble at all navigating around the field when I flew. How? Because I have become accustomed to flying via FPV, and I used Google Earth and very carefully studied the layout of the terrain. I received permission to fly there via FPV and it went really well. I will add that the field was out in the middle of nowhere. Had the circumstances been different, then I probably would not have flown FPV.

How about petitioning the FCC for secure frequencies so that you aren't clobbered by some kid with a park flyer on 72 Mhz?
I don't see this as a direct problem with FPV flying. Unless you are doing long distance flying. Then yes, it's possible that interference from another transmitter could affect your control over the plane. However, this could really happen any time you fly, FPV or not. This is one of the many reasons why a range check should be performed every time you fly. It doesn't matter if you've flown at a particular site a thousand times before. It could be that the next time, as you mentioned, there might be a kid on the other side of the hill flying around on your channel.

[JettPilot]

Great write up TwinTurboStang. You make very good and well thought out points. FPV flying can be as dangerous, or as safe as each person makes it. Sooner or later, something will happen, but I say so what, that is life.

People die and hurt others playing soccor, an average of 50 people a year are killed in the US by Christmas Tree fires. Only idiots are going to freak out when something does happen, because FPV is new, different and exciting. The important thing is not to pander to thier paranoia...

JettPilot

[planebane]

Nice contribution 'stang.

It may help to consider full-size aviation when talking safety. Thousands of airplanes weighing many tons are whizzing above our heads all the time, and fatal accidents routinely happen, but there is no public uproar over aviation safety. This is because the benefit of aviation (unlimited travel, fast mail delivery) is so great.

It's also because in comparison to the number of successful flights that take place without incident every day, the accident rate is extremely low. This in turn is because of stringent regulations on airworthiness, regular inspections and pre-flight checks.

It is up to FPV pilots (as with all R/C pilots, but even more so due to the novelty of FPV flying) to use quality, proven equipment and incorporate regular and careful pre-flight checks into their routine.

Having said that, considering all the dangerous activities humans already do, FPV is small potatoes as a public safety risk. Very small.

[AnthonyRC]

I'm glad to see this topic appear on the thread so early, good stuff.

Another couple of points that I would like to add:

1) Charge!: Flying FPV can easily involve many more batteries than normal flight. Video goggles, Video receiver, LCD screen, etc. are all criticial components, and will cause immediate 'blindness' if one dies. For this I have a simple rule: All batteries get a full charge before each flight. There is nothing worse than a blank display while flying FPV!

2) Redundancy: Where possible, add some redundancy to FPV flight. One place that it is easy to do this, is on the ground. Having a second, independently powered, video receiver, and some form of display, can be quite useful in the event of a failure on the primary system. Personally I use this second receiver system to record the flights, so it is put to good use.

3) Safe Models: When starting to fly FPV, or when flying with nobody for miles is not possible, use a 'safe', lightweight model which will not do any damage if things go wrong. The EasyStar is a good choice, or even the AP favourite, the SlowStick.

Just one more minor point, something that burned me recently. If using servos for a pan/tilt mount, make sure that the BEC on your ESC can drive the total number of servos in the system. Most BECs, especially when running off 3s LiPos, can only drive 3 or 4 servos. Taking a system that already uses 3 or 4 servos to fly the plane, and then adding 2 more for the pan/tilt mount, can result in costly repairs!

[PeteSchug]

How about getting a pilot's liscense so you have some idea of what it is like to navigate by sight from the plane?

How about petitioning the FCC for secure frequencies so that you aren't clobbered by some kid with a park flyer on 72 Mhz?

I have about thirty-five hours of power and maybe seventy-five hours in sailplanes plus a lot of scattered unlogged flights, and lots more hours in the right hand seat flying with friends. My first solo was on skis.

If I were to do a comparison I would say that you can see much more in a full sized plane than you can with any video system. Also, and very important, the angular rate of turn with a model is way higher for the same angle of bank. It takes a while to do a 180° turn in a full sized plane, but it is almost instant with a model flying at the same angle of bank.

In other words - There is still a lot to learn and a lot to get used to when your visual field is reduced to what your camera can see and your peripheral vision is gone. There is no sensation of flight, no G's in a steep banked turn or a loop and what happens can seem to happen very fast with a model.

In a full sized airplane the final approach probably takes well over a minute and the flare for touchdown seems very gradual, with a model twenty seconds on final would seem long and the flare is pretty quick. BTW, gliders don't flare for landing, you fly them on. If you flare the tail touches first, the wing loses it's angle of attack and you land with a bang. Same thing with the Easy Star!

There are similarities, but there are a lot of differences too and it takes some getting used to whether you are a complete beginner or an experienced pilot. Also, a lot of RC flying helps but does not prevent you from feeling the differences.

The most important relationship between video pilotage and full sized flying is attitude. I don't mean mental attitude, but controlling the attitude of the plane by positioning the horizon in the image.

Pete

[robmoll]

Just a thought-

It would be interesting if a person could submit his fpv setup to a yet-to-be-determined panel of experts and receive an official (although meaningless) rating for the system along with recommendations for improving the rating.

[PeteSchug]

Just a thought-

It would be interesting if a person could submit his fpv setup to a yet-to-be-determined panel of experts and receive an official (although meaningless) rating for the system along with recommendations for improving the rating.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Bigger airplane, more powerful video tx, studio quality camera, more powerful motor, bigger batteries, better rx, and make the whole thing lighter, able to land in less space, keep the noise down, prop out of the way of camera. Landing gear suitable for all terrain. Don't forget the satellite link, and again, keep the weight down.

Pete ;)

[twinturbostang]

Good stuff guys. Keep the suggestions coming.

Mr. Moderator: Can we get a sticky on this please? :)

[Kilrah]

The last time I flew FPV was at a flying club that I had never been to before. Never seen it in person. Yet I had absolutely no trouble at all navigating around the field when I flew.

Same here, I've had to maiden a new plane in FPV mode, with some pieces of equipment I hadn't used before, in a place I had no clue about 5 mins before the flight, and that was a demo for VERY serious customers... I admit I was a bit shaky at the beginning, but everything went perfectly good :o

Don't try this at home unless you have a lot of experience though ;)

Pete - It seems the conversion from full-size to models is more difficult as the opposite. I know several pilots who have gone to R/C but they were just like any beginner. The exterior view just means nothing to them. Now, if we talk about FPV, I guess the same must be even more true. Full-size pilots have instruments, a very wide and detailed view, a map, maybe a GPS,...
Trying FPV, they get nothing more than a narrow view - that's a pretty important loss!
On the other side, we're used to flying planes, judging height and speed with nothing else than a rectangular image shown on a screen - the other way is a great upgrade in comfort ;)
At least, when I did my introductory flight last year, the instructor found I was doing incredibly well for a first time - and that was even before I started gaining dozens of FPV flight hours :D

[PeteSchug]

Same here, I've had to maiden a new plane in FPV mode, with some pieces of equipment I hadn't used before, in a place I had no clue about 5 mins before the flight, and that was a demo for VERY serious customers... I admit I was a bit shaky at the beginning, but everything went perfectly good :o

Don't try this at home unless you have a lot of experience though ;)

Pete - It seems the conversion from full-size to models is more difficult as the opposite. I know several pilots who have gone to R/C but they were just like any beginner. The exterior view just means nothing to them. Now, if we talk about FPV, I guess the same must be even more true. Full-size pilots have instruments, a very wide and detailed view, a map, maybe a GPS,...
Trying FPV, they get nothing more than a narrow view - that's a pretty important loss!
On the other side, we're used to flying planes, judging height and speed with nothing else than a rectangular image shown on a screen - the other way is a great upgrade in comfort ;)
At least, when I did my introductory flight last year, the instructor found I was doing incredibly well for a first time - and that was even before I started gaining dozens of FPV flight hours :D

I started flying RC in the dawn of proportional, and I learned to fly full sized airplanes at the same time. Since we had gliders and homebuilts at the field it was a very popular place and we had more than our quota of professionals, airline pilots, ex-military etc. I let more than a few get some stick time on my RC planes and the comment was usually something like, "I know I'm flying the thing but I don't really feel any connection with what's happening."

I told them to do full circles and not try to control the plane when it was heading towards them. I never had to take the transmitter away from anyone due to loss of control, but most of them had their curiosity satisfied after just a minute or so.

I first stuck a video camera on a plane about three years ago. (I think?)

Pete

[scrtsqrl]

As in flying full scale aircraft there are four things, missing any one of which, you are sure to crash:

1. Reference to the Horizon. You must know your attitude at all times. (Camera, Video Downlink, Display, light of day, weather, etc...)
2. Power. (Motor, ESC, Prop, etc...)
3. Ability to control the aircraft. (Radio, servos, control surfaces, etc...)
4. Juice. (Battery Charge)

Always plan your flights so you do not loose or run out of any one of the above until your intended time/place of landing.

[Majortomski]

I’m sorry but something about this thread just bothers the snot out of me.

I’ve gone back and read the whole thing in detail and have come up with the following.

I wholeheartedly agree that safety first in any form of R/C hobby is an admirable goal, however just adding “being safe” as a catch phrase in front of what you are doing does not necessarily make it safe.

The opening argument that one should use “quality” equipment is a nice idea, but quality as defined by what standard or what level of testing? What insures that your equipment is dependable under the conditions you may experience? For example, I’m fairly certain that everyone here would attest that JR makes good, quality equipment. But their single conversion receivers are almost useless at our flying field due to emissions from several sources located around us. How do you test for that except by a couple of crashes?

This form of flying, even with a spotter, is not welcome at an AMA sanctioned flying field. To fly there you are putting that clubs very existence, at least with respect to being insured in jeopardy.

This leads to what are you using for insurance?

And with respect to long distance flying, how do you intend to comply with FAR Part 91?

If you intend to have a meaningful discussion on safety, then these issues must also be completely addressed.

And yes, I have flown an R/C airplane using an onboard transmitting camera, I have some experience understanding the difficulties involved.

[scrtsqrl]

I’m sorry but something about this thread just bothers the snot out of me.

I’ve gone back and read the whole thing in detail and have come up with the following.

I wholeheartedly agree that safety first in any form of R/C hobby is an admirable goal, however just adding “being safe” as a catch phrase in front of what you are doing does not necessarily make it safe.

The opening argument that one should use “quality” equipment is a nice idea, but quality as defined by what standard or what level of testing? What insures that your equipment is dependable under the conditions you may experience? For example, I’m fairly certain that everyone here would attest that JR makes good, quality equipment. But their single conversion receivers are almost useless at our flying field due to emissions from several sources located around us. How do you test for that except by a couple of crashes?

This form of flying, even with a spotter, is not welcome at an AMA sanctioned flying field. To fly there you are putting that clubs very existence, at least with respect to being insured in jeopardy.

This leads to what are you using for insurance?

And with respect to long distance flying, how do you intend to comply with FAR Part 91?

If you intend to have a meaningful discussion on safety, then these issues must also be completely addressed.

And yes, I have flown an R/C airplane using an onboard transmitting camera, I have some experience understanding the difficulties involved.




This thread is about good practices and building a collective "common sense", rather than discussion of legalities and liability.

Legal does not neccessarily mean Safe...Safe does not neccessarily mean Legal...

It's good for ALL of us to share good practices...SOME of us may not have to or want to contend with the AMA, FAA or Insurance Companies.

Perhaps, this is a topic for another thread (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=618067).

[PeteSchug]

I’m sorry but something about this thread just bothers the snot out of me.

I’ve gone back and read the whole thing in detail and have come up with the following.

I wholeheartedly agree that safety first in any form of R/C hobby is an admirable goal, however just adding “being safe” as a catch phrase in front of what you are doing does not necessarily make it safe.

The opening argument that one should use “quality” equipment is a nice idea, but quality as defined by what standard or what level of testing? What insures that your equipment is dependable under the conditions you may experience? For example, I’m fairly certain that everyone here would attest that JR makes good, quality equipment. But their single conversion receivers are almost useless at our flying field due to emissions from several sources located around us. How do you test for that except by a couple of crashes?

This form of flying, even with a spotter, is not welcome at an AMA sanctioned flying field. To fly there you are putting that clubs very existence, at least with respect to being insured in jeopardy.

This leads to what are you using for insurance?

And with respect to long distance flying, how do you intend to comply with FAR Part 91?

If you intend to have a meaningful discussion on safety, then these issues must also be completely addressed.

And yes, I have flown an R/C airplane using an onboard transmitting camera, I have some experience understanding the difficulties involved.

I fail to see how flying with a spotter capable of taking control is any different than teaching a beginner. The same thinking applies. The spotter is the pilot and the person with the goggles is the student.

The concept is simple. The spotter is the "Pilot in command" and the person flying with the goggle is under the control of the pilot in command. If it were not so it would not be possible to learn to fly either full sized or model aircraft.

That said, I will point out that I've been flying for over forty years and seen hundreds of crashes, some minor some major. Most of these were at AMA sanctioned flying fields, a few at well attended contests. One indoors flown by someone who should have been banned as soon as he started. In all those crashes I have never seen anyone hurt. I did see a few injured hands starting engines in that time. (Including my own. (four stitches))

For all this a couple was killed last year someplace in Europe at either a flying contest or a flying demo where everything should have been under very tight control. What happened?

This hobby has a lot of unpredictability to it. The point is: You do your best to be safe and you probably will be. That doesn't mean any of this can ever be completely safe. Not full sized aviation or model aviation or getting into a car or walking down a flight of stairs.

Two pilots are better than one, but not always. That's why there is a pilot in command. He is the captain of the ship. The other pilot just does what the captain asks or allows.

All that said, I will add that I am always upgrading my equipment. Not just for other people's safety, but because I hate to rebuild. I like being able to fly without worry. When I couldn't get a spotter the last time I flew, I stripped the video gear completely out of my plane (took about a minute) and flew by visual contact. I could have still kept the video gear in and recorded the flight, but there was no point in having yet another flight over the same field.

When I am in Vermont I am far enough away from other people at times that I think the plane probably can't even reach any one else, yet I fly with a spotter there too. Why? Because I hate landing in trees and not even knowing the general direction my airplane went down. This can get to be a very expensive hobby if you can't reuse your equipment.

The final word on this is that safety pays a big dividend. You can fly tomorrow with the same airplane you flew today.

When long distance flying is allowed I may give it a try, but in my part of the country it is intrinsically risky. There are too may places to lose an airplane. I can only imagine long distance flying along a coast or maybe the Mojave desert. Around here you can be out of sight in fifty yards and then have to drive a few miles to get around fences etc. No thanks. I see you live in Oklahoma. Even there (been to Norman several times) I can see how easy it would be to lose a plane.

If you worry about your gear you are more than half way to being safe already since there are risks you will not take.

Pete

[PeteSchug]

This thread is about good practices and building a collective "common sense", rather than discussion of legalities and liability.

Legal does not neccessarily mean Safe...Safe does not neccessarily mean Legal...

It's good for ALL of us to share good practices...SOME of us may not have to or want to contend with the AMA, FAA or Insurance Companies.

Perhaps, this is a topic for another thread (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=618067).

You are correct!

I was writing my post at the same time as you and didn't see yours until I was finished.

As it was I only stated an opinion and the rest was about safety anyway.

It would be nice to know exactly where we stand with the AMA but I think that it would be hard for the AMA to defend a position where a safety pilot/instructor/spotter is okay for one activity and not another when the activities are intrinsically the same.

Pete

[Majortomski]

I fail to see how flying with a spotter capable of taking control is any different than teaching a beginner. The same thinking applies. The spotter is the pilot and the person with the goggles is the student.
Pete

The difference is, unlike my students, who are afraid to fly without someone on the buddy box, someone out here will someday feel that he is good enough to fly without a spotter. And that's the day we make the classic 'Toy airplane crashes into school bus killing doezens' headlines.

Sadly I touched the AMA/FAA legal nereve and you missed the point of my first paragraph; Safe by what standards?

We (at least in the US) fly on borrowed frequencies as secondary users, yet to fly via onboard camera demands secure frequencies and links. The Swiss gentleman above referred to airplanes wizzing above our heads, taking for granted that an aviation accident makes news because it is relatively rare based on the fact that each and every component and particiapant in 1:1 aviation is tested and approved to some standard.

In this thread you are taking components off the shelf, and litterally guessing that they'll work reliably.

In the context that R/C crashes happen, yep, they do ususally on the flying field. The first temptaion of FPV is to fly farther, out to distances where a spotter is no longer a viable help and to the same distances that you no longer know the reliablily of your off the shelf components.

Belive me I'm all for expanding the fun envelope, but not when the process of expanding that envelope ignores laws and common sence.

[PeteSchug]

The difference is, unlike my students, who are afraid to fly without someone on the buddy box, someone out here will someday feel that he is good enough to fly without a spotter.

[snip]

(me)If you bothered to read my post then somehow you missed what I was saying. I fly within safe bounds not just for general safety, but because it is very easy to lose airplanes in most places I fly. No spotter, no airplane. if I happen to land in a tree.

Sadly I touched the AMA/FAA legal nereve and you missed the point of my first paragraph; Safe by what standards?

(me)We have already contacted the AMA. What have you done?

[snip]

In this thread you are taking components off the shelf, and litterally guessing that they'll work reliably.

(me again)Everything is "off the shelf" I'd rather fly "off the shelf" than try to build my own. I am pretty competent at electronics, but my experience is you get what you pay for and I buy good stuff. As you yourself pointed out. JR is not all that good, yet they have a reputation. I just ordered two berg 7 channel rx's because someone posted something very positive about them. Flying video pilotage I have seen glitches that no ground based observer would even notice, so I know things that no ground based flyer knows. I am going to test the bergs and if they are better I will stick with them. Can you do as much if you don't even know how your gear actually performs?

In the context that R/C crashes happen, yep, they do ususally on the flying field. The first temptaion of FPV is to fly farther, out to distances where a spotter is no longer a viable help and to the same distances that you no longer know the reliablily of your off the shelf components.

(me)Sorry, as already mentioned I am not tempted. I am not tempted to fly beyond our field limits either. I am on private property when I fly and we keep well inside our property. If I fly beyond certain points the field marshall will warn me. If I keep doing it I can lose my field privileges. I am also worried about losing my plane, much more likely than hitting someone.

Belive me I'm all for expanding the fun envelope, but not when the process of expanding that envelope ignores laws and common sence.

(me)As some people point out, there are no LAWS being broken. We have asked the AMA for advice on safety pilot/spotter and common sense (note spelling) is that if you take care of problems before they happen the rest is in the hands of fate and nothing can be done about that.

(still me)Everyone takes risks. Every day on the subway there is someone running down a flight of stairs with their hands full of packages and they are a danger to themselves and everyone on that staircase. I have yet to see a cop stop someone doing that, and I would hate to live in a society where there is a law against every risk.

In my life in sports and aviation I lost four friends (I'm sixty-nine so I've outlived a bunch of people I've known) None of them was doing anything risker than the rest of us. It just happens that every now and then.

Repeating myself a bit. What law are you talking about?

You can have the last word.

Pete

[AnthonyRC]

I was really hoping that this kind of paranoia wouldn't dominate this new forum :censored: , but it looks like it has already arrived, and I hope it leaves just as fast!

It just doesn't make sense, at least not to me :confused:

1. Its legal, and 'safe' to fly dozens of (potentially lethal) turbine powered jets on the same field as hundreds of spectators. Jets which use the same radio equipment as every other flyer, and just as susceptable to the same radio interference.
2. Its legal, and 'safe' to fly huge (by model standards) helis, again, potentially lethal (and proven to be), again in close proximity to spectators.
3. Its legal, and 'safe' to put 8 wren turbines in a 27ft wingspan B52, fly at an event, and narrowly miss a house during a terrible crash.
4. Its legal, and 'safe' to fly potentially lethal F5B machines, full of heavy NiMH cells, pulling over 200 amps, pushing equipment to (and this year, it seems past) its limits, using the same flying fields as everyone else, and using that same radio equipment.

But... hey, the guy who wants to fly his 800 gram slowstick under video control is irresponsible, and should be stopped.

Legal or not, at some point common sense has to come into play!! Yesterday I drove an hour into a valley in the middle of nowhere, and (shock horror) flew (the slowstick) under video control, with no spotter :eek: ... well, other than a few cows... common sense told me that this was a lot safer than some areas of this hobby that our lawmakers say are ok, and 'safe'...

[Majortomski]

OK my last word.

First Anthony, its the same kind of paranoia that cost the US a space shuttle and its crew. The I'm safe because the probability of it happing is so low that it can't happen thinking.

I was hoping that some of you would see that thinking positively about safety, and actually developinig standards that insure safety are two different things. I'll drop out of your threads and let you go back to flying behind your rose colored tv glasses.

And Pete, as far as going to the ama, the question posted on the other thread is like a child who's parent has said 'Don't touch the stove, it will burn you.' Asking well how long can I touch the stove before it burns me. It's a matter of policy, the policy is NO. What part of NO don't you understand?

So if you want to change policy you have to bring standards and facts to the table that say, well in light of these facts the policy is wrong. But we all just want to feel good here and just know the systems will work.

Bye ,sorry I ruffeld so many feathers.

[twinturbostang]

OK my last word.
I was hoping that some of you would see that thinking positively about safety, and actually developinig standards that insure safety are two different things. I'll drop out of your threads and let you go back to flying behind your rose colored tv glasses.
Dude, we're just getting started with this forum. Give us a break here! I would love to see standards developed as well. But it takes time. And btw, there are NO "standards" at all when it comes to the entire hobby of R/C flying. Yet apparently we are carrying Plutonium or something onboard and must be bound to COMPLETELY different rules than everyone else.

There is basically only ONE component (or system) for FPV flying over regular flying that I would worry about. And that is the video downlink. You make it out to be something much more than it is. Yeah, any other component could possibly fail. But then, any component on a line-of-sight plane could fail also. So if you want to make this type of flying illegal, then you need to make ALL R/C flying illegal. And as for the video downlink, if properly selected, it will have better range and quality than the R/C control system.

[AnthonyRC]

OK my last word.

First Anthony, its the same kind of paranoia that cost the US a space shuttle and its crew. The I'm safe because the probability of it happing is so low that it can't happen thinking...


Unfortunately, these kinds of design decisions are a fact of life, nothing has a zero probability of failing. Every day we drive cars, cars which are full of design decisions (compromises) like this. They ride on chunks of inflated rubber, we've seen what happens when these fail, people die!.

We also still get behind the wheel of cars when we ourselves are not perfect. Every time we get into a car, there is a finite probability that we will cause a fatal accident, but we still choose to do so.

All this said I think that we need to be very careful with this emerging (and exciting) development of our hobby. For the moment, it has a pretty good safety record, and it is up to all of us to keep it that way.

[PeteSchug]

[QUOTE=Majortomski]OK my last word.

First Anthony, its the same kind of paranoia that cost the US a space shuttle and its crew. The I'm safe because the probability of it happing is so low that it can't happen thinking.

(Me) When a pilot flies an airplane he is expected to do a walk around check. That includes certain checks that pilots do even on airliners. On the space shuttle those checks are done by people other than the pilot. Flying that day was a management decision that was completely against the warnings of Thiokol's own engineering department. If I was the district attorney of that county in Florida I would have brought charges against the managers involved and I would have gotten a conviction. I don't think they had any right to play the odds, saying we got away with it before.

And Pete, as far as going to the ama, the question posted on the other thread is like a child who's parent has said 'Don't touch the stove, it will burn you.' Asking well how long can I touch the stove before it burns me. It's a matter of policy, the policy is NO. What part of NO don't you understand?

What part of my carefully worded explanation is beyond your comprehension? There is someone else in charge of the flight and he is following the AMA rules (not laws) and I am listening to him. Identical in every respect to a beginner flying a plane under the guidance of an instructor.

Pete

[scrtsqrl]

Introduction to ORM (Operational Risk Management)

For details please check this out... (http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/orm/ORM_explanation.htm)

"One goes through life primarily to DO..."

Mishaps are a fact of life...they will happen. The trick is to keep them to a minimum. If we wanted to be completely safe, we wouldn't fly at all.

To the point:

5 Steps of Performing ORM

1. Identify Hazards
2. Assess Hazards
3. Make Risk Decisions
4. Implement Controls
5. Supervise

4 Principles of Applying ORM

1. Accept risk when the Benefit>Risk.

Risk is inherent in the nature of military action.
Leaders who are in the risk-taking business must be top-quality risk managers.
Risk is usually proportional to gain.
You cannot eliminate all risk

2. Accept no unnecessary risk.

An unnecessary risk is any risk that, if taken, will not contribute meaningfully to mission accomplishment.
Leaders who accept unnecessary risks are gambling with the lives of their Marines – for nothing.
The gambler doesn’t know what will happen; the risk -managing leader can reasonably predict what the outcome will be.

3. Anticipate and manage risks by planning.

Risks are more easily controlled when identified in planning because more time, assets, and options are available to deal with the risk.
It improves efficiency and saves money if ORM is integrated early in the planning process. If risk controls are tacked on as an afterthought in training or in combat, they will probably fail.
Proper Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance

4. Make risk decisions at the right level.

The leader directly responsible for the operation makes risk decisions.
If Risk > Benefit; goes beyond the Commander’s stated intent; or help is needed to implement controls – communicate with higher authority.


And the details as writen for Marines...

What is ORM?

ORM is a decision making tool- used by people at all levels to increase operational effectiveness by anticipating hazards and reducing the potential for loss, thereby increasing the probability of a successful mission.

Why?

ORM process is proven to be mission supportive.

Moral responsibility to protect our Marines.



- How ORM Works

ORM is a closed loop process of identifying and controlling hazards. It follows a 5-step sequence, is applied on one of three levels depending on the situation, and is guided by 4 principles.

- Purpose of ORM

The purpose of ORM is to minimize risks to acceptable levels, proportional to mission accomplishment.

- Goal Of ORM

The goal of ORM is to manage risk so the mission can be accomplished with the minimum amount of loss.

- Benefits Of ORM

Applying the ORM process will reduce mishaps, lower injury and property damage costs, provide for more effective use of resources, improve training realism and effectiveness, and improve readiness.

- Origin Of ORM

The ORM concept grew out of ideas originally developed to improve safety in the development of new weapons, aircraft and space vehicles, and nuclear power. The US Army adopted Risk Management in 1991 to reduce training and combat losses.


ORM Terms

- Hazard

A condition with the potential to cause illness, injury, death, property damage, or mission degradation.

- Cause

Something that produces an effect, result, or consequence.

The person, event, or condition responsible for an action or result.

Sample Hazards and Causes

NOTE: A hazard at one echelon may be a cause at another echelon.


Hazards/Causes
Operating Equipment/Operator error- Mechanical failure
Weather/LTA clothing- Limited visibility
Enemy Forces/Enemy Actions
Friendly Forces/LTA control measures
Live Fire/Cook off – LTA training
Terrain/Vehicle Rollover
Change/New hazards & reduced effectiveness of controls


A cause is more specific than a hazard. A method of clarifying if something is a hazard or a cause is to ask the question, “Is this specific enough to help identify a corrective control?” If the answer is ‘no’ it is a hazard, if the answer is ‘yes’ it is a cause. It is important to properly identify hazards and causes because there may be several causes associated with one hazard. If the more specific causes are not identified, necessary controls may be omitted resulting in the hazard not being eliminated or it’s risk inadequately reduced.

- Risk

A possible loss expressed in terms of severity and probability.

Leaders can make better decisions once a hazard is converted to a risk.

- Risk Assessment

The process of detecting hazards and assessing associated risks. Step 1 and Step 2 of ORM constituted a risk assessment.

- Severity

Expected consequence of an event in terms of degree of injury, illness, property damage, or other mission-impairing factor.

- Controls

Actions taken to eliminate hazards or reduce their risk.

-- Three Types of Controls

Three types of controls can be used, in most effective to least effective order they are – Engineering controls, Administrative controls, & Personal Protective Equipment.

1. Engineering Controls

Controls that use engineering methods to reduce risk by Design, or Material Selection or Substitution.

When technically and economically feasible, engineering controls are the best to use because they usually eliminate the hazard. Their drawback is they may not be feasible in many cases.

2. Administrative Controls

Administrative controls reduce risk through specific administrative actions:

Provide warnings, markings, placards, signs, & notices;
Written policies, programs, instructions, & SOP’s;
Train Marines to recognize hazards & take proper action;
Limit the number of personnel/equipment, or the time exposed to a hazard.

3. Personal Protective Equipment

[twinturbostang]

Wow!!

[typicalaimster]

I think later on we should revisit this and make it a "Suggested Best Practices" thread. Perhaps get a good checklist and rules of the road going...

I think the main problem is boundaries. I was constantly flying out of bounds and didn't know it until someone mentioned it. Usually I'd fly until I'd get a bit of fuzz on the camera and then make a mental note. I ended up spending a day with a spotter telling me when to turn. After a few flights I knew how far out was to far out.

Keep in mind that the AMA suggested field (1) is 1000' to the left and 1000' to the right. It then extends 500 feet forward. For most of or flights I'd suggest keeping FPV within a 2000'W x 1000'L x1000'H box. This will keep you well within range of your camera equipment.

Now those out in the country side where your neighbor is a 1/2 mile away from you.. That's a whole other story.

*edit*

Adding footnote
(1)AMA Membership Manual (http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/memanual06.pdf) - Page 5, Section C

[twinturbostang]

Sounds good to me Scott.

BTW, would anyone be interested in starting a "Newbie one-stop-shop FPV store" thread? Load it up with lots of things to do and not to do when building a FPV plane, or things to remember for those first FPV flights. Chock full of links to other resources, products, etc. I think it would be a great addition to the forum. I would start such a thread, but I don't know if I have the time to sit down and write up a few pages worth of stuff. :)

Oh and BTBW, who is the moderator in here? The newbie thread, and this safety thread, should be stickied to the top of the forum.

[scrtsqrl]

Sounds like a plan. VERY IMPORTANT. Better to start good practices ourselves than have them imposed on us.

[twinturbostang]

Sounds like a plan. VERY IMPORTANT. Better to start good practices ourselves than have them imposed on us.
Exactly. That's why I started this thread so early in the forum life. :)

[scrtsqrl]

I have a thread going on my blog (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/member.php?u=119473) under "Flight Rules & Good Practices". I'm collecting info and posting/editing as required. I wanted it just for my own reference but hopefully someone else will find it useful. I'll keep it going in my blog so I can edit out the static and stay to the point.

[typicalaimster]

Very cool, I PM'ed Mike, the person that created the group, and asked him if he could sticky a few of the threads. Hopefully some of that holiday dust is starting to settle and he'll answer back!

[typicalaimster]

Hey guys.. I'm making this thread a sticky.

[twinturbostang]

Thanks Scott.

[zaguruinzasky]

can u guys write down some link where to get "GPS return to home" device?

Thankx

[scrtsqrl]

PICOPILOT RTL (http://www.u-nav.com/picopilot/picopilotrtl.html)

Hope this helps.

[rcrick]

3) Spotter
Wish I could follow this rule. but for me it's just not possible. My problem is when I get a chance to fly it’s just a quick trip out to the field. There is hardly any interest in RC in my small home town. When there is someone who is flying where I go to fly I can hardly hold their interest in the project for a few minuets. To make up for this, my plane is light and very slow. I fly in a location that I know very well so I can tell where I am easy form under the hood. I have been flying FPV for many years now and I have lost the video signal several times wile flying FPV. Since I know the site so well, I simply come out from under the hood and look in the direction that I last seen and heard was at that time. It a very scary feeling, but it's the best I have right now. I currently don't fly beyond visual range. Before I would try that, some things would need to improve. Such as, my plane has a six foot wingspan, so out of visual range would be nearly a mile.
I don't currently trust my RC rx and tx that well. So before I would try that, I think some kind of autopilot, plane retrieval device would be needed. I currently use a 10'' TV monitor for my viewing of the FPV flights. I hope to get some goggles soon, then I can use both the goggles and monitor and maybe some friends will find it interesting enough to a least fly along with me. One thing I like so much about flying video is that I don’t mind as much flying alone, because I come home and watch the video and it doesn’t seem such a shame that no one is watching me fly. I video tape all my flights. I have at least 20 full 2 hour vhs tapes and since I went digital 8, I have a least 10 full one hour 8 mm tapes. It’s pretty much all the same ole stuff but I can’t bring myself to tape over any of it. Every time I go out to fly FPV, within a hour of getting home I watch the tape. It’s like having gone out and flew a second time. Such fun! But bores the hell out of most people.

Ricky

[VRflyer]

Ricky
Your story look very similar to mine. Me too I always fly alone since long time due to few interest of peoples here to fly like me...
I stay in visual range, and (rarely) when I lost video, I removed the headset and was able to land safely. Effectively it's scary when it happens :eek:

[PeteSchug]

Hi rcrick and VRflier,

I belong to a very active club and it is the same story. After the first bit of curiosity where everyone looked at the monitor my clubmates seem to have very little interest. Most days that I fly at my home field there are at least ten members sometimes a lot more and nobody has anything more that mild curiosity unless I happen to get a shot of their airplane in flight.

If I show up with a new airplane everyone is interested. If I show up with new goggles nobody cares.

I really wonder if we have some kind of very different outlook. My local hobby shop owner sells inexpensive ($99) video setups. I will ask him who buys this stuff. I think kids with RC cars and they probably try to run it at home on the living room TV.

I have wanted to do this since I started flying RC. We talked then about getting a cheap Super8 movie camera and sticking it on a plane, but never did it. Video cameras still weighed a ton in those days.

VR it is interesting that you got attention from the news media and yet for most people it is a curiosity but for a few like us it becomes the most interesting way to fly.

I really don't understand it.

Pete

[typicalaimster]

Hmm I think we have a problem.... Under current proposed rules we'd have someone on a buddy box system. How exactly can we attach a head tracker AND a buddy box when there is only one buddy box plug?

[AnthonyRC]

Hmm I think we have a problem.... Under current proposed rules we'd have someone on a buddy box system. How exactly can we attach a head tracker AND a buddy box when there is only one buddy box plug?

Tricky... the only way I could imagine doing this would require a bit of electronics.
1) On the 'Trainer' Tx, enable all channels for Training, and enable the trainer switch
2) Take the PPM output from the 'Trainer' Tx, into an external microcontroller, along with the head-tracker PPM output, and the 'Student' transmitter PPM output.
3) With a switch on the external microcontroller, decide to do a) or b) below:
a) Decode the PPM stream from the trainer Tx, plus the PPM stream from the Headtracker, selectively mix the pan/tilt channels into their appropriate slots, then feed it back into the trainer Tx 'PPM In'.
b) Same as a), but mix the Student Tx PPM output with the Headtracker instead.

Hum, another possibility, the TrackR1 was designed to have a PPM input simultaneously with the PPM output. Using a simple switch, feed it either the Student PPM stream, or the Trainer PPM stream. The head tracker then does its selective mixing, overriding the pan/tilt channels, and feeds it back into the Trainer Tx.

Or even easier, but won't satisfy the AMA, equip both Trainer and Student transmitters with the same Crystal. When the goggle-equipped pilot looses control, turn off one Tx, and turn the other one on :eek:

[typicalaimster]

Blah that won't work. The TX can be out of trim or something might be reversed. That just makes a bad situation worse. Hmm at that point you'd might as well use two transmitters. One for the head tracker and one for the plane..

[typicalaimster]

Alright I'm throwing this out there.. Please add or add constructive criticism. Keep in mind these are bullet points in addition to what we already have posted..This should help get the ball rolling.


1) Equipment

- Equipment shall be at least 500mw and must be allowed to operate in the proper 2.4ghz or 900mhz range.
- User of the equipment must appropriate the proper FCC licenses required to operate. This usually is a Tech license in the US.
- List of approved equipment (document needed)
- Only one plane in operation for that given frequency range (2.4ghz / 900mhz)
- User of the equipment must not cause any other interference to other users of radio equipment (ie: Spektrum)
- Plane must be equipped with a leveling device such as a FMA CoPilot

2) Experience

- Pilot must have at least 20 documented hours of basic flight proficiency. These hours may be signed by that sites intro pilot instructor
- Pilot must have at least 10 hours of additional documented aerobatic flight. Pilot must show decent proficiency in the NSRCA Sportsman schedule. (http://www.nsrca.org/scheduleA.htm)
- Pilots may then begin basic Fly By Video training based on the Basic Flight Proficiency training


3) Spotter

- Spotter must be used during the beginning of Fly By Video training
- A spotter must be present when other aircraft are in the air in order to prevent possible collision.
- After the pilot has completed the Fly by Video proficiency course they must accrue an additional 5 hours of flight time before they are allowed to fly solo.


4) Location / Long Distance

- No flying at night
- No flying during times when the sun may hinder sight (Dawn / Dusk)
- Flying site safety officer may approve or deny of such flying.
- Flight location must adhere to the suggested AMA flying site in Form 706 - Section C (http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/706.pdf)
- Visual boundary markers must be placed in accordance with Form 706 – Section C which must be visible to the pilot at all times.
- Long distance should not be done and shall not be honored under any circumstance

[PeteSchug]

Hmm...

I have been flying pico Tiger Moths with 50 mw tx's and have never lost a signal for more than a second and that was over a lake when my antenna was blocked by a tree.

I probably have an hour of video (not much of it video piloting) with mostly excellent images.

I have 200 mw on my Easy Star and even though it has flown very little, that too has excellent video. One moderately long flight with goggles (and two spotters) and one ten or fifteen minute flight with just video. I even got good reception edge on to my patch.

I think 500 mw is a lot more than we need and it also eats up battery power.

I don't think my pico tiger moth can lift a leveling device. What's the point of a leveling device when you have a spotter/safety pilot?

I've been flying for forty-five years but I never logged a single flight. I have movies taken about forty years ago. I am not an aerobatic whiz. I can do cuban eights and maybe a four point roll. I can't do rolling circles though I did them once upon a time. Aside from loops, rolls and spins I have no interest in anything resembling precision aerobatics.

I don't even have a clue what NSRCA is. (I know there is a link)

What's the point of all this when mostly I want to fly fairly level and take good videos with an occasional loop thrown in or maybe a roll.

I know you are trying to come up with something, but if I show up with a wing leveler on a pico tiger moth I will be laughed out of my club no matter what the reason.

I can see where someone interested in violating that item 10 of the safety code might want 500 mw but aside from the time I laid my patch ant on wet ground and the time my antenna was on a picnic bench and some trees got between the antenna and the plane (the lake flight) I have not lost a signal with my present gear.

I think everything you have said is too stringent. I know we want to convince the AMA that we can do it safely, but there is a lot of safety in light gear too and I really think that demonstrating an ability to land and take off under video control, and not getting lost are the primary things.

Sorry, I know you are working hard to come up with something but I don't want to replace my twelve ounce airplane with a twelve ounce tx and twelve ounces of batteries before I even start.

Edit: Thinking about it, the first thing is you have to know where you are, how far you are from the flight line and if you are still within the bounds of your flying area. That is way more important than aerobatics. The second thing is to be able to get the plane down safely. Anyone can fly any which way they want up in the air. If they can't get back on the ground safely they can't go raving about how good their aerobatics are or anything else. I leave takeoff out since many planes require a hand launch. I would suggest that it is better to have someone other than the pilot do hand launches unless it is a plane that flies out of your hand easily. I just like the idea of the pilot having both hands on the transmitter.

Like I say, I know you are working to come up with something but aside from all else a wing leveler makes it sound like you need help just to fly.

I would suggest that if you fly over a certain weight you should have GPS homing in case of signal loss. A wing leveler is likely to keep a plane in the air that might have been better off crashing at it's home field.

A check list might be a good idea. This is a more complex sport than ordinary RC, and I will confess to having a video I call figure nine. A loose elevator servo. In this case I had my goggles on, but the tx was in my spotter's hands, and he never tried the controls until it was too late.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=538618

In the inverted portion you can see that the tx is not in my hands! ;)

Pete

[typicalaimster]

Hmm...
I think 500 mw is a lot more than we need and it also eats up battery power.

If a 200mw system is proven with out a doubt that it can transmit within the bounds of the field then we can lower it. If a 200mw system so much as fuzzes at the outer bounds of the suggested limit then someone is going to cry fowl ball.


I don't think my pico tiger moth can lift a leveling device. What's the point of a leveling device when you have a spotter/safety pilot?

The leveling device IS your safety pilot. If you get in a bad situation you let go of the sticks. How are you going to plug a buddy box in if the head tracker is occupying that port on the radio?


Aside from loops, rolls and spins I have no interest in anything resembling precision aerobatics.

I don't even have a clue what NSRCA is. (I know there is a link)

What's the point of all this when mostly I want to fly fairly level and take good videos with an occasional loop thrown in or maybe a roll.


NSRCA is National Society of RC Aerobatics. Precision Aerobatics teaches you how to place your aircraft in an awkward position and get it out. These skills can be considered essential when flying video. If you look at the link it lists a very basic pattern for Sportsman 401. It is nothing but a bunch of big loops a few rolls and one stall turn... I'm not saying you have to score perfect 10's on it. However such a pattern of more advanced piloting skills should be shown. Just flying your typical AMA qualification circuit should not qualify you immediately for flying video.


I know you are trying to come up with something, but if I show up with a wing leveler on a pico tiger moth I will be laughed out of my club no matter what the reason.

Like I say, I know you are working to come up with something but aside from
all else a wing leveler makes it sound like you need help just to fly.

People have put wing levelers on their Slow Sticks. I never laughed at them when they were starting out in video piloting. I thought it was a good idea. Most wing leveling devices can be placed on a toggle switch. They can be turned off or on during flight. Usually I take off with mine off and flip it on during my flight. I will flip it off to perform certain aerobatics. Do I need it NO. It is there as a safety net if I get in trouble and need my wings level. Have you tried a FMA CoPilot? I used to make fun of it until I tried one.

I've been flying for forty-five years but I never logged a single flight.

I think you may have missed the point on this. Let me go into a bit more detail. When a person shows up at our field and says "Hey! I know how to fly!" We still make them run a general circuit around the field with one of our approved trainers. We've had to many bozo's show up and about kill someone. We don't care if you've flown for 60 years. Everyone gets the same treatment verbatim.

As far as logging you have X amount of hours doing Y that would be for this application. If you read the turbine waiver they require:

All waiver affidavit applicants should have accomplished at least 50 flights on a high performance model capable of sustained speeds of 100 mph or higher.

I am just saying do a similar thing. Flights are great.. I can fly fifty 2 minute circuits around my field and call it a day. Does that mean I qualify? Hours show you have taken the time and effort to do this. Logging those hours and having someone sign for them chases a paper trail.

I can see where someone interested in violating that item 10 of the safety code might want 500 mw but aside from the time I laid my patch ant on wet ground and the time my antenna was on a picnic bench and some trees got between the antenna and the plane (the lake flight) I have not lost a signal with my present gear.

I actually think 500 is middle of the road. I think someone that wants to go above and beyond will go with a 1 watt system. There are a few people in this forum that have 1 watt systems, so please don't think I'm pointing a finger. Different applications require different equipment. In this application we're talking about flying within a 2000' x 500' x 500' box.


I think everything you have said is too stringent. I know we want to convince the AMA that we can do it safely, but there is a lot of safety in light gear too and I really think that demonstrating an ability to land and take off under video control, and not getting lost are the primary things.

Right now I'm taking it easy.. Try looking at the turbine waiver (http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/510-A.pdf), the regulations for assembly and operation (http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/510-B.pdf), plus the rules for design and construction (http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/510-C.pdf). I think I'm going kind of light on things right now. I really don't think that you want things out there saying you have to build this kit exactly this way with these parts... Is fly by video as dangerous as turbine.. As far as lawyers go.. Yes it is.

Thinking about it, the first thing is you have to know where you are, how far you are from the flight line and if you are still within the bounds of your flying area. That is way more important than aerobatics. The second thing is to be able to get the plane down safely. Anyone can fly any which way they want up in the air. If they can't get back on the ground safely they can't go raving about how good their aerobatics are or anything else. I leave takeoff out since many planes require a hand launch. I would suggest that it is better to have someone other than the pilot do hand launches unless it is a plane that flies out of your hand easily. I just like the idea of the pilot having both hands on the transmitter.

If you want me to go into such grave detail I will draw up a diagram of a typical flight area and circuit. In fact to give you an idea check out this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4565927190193743949&q=zwei.net+dcrc) taken at a local AMA club. At 42 seconds into the video you can see 2 white dots where the tree line meets the field. Those white dots represent field boundary markers established by that club. I have also set up similar markers at my home field (http://www.nvrc.us/boundary/). The markers can easily be set using a hand held GPS device on the ground.


I would suggest that if you fly over a certain weight you should have GPS homing in case of signal loss. A wing leveler is likely to keep a plane in the air that might have been better off crashing at it's home field.

Weight restrictions yes. GPS homing devices makes the plane a UAV/UAS. Even with homing devices it's better to have the plane crash close to but away from home in a designated crash area. In a situation when the plane loses signal a failsafe should lower the throttle. I rather have a plane crash in a landing pattern at low speed with the wings level than in a screaming dive coming back home.


A check list might be a good idea. This is a more complex sport than ordinary RC, and I will confess to having a video I call figure nine. A loose elevator servo. In this case I had my goggles on, but the tx was in my spotter's hands, and he never tried the controls until it was too late.


I always go down my check list before I begin any flight. I'd hope most other people do. The ONE time I was excited and didn't go down my list I almost lost a plane. Twin was there for that one ;)

[scrtsqrl]

I agree with Pete. 500mW is too high a minimum. That's what I have, but I also had a 10mW Tx. Having a small Tx isn't really all that bad, especially for beginners, because w/ a small Tx, you loose video link before the plane gets too far and therefore have a fighting chance to find it visually. I would not specify a minimum power spec.

Leveling device should not be required. My Easystar is stable enough, that my "unusual attitude" recovery procedure is "release controls".

[PeteSchug]

A 2000 * 500 * 500 foot box means you should never be further away than 1224.744871 feet (Excel) from the plane if you fly from the center edge of the box. I don't know what the flyable area at my club is but I will find out.

Allowing for some error you should be able to get a pretty good signal at 1500' to safely fly within the box. If you can demonstrate that it should be enough. I am pretty sure that my 50 mw, when coupled with the dual patch and diversity can do it. I wonder if I will still be in field bounds though. As I said, I will check our flyable area. I am not sure about the 500' across. And though the AMA suggests staying below 400' within 5 miles of an airport, that is not what the original document from the FAA says. They just suggest a flat 400' everywhere. I don't know who's right, but I know who has the final say.

We want to keep it simple, but one size does not fit all. I suggest that weight is a factor and that under a certain weight we should have different limits than for heavier airplanes. My way overpowered Easy Star can cover 2000 feet pretty quickly. You would probably fall asleep waiting for my tiger moth to do the same.

I don't think that using a GPS fail safe is really the same as flying a UAV, you would know that far better than me, but I am planning to fly something with telemetry gear including GPS this summer. Don't know what plane, but I do want ailerons and I admit that I will probably do aerobatics with it. The point is that with this stuff on board it seems foolish not to have homing ability.

in my own full sized flying my only unusual attitude recovery was spin training. It was not an FAA requirement but my flying instructor had been teaching since the thirties, Civilian Pilot Training program in WWII and I also flew gliders. You never got checked out in any two place sailplane without doing at least one spin and maybe a wingover. That was it, No loops, rolls, tailslides or anything else.

I have no objection to having to demonstrate mild aerobatics, but I strongly believe it is much more important to know _where_you_are than to recover from an unusual attitude. BTW my boring old tiger moth can only do the second half of a roll as in Immelman turn. It barely loops and I haven't gotten it to spin either, yet it makes a really nice thing to tool around with and explore the local scenery.

Main suggestion is weight categories. There is a difference between a slow flying, very light ship and something that weighs five pounds and can be pushed along by 500 watts or more. And, are you really sure it becomes a UAV and under different rules if you have fail safe homing? I point out that if it goes into fail safe you will probably regain control pretty soon since the range will get shorter as soon as you are in fail safe. You don't need to come all the way home for it to save a plane.

Pete

[Kilrah]

I agree with Pete.
Aerobatics training is pretty useless. Anyway, once you're flying by video it's so different you can't rely at all on what you've learned flying normally, especially for unusual flight attitudes.
I agree too on the 500mW. For me, that would be a maximum rather than a minimum.
A 200mW TX will already throw you a mile out before you even start worrying. If you want to keep people flying short range, don't tempt them to go further ;)
Another benefit of low power is less interference risk, and if I recall correctly no ham license needed up to 10mW.
Regarding the "only one per frequency band" I'd change that into "leave an empty channel between 2 users and make interference tests before takeoff". We've been using 2 systems at a time many times, and also have noticed that certain links can cause interference on adjacent channels when one is at short distance while the other one is far away and thus weaker, while other equipment causes no problem.

Just for info about power, I have like 95% of my FPV flight time (over ~60hrs) with a 10mW TX. I'll go up to 1km with it with no problem. My main worry is still the R/C rather than the video. The only times where I've used more (up to 200mW), it was just to ensure better reliability when having very good recorded video was mandatory (for customers).

[PeteSchug]

I've been thinking about this stuff all day.

I think we are making a mistake treating this as a dangerous type of flying that has to be tamed and made safe by extraordinary means.

It is intrinsically no more dangerous than conventional RC flying. In some aspects it's safer. Typically we fly lighter planes and we fly them slower. What's the point of a video of grass going by two feet under your plane at seventy miles an hour. Do it once and you've done it for all time.

We have to come up with simple rules that make sense to both the AMA and FCC and are not overly restrictive.

Not flying beyond visual range seems to be something that worries the AMA and it is something that is high risk where I live, but there are people who can do it at low risk, so maybe there should be areas where it is considered safe to fly out of sight. I am sure most of the mojave desert would be safe and there are probably farming areas that are sparsely populated with few houses that are easily avoided. The scenery passes slowly even if the plane flies fast, so you can go around things like houses or shopping areas.

I don't have serious objections to taking a test to get the rating, but I think it should not be needed. Anybody can fly an RC plane and fly it with no license of any sort. I learned to fly mostly on my own, and for many that's the way it was back then.

I think any checking of skills should be at the club level, with some responsible party acting as safety pilot.

The old "two mistakes high" is fine if you don't have a buddy box set up. The safety pilot takes the plane up, the video student gets the box when the plane is at a safe altitude and then follows the safety pilot's verbal instruction. The safety pilot handles the landing also. When the student and safety pilot both feel comfortable the student does some low passes to get a feel for what an approach entails. By now the student should be familiar with the look of the field from the air and maybe he should call out altitude as he perceives it. Then the student starts taking off and landing on his own. At some point he should not need help anymore.

When things are busy at my field you are supposed to have someone with you when you fly. The expectation is that the pilot cannot see what is going on around him and he needs a caller to make sure that he is aware of planes on approach etc. I don't see any real difference for video flyers.

This type of flying has to be learned, it is not the same as ground based visual contact flying, but in some way's it's easier too. Attitude control is a lot easier.

I just don't want to see this treated as a dangerous form of flying that has to be kept in a containment vessel. These are not turbines, they fly slow, are light in weight, often have the prop in a relatively safe location and the pilots can usually see where they are going better than conventional RC pilots.

Maybe we should concentrate on pointing out that a light airplane with something like the Easy Star layout is intrinsically safer than ninety-five percent of the aircraft in this hobby.

BTW. I have three quarter scale airplanes and a fourth on the bench as well as a four meter sailplane. When I write about the relative safety of a plane like the Easy Star I'm doing it from a background of everything from indoor RC to some pretty large stuff. Yes, I admit it, my Li'l Skeeter is probably safer, but for what it does I think the Easy Star is both a fantastic airplane and an intrinsically safe one. And I still love my beat up pico Tiger Moth.

Pete

[twinturbostang]

I always go down my check list before I begin any flight. I'd hope most other people do. The ONE time I was excited and didn't go down my list I almost lost a plane. Twin was there for that one ;)
Hah. Good ol' GWS servos eh? :)

The video you linked to above... was that FPV? I remember you mentioning that a local field absolutely would not allow FPV flying at all. Didn't know if that was DCRC or another one.

[typicalaimster]

Hah. Good ol' GWS servos eh? :)

The video you linked to above... was that FPV? I remember you mentioning that a local field absolutely would not allow FPV flying at all. Didn't know if that was DCRC or another one.

Actually what happened was the servo was bumped during transit. It stripped one of the gears in the servo.

DCRC would allow me to fly via FPV if I was a qualified pilot there. It's another club here in VA that would not allow it. DCRC is also hosting the test flights for GWU's UAV.

[twinturbostang]

Did they require buddy box operation for FPV?

GWU = George Washington University I'm assuming. Got any info on their UAV?

[typicalaimster]

They didn't say anything about flying with or without a buddy box. They were more concerned about having a qualified pilot and keeping everything safe.

GWU is flying a twin boom pusher similar to mine. The exception is it's a 12' wing span one and is running a 1.90ish sized engine. I trained one of their pilots at our club, and they were working with us for awhile. They ran into a problem with the design and due to weight and landing speed they took their system up to DC-RC. Other than basic concept they were kinda hush hush about it. That goes w/o saying.

[Zaviation]

Every activity we participate in is dangerous if you don't know what you are doing.

Regulations, Rules, and Restrictions

Will never replace or compensate for the lack of

Knowledge, Proficiency, Experience and Common Sense

Regards, John

[macboffin]

Been involved with UAVs for many years, kind of bigger FPVs. Some very good suggestions here, esp spotters, maintainance etc. BUT I imagine that if any "Official" requests were made to FAA etc they would first of all do some reearch as to how many were flying FPV. Then decide that such a large number of folks need regulating for their own good, and the publics good, and the good of the empire builders always looking for excuses to hire yet more unCivil Servants.The phrase "can of worms" comes to mind! Better to keep planes up and heads down?

[scrtsqrl]

All,
What do you use to judge whether or not a site is fit for flying?

[PeteSchug]

All,
What do you use to judge whether or not a site is fit for flying?

I am assuming you mean a non club, pressed into service field.

1. Can I get my plane back.
2. Am I a danger to anyone
3. Am I going to annoy anyone.
4. Am I going to get arrested.

On item one, I've flown in places where getting my plane back has been difficult but there was no problem with the other items to worry about, so I flew and on my fourth try managed to land on the ground instead of bashing a tree!

Items two and three should apply to any flying.

Item four sounds like a joke but I did have a flight in Vermont where the problem was having a life jacket. I think there would have been a one hundred dollar fine for launching the boat without one. The ranger looked at the plane, but I think the fact that it had an electric motor was enough to calm him down. Electric outboards were okay but not gas and I think he agreed that my little electric plane was not a danger to the ecology.

That's it for me.

Aside from wind, if I can see the airplane, or my spotter can see it and I can see the ground and there is an open place to land that is within the capabilities of pilot and aircraft. (I would never attempt to fly my easy star in some of the places that my pico tigermoth has flown.) I will give it a shot, and I have some videos to prove it. Or maybe those videos say something about me! ;)

Pete

[thomasscherrer]

what about insurence ?
all RC pilots in my contry are a member of a special RC-plane insurance system,
so we are covered in really good in case bad things happens.

BUT with FPV it is technical possible (with modified rc systems) to fly away several km,
what if some failure happens and your plane causes huge expensive damage, the insurance will not pay, since it is not flown at the registrered and approwed field..

same thing can apply in your contry, so check and double check the rules and regulations before attemting any (crasy) ideas.

[typicalaimster]

Here's some more food for thought.. Recently my club has been getting complaints from the neighbors about noise and airplane overflys. Of course this goes into a whole other political battle the neighbors are trying to do with the county. Long story short I ended up drawing up flight boundaries in Expert GPS and downloaded it to my GPS.

After I downloaded marker coordinates into my GPS I went over to the dollar store and picked up a couple of those foam pool noodles. I grabbed different colors so people could recognize how far from the field extents by color of the marker. For example the makers around the runway are green.. The mid markers that are 500 feet from the center of the runway are yellow, and the flight zone boundaries are marked as red. I then went over to the hardware store and picked up a couple 12' sections of 1/2" PVC pipe. The pool noodles have a hole in the middle of them, so basically you stake out your flight zone points. Then slide the pool noodle over the top of the PVC pipe.

I did a flight with the markers out in the field and they work REALLY well when you're flying FPV. I've often wondered how far OUT I fly when I'm under the hood. The markers out in the field allow me to patrol the parameter of our flight boundaries. Plus since I have a nice flight zone that's pretty close so I don't experience video dropouts.

Anywhoo figured I'd share.

[PeteSchug]

Interesting.

At our field 90 degrees to the flight line there is a fence with trees and underbrush at the property line. About a hundred yards inside that there is a line of ornamental trees that mark the limit that we allow ourselves to fly. I would guess that the nearest houses are 150 or 200 yards beyond the fence.

In the long direction we have a wood at one end and a swamp at the other. The swamp is notorious for eating planes. Many go in, few ever come out!

The ornamentals were planted deliberately, and in the few years that I have been with the club they have grown significantly.

I am the only one doing video (pilotage or otherwise), but most people have a pretty good idea of where they are in relation to the field limits, and when we tested sound levels at the property line one of our guys flew a plane right over the ornamentals while we measured the sound levels at the fence. We were pretty close to the ornamentals and the pilot was pretty far, but he nailed the distance very well.

Pete

[dmackie]

How bout practice on flight sims? Surely that's got to be the closest thing to real FPV..

[vrfpvflyer]

Any One Flying FPV at a US AMA santioned Field? Bennett Field in Las Vegas NV is where I had been flying FPV. Most people spectators as well as other RC flyers there had no problem with me flying that way. In fact they know I was out of their usual pattern of flying. Heli's share the runway. They fly at end of it. As an FPV pilot to land, I call the landing. I see heli's sometimes they do not hear us. So sometimes abort and retry calling landing again. Now try ground to air visual and take your eyes off plane to see if heli is out of the way. Don't think so. Seen a few mid air collisions between the two. My point being, Most people ther state that I am a safe and respecful FPV pilot. Including take off and landings. I have been reported to the AMA by just very few who do not think I should fly there FPV. For now I am not allowed to do so. I read AMA's under radio control # 10 stating no enhancements. However they are not specific! Rules posted at Bennett. 1 no alcoholic beverages! yet those few who do not want FPV do drink while flying!. 2 pets on leash. RC pilot well one I know of has big lab who has distracted me and others while flying! They get away with it. The park police have not caught any of them drinking or loose dogs. The field is a county park. I consider drinking at the field is like drinking and then operating a motor vehicle, while they are flying. I have posted in RC cam forum the letter from the AMA. You can find under the general section. 2 places I can still fly FPV is at Lead Mead NV field and The Dry Lake near Vegas. By the way I have had people who believe FPV is safe write statements and signed their own statement about how safe and respecful I am at Flying FPV. I can send to the AMA.
Thank for your time in reading this.

[vrfpvflyer]

Oh sorry in the RC Cam Forum I am lvsupertech.
Topic AMA not allowing FPV.

[VRflyer]

I have impression to read my story.
It was the same for me, peoples at my club was considering me as one of the most safest pilot. I proove manytime the advantage of video when my glow motor quit, I was able to find differents place to land etc.
We have the sames rules as you, at first some peoles said I must kept visual contact with the planes. Today everyone agree someone must remain in visual contact, so a spotter on my side while flying is accepted now.
Even the president of our association came to my house and we pass the day togheter with his wife. The association support me now, rules has been clarify.
Check carefully, the people who talk louder are the peoples who fly the biggest and most expensive planes. They don't want to see a newbie who don't know where he going with his plane, we are pros, we are the best, go play in a parc, let's the club for the real men.
They talk about how dangerous are our plane... they can kill many peoples with their plane, but no problem the law allow them, so they are safe.
It's preferable to fly outside r/ c club when you will be confident. You will have liberty.

Flying in r/c club for an FPV flyer is like flying in a cage for a bird.

[vrfpvflyer]

I have impression to read my story.
It was the same for me, peoples at my club was considering me as one of the most safest pilot. I proove manytime the advantage of video when my glow motor quit, I was able to find differents place to land etc.
We have the sames rules as you, at first some peoles said I must kept visual contact with the planes. Today everyone agree someone must remain in visual contact, so a spotter on my side while flying is accepted now.
Even the president of our association came to my house and we pass the day togheter with his wife. The association support me now, rules has been clarify.
Check carefully, the people who talk louder are the peoples who fly the biggest and most expensive planes. They don't want to see a newbie who don't know where he going with his plane, we are pros, we are the best, go play in a parc, let's the club for the real men.
They talk about how dangerous are our plane... they can kill many peoples with their plane, but no problem the law allow them, so they are safe.
It's preferable to fly outside r/ c club when you will be confident. You will have liberty.

Flying in r/c club for an FPV flyer is like flying in a cage for a bird.

Thank You VRFLYER for your time on this. For now I fly FPV at a dry lake south of Las Vegas NV. Another area to fly FPV is Lake Mead RC airstrip. Both areas not AMA santioned. However there is a freq post to pin up. Moving up to 2.4 GHZ for control of planes. Spectrum. I have written to the AMA along with statements from other RC pilots, that I am safe and respecful. I now have a float sea monster plane. It will fly out of the water or a field. Just received the new 900 MHZ 500 milliwatt system to install on it. Will be able hopefully to have my wife drive our boat while I fly FPV across the lake :). Will let you know. Will post you tube link.
I hope I do not drown plane lol.

[gwenhastings]

deleted

[typicalaimster]

Splitting off the tent thread since it's nothing to do with safety ;)

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=791530

[Jason1970]

Hello,

Could someone please tell me more or where to purchase GPS return to home device?

I'm new to PFV, done 4 flights now and its pretty cool.:)


I read the top topic and the return to home feature sound interesting and flying should be safer incase of signal lose.

I already have a GPS installed for the OSD, can I just add this device to it??

Your commenst wold be welcomed,,

Thank you gents

Regards
Jason

[Trackercal]

Hello,

Could someone please tell me more or where to purchase GPS return to home device?

I'm new to PFV, done 4 flights now and its pretty cool.:)


I read the top topic and the return to home feature sound interesting and flying should be safer incase of signal lose.

I already have a GPS installed for the OSD, can I just add this device to it??

Your commenst wold be welcomed,,

Thank you gents

Regards
Jason
http://www.intelligentflight.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=34
Dragon OSD [DOSD-100] - $260.00 : Intelligent Flight, Smart flight solutions Here is the location I was given for the return to base gear.

[FPV-UK]

Hi All,

With my father’s help (he has 40 years of model flying experience, 30 years flying full size and 20 years of dealing with the CAA) I have put together a UK FPV safety list and risk assessment (using the CAA risk assessment guidelines) for inclusion with each of our products when we ship them.

I have thoroughly read through this thread and I think that my guidelines include all of the items relevant to the UK.

I would appreciate any comments/ feedback.

It will lose its formatting on this forum so I have attached the Word file and PDF where you can see the tables, etc. intact.

Many thanks

Simon Dale
www.firstpersonview.co.uk

[Mark Harris]

Very nice Simon, that looks quite comprehensive.

[SOCADJE]

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned a way for a flyer to post his FPV setup for review and comments as to Video/downlink Equipment used and platform used.. has this idea taken root ?
Also I would like to add a comment about using Quality servos.. Plastic gear servos should be discourged in FPV use.. I recommend only metal gear servos... Plastic gears are too fragile in my opinion...

[typicalaimster]

I've been using plastic gear servos for awhile now. Then again I make sure I have the servos rated at the right torque!

[SOCADJE]

IMHO :)
plastic gear servos are a crash waiting to happen.. again in my opinion metal Gears are proven to be less likley to strip.. this Thread is about Safe FPV flying and opinions and advice on how to achieve that end.. Long ago I stopped using HS-55's and discount entry level servos due to a wing servo stripping after I bumped the wing removing it from my truck.. since then all of my planes use metal gear servos and I have yet to have a Metal Gear servo fail from stripping..or from bumping a control surface.. I have replaced many metal gear servos not due to stripping but due to Safety.. I have many hours of RC flight under my belt and feel that a servo and related linkage wear over time and should be replaced just as a part of a Preventive measure.. of course my nephews RE-use the used parts in their Slowsticks and other Park Flyers which is fine in my opinion, I have no idea of the lifetime of a servo and do not care to test fate with a FPV platform that has taken a long time to research and build..I have been reading this thread for a long time and appreciate all the info and advice and Opinions you and countless others added to this Forum. This is just mine.. FPV flying has to be Performed in a Safe and responsible manner... When a component on my FPV planes even seem to be worn or glitchy I will stop flying and replace.. I have never lost a FPV Platform due to equipment failures or pilot error and never want to. $1000.00 plus more ....worth of plane relying on a bit of plastic gear makes my wallet shutter.. again in my opinion.

[twinturbostang]

Socadje: Thanks for your comments. While I myself do use plastic gear servos (in some cases), I do appreciate your point of view. I think this falls under the general heading of using good equipment. What exactly constitutes "good" equipment is somewhat of a personal opinion. But one should definitely take care in deciding what components they will be using, and not base their decision on cost alone.

[SOCADJE]

too bad this thread ( FPV SAFETY ) does not get a lot of views... the what to buy thread should include an item called " TIME " to read safety thread

[jbourdon]

SOCADJE, >I stopped using HS-55's
what replacement MG are you using instead.
I use HS81/82MG, but 55 are smaller, no?

[SOCADJE]

SOCADJE, >I stopped using HS-55's
what replacement MG are you using instead.
I use HS81/82MG, but 55 are smaller, no?

Hi .. I use HS-85 and HS-81MG servos in all of my planes. .. Yes of course HS-55 are smaller and lighter than MG servos.. and do work ok for planes that are light.. most FPV aircraft are not as light as a stock setup and IMHO require a servo that can handel the extra flight stresses and are less prone to failure... Again this is my opinion and I sure wish the HS-55 and other light weight servos would be available with metal gears.. If anyone knows of a smaller light weight servo that has MG please let me know..

[scrtsqrl]

Friends,

Of course, different rules apply to different places...And yes, I have broken this rule as well...

However, of all the Good Practices I adhere to most strictly, it is to STAY BELOW 500 feet AGL (or what ever that is in meters...The full scale aviation comunity uses feet.). In fact, I usually stay below 400 feet, just to give myself a buffer...

I do this primarily to avoid full scale aircraft...In my experience, below that altitude, full scale pilots are more alert because they are more apt to expect something small or unusual...Higher than that, they're looking for airplanes and will likely not be looking out for smaller hazards like the planes we fly...

I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do, I just wanted to share that with y'all.

Thanks!

JBB

[tvdude310]

Hi folks-
I started this thread:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=893571#post10142101
in hopes of protecting our hobby. Since safety is the primary issue, I thought it would be appropriate to link here.
All are welcome.:)
Thanks,
Rob

[scrtsqrl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvRgcVnD6U0&eurl=http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=898375#post10205484

Not just Class B Airspace...probably one of the two most sensitive Class B Airspaces (the other being DC) in the PLANET...

It was not FPV, but if the black suits come knocking...we will surely be lumped in...

At a minimum, we must distinguish ourselves from these unfortunately un-informed activities...

[tvdude310]

Pretty pictures, but not what I'd call "safe". :(

I went to the YouTube site, it's apparently not an FPV flight. It's visual line of sight with a camera transmitting. Still, this is the kind of thing that's going to get the hobby into trouble. I did notice, however, that he tried to stay over or on one side of the river.
The problem with airborne cameras is that they provide evidence of bad judgement, and the videos (however cool looking they might be) get posted on the internet. They become "self-sensationalizing" and add fuel to the fire for those who would call the hobby unsafe.
But we also see videos of guys racing down the highway on their motorcycles standing up on the seat, and so far nobody is trying to outlaw motorbikes.
I don't know, maybe some strong efforts on educating modellers is needed. Or just having a copy of the current guidelines included with each model or other piece of equipment.
Anyway, just my feelings on the video.

[twinturbostang]

I'm really wondering why that was posted to the SAFETY thread.

Scrtsqrl, please edit your post to state that "this is an example of a poor location to fly from".

[scrtsqrl]

I'm really wondering why that was posted to the SAFETY thread.

Scrtsqrl, please edit your post to state that "this is an example of a poor location to fly from".

I thought it was obvious...

Done...

[twinturbostang]

I thought it was obvious...

Done...
lol Yeah probably so. Thanks for updating it though. :)

[goliathman]

twinturbostang said: "So you will want tx/rx components that are of good quality and have good transmission range. "


The transmitter should not be boosted in power beyond FCC regs for safety at other fields in the area. check the specs for this video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZctEMMHICQA&NR=1


I dont have a problem with flying beyond visual range, AMA wont cover you,but thats your problem. I do have a problem with some Ahole boosting His 9C to 3 watts!

[David22]

nice vid

[goliathman]

nice vid

Here is a vid of the proper use of FPV. This would pass muster even with the AMA. Notice also the working controls. This is truly quality FPV!

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTDuGaTRiJU&NR=1"

Here is the controls for the teddy, the head moves on the rudder signal.

http://homepage1.nifty.com/CUE/drifter/controlunit_e.htm

[David22]

That is the funniest vid and so well done!

[goliathman]

heres another.

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVn1RlvDDxU&NR=1"

[David22]

you know the person who started this thread is going to not like you
but another good one love the ending lol

[twinturbostang]

goliathman: Keep in mind that we have an international community here. I believe the video you posted was done outside the US, which means the FCC does not apply. In that case, any modifications he made to the transmitter should be in compliance with his local regulations. That said, lets please keep this on topic with safety related items. Thanks.

Brian

[goliathman]

boosting TX power is unsafe anywhere. and thats defintely all about safety.

OR:

I think we can safely say that boosting power of the TX should be declared unsafe anywhere. and that should be considered part of this tread.

[David22]

I agree but it gives unsafe ideas not lol
what did they do just boost tx

the config. looked very confusing to me

did not think aircraft could be controlled that far

i think it was your examples with the bear

[goliathman]

To put it another way will you allow an FPVer to fly at your AMA field if the AMA doesn't allow this?


"No model aircraft shall be equipped with devices which allow it to be flown to a selected location which is beyond the visual range of the pilot"

This clause completely prohibits putting first-person video piloting gear in a plane AT ALL. No loopholes flying with a spotter, instructor, or within visual range using FPV equipment. AMA prohibits putting FPV equipment in the plane COMPLETELY. "

So: find a safe, remote, unihabited place to fly.
DO NOT boost your TX.
Get lots of private insurance.
DO NOT fly over sensitive areas.
Be sure to plaster your vids all over the net.

[David22]

that is interesting

[goliathman]

Scary to! If you had an incendiary, penetrating, shaped charge you could fly it over a fuel depoe and boom!

I love the vids. It looks like fun. But the first time the technology is abused for evil we could end up with laws like the DC gun regs or airport safety regs affecting our sport.

We got the frequencies. we got the fields to fly at Mostly under the aegis of the AMA. We could lose it all if somebody does something stupid with his FPV.

[tvdude310]

"No model aircraft shall be equipped with devices which allow it to be flown to a selected location which is beyond the visual range of the pilot"

This clause completely prohibits putting first-person video piloting gear in a plane AT ALL. No loopholes flying with a spotter, instructor, or within visual range using FPV equipment. AMA prohibits putting FPV equipment in the plane COMPLETELY. "


Not so.
This clause MAY prohibit FPV flights AT AN AMA FIELD, but says absolutely nothing about other areas, where FPV (and RC) is perfectly legal.