3d Printing Service
Printing 3d Forum
Started by bunnygirl80, Wednesday,April 17, 2013, 15:56:58
Quote from: bunnygirl80 on Wednesday,April 17, 2013, 15:59:12 My initial concerns are that there are a lot of things included in the agenda which are not only specific to multirotors. For example, there are fixed wing pilots who use Cyclops Storm OSD with GPS for return to home with FPV. So, I'm concerned that these only seem to be focused on multirotor pilots, almost implying that fixed wing pilots don';t do FPV and RTH and use GPD.Let me know your thoughts!
Quote from: SimonS on Wednesday,April 17, 2013, 18:21:58 Item 4 is a load of cobblers. CAP 658 is a GUIDE to safe flying. It is not the law. There is no requirement to ';comply'; with any guide. The only compliance required is with CAP 393 - the ANO.
Quote from: Gaza07 on Wednesday,April 17, 2013, 17:50:08 I hope the BMFA do embrace multi rotors as its my main interest now and there wouldnt be much point me sticking with them if they ****** this up
Quote from: Biffa on Wednesday,April 17, 2013, 20:15:39 I can only see bad things happening Once multiple bodies start sticking their fingers into the pie, there';s never much to go round for everyone else. You watch, in a few years there will be so much legislation and rules it will all go tits up.Is there any need for ';guidance'; from anyone? There are already rules and regs in place enforced by the CAA.
Quote from: bunnygirl80 on Wednesday,April 17, 2013, 20:44:57 Steve, I do think we need the BMFA. They have their place. They are our collective voice and they are a recognised body who can pass our views to other bodies such as the CAA. I think our role here is to help them understand our hobby better.
Quote from: Tony Campbell on Wednesday,April 17, 2013, 21:24:20 I think it might be an idea to allow them in on this. After all, they may very well do good things for the Multirotor hobby. If things do go pear shaped, there is always the option to form a totally seperate association, complete with multirotor specific insurance etc.
Quote from: Jumpy07 on Wednesday,April 17, 2013, 20:51:46 Knocked one up for you.. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VWHL3MT
Quote from: Tony Campbell on Wednesday,April 17, 2013, 21:24:20 Although I am not a member of the BMFA, I think it might be an idea to allow them in on this. After all, they may very well do good things for the Multirotor hobby. If things do go pear shaped, there is always the option to form a totally seperate association, complete with multirotor specific insurance etc. I think I am right in saying that the FPV hobby did the same? No one wants to see division within the hobby, but why not let this run and see what happens?
Quote from: Big A on Wednesday,April 17, 2013, 18:28:57 However producing guidance to help those that wish to comply with CAP658 seems an entirely reasonable and responsible thing to do.
Quote from: steve fh on Thursday,April 18, 2013, 10:23:47 FPV the camera and down link are generally used as the primary way of flying the multi rotor and often at distances from the operator where visual orientation of the multi rotor would be hard or impossible without the use of the screen or goggles and if the down link is lost there is no option but to use automated return to home.
QuoteWhile technically on most systems you can over ride the auto return to home you can';t if the automated return to home or other fail safe was imitated due to loss of radio signal or loss of feed to a screen or goggles at a range where manual flight is not an option.
Quote from: SimonS on Thursday,April 18, 2013, 13:19:31 Steve, I suggest you read the CAA exemption again as you are suggesting that "generally" everyone is breaking the law. Item 3b states:-The person in charge is accompanied by a competent observer who maintains direct unaided visual contact with the SUA sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions and advises the person in charge accordingly. (my bold).If you are far enough away that you need to use the screen/goggles to monitor the flight path then you are not complying with the exemption.You can override the RTH on a Naza by switching flight mode.
Quote from: Big A on Thursday,July 04, 2013, 17:27:05 http://www.bmfa.org/news/2013/07/fpv-multi-rotor-speciaf-interest-group-meeting-minutes-2042013/
Page created in 0.213 seconds with 42 queries.