FPV Flying -- SAFETY! - Page 2

Majortomski · Dec 30, 2006, 10:02 AM

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 · Dec 30, 2006, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

PeteSchug · Dec 30, 2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · Dec 30, 2006, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrtsqrl

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.

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 · Dec 30, 2006, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteSchug

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 · Dec 30, 2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Majortomski

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 · Dec 30, 2006, 02:13 PM

I was really hoping that this kind of paranoia wouldn't dominate this new forum

, 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

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

... 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 · Dec 30, 2006, 02:55 PM

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 · Dec 30, 2006, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Majortomski

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 · Dec 30, 2006, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

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 · Dec 30, 2006, 06:34 PM

[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 · Dec 30, 2006, 06:37 PM

Introduction to ORM (Operational Risk Management)

For details please check this out...

"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 · Dec 30, 2006, 06:54 PM

Wow!!

typicalaimster · Jan 04, 2007, 01:08 AM

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 - Page 5, Section C

twinturbostang · Jan 04, 2007, 01:14 AM

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.

Dec 30, 2006, 06:37 PM	#27
scrtsqrl Just trying to get a nut. Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Stavanger, Norway Posts: 2,597	Introduction to ORM (Operational Risk Management) Introduction to ORM (Operational Risk Management) For details please check this out... "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 Last edited by scrtsqrl; Jan 01, 2007 at 12:06 AM.

Jan 04, 2007, 01:08 AM	#29
typicalaimster Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Northern Va Posts: 3,011	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 - Page 5, Section C Last edited by typicalaimster; Jan 04, 2007 at 01:19 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Discussion FPV Videos, For those that want to see what FPV flying is like, check these out !!!	JettPilot	Video Piloting (FPV/RPV)	511	Oct 14, 2007 01:18 PM
Discussion FPV flying between buildings in down town Rio de Janeiro	DuckBuff	Video Piloting (FPV/RPV)	19	Aug 26, 2007 05:47 PM
Gallery First video of my fpv flying buddy	AndrésMtnez	Video Piloting (FPV/RPV)	1	Jan 05, 2007 02:42 PM
Discussion New To FPV Flying	bigred113	Aerial Photography	7	Dec 12, 2006 08:05 PM
Cool FPV flying by video downlink- Video	reznikvova	Aerial Photography	12	Sep 05, 2006 03:21 PM

Dec 30, 2006, 10:02 AM	#16
Majortomski dusty bible = dirty life Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Oklahoma City OK USA Where fakts still exist even if they are ignored Posts: 2,027	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.

Dec 30, 2006, 02:13 PM	#22
AnthonyRC Registered User Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Switzerland Posts: 1,118	I was really hoping that this kind of paranoia wouldn't dominate this new forum , 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 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 ... 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'...

Dec 30, 2006, 02:55 PM	#23
Majortomski dusty bible = dirty life Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Oklahoma City OK USA Where fakts still exist even if they are ignored Posts: 2,027	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.

Dec 30, 2006, 06:34 PM	#26
PeteSchug Registered User Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Elmhurst, NY (Queens in NYC) Posts: 3,120	[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

Dec 30, 2006, 06:54 PM	#28
twinturbostang There goes my hobby money Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Germantown, MD Posts: 2,227	Wow!!

Jan 04, 2007, 01:14 AM	#30
twinturbostang There goes my hobby money Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Germantown, MD Posts: 2,227	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.