Discussion FPV Flying -- SAFETY!

[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]

Originally Posted by PeteSchug

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, the regulations for assembly and operation, plus the rules for design and construction. 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

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. 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]

Originally Posted by typicalaimster

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]

Originally Posted by twinturbostang

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]

Originally Posted by scrtsqrl

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.