BMFA MultiRotor/FPV SIG Draft Agenda

[bunnygirl80]

Hi guys,

Just to let you know, here is the draft agenda for the BMFA';s up and coming SIG meeting this Saturday.

1.   Introductions.
2.   Summary of aims of the meeting (discussion group).
3.   Current CAA exemption for FPV operation.
4.   Compliance with CAP658.
5.   Use of return to home as a failsafe option for multicopter operation.
6.   Use of return to home as a failsafe option for FPV operation.
7.   Use of return to home as a failsafe option for general operation.
8.   Description of commercial activity/aerial work.
9.   BMFA achievement schemes for multicopters?
10.    Autonomous flight/autopilot.
11.    Use of GPS waypoints.
12.    Sense and avoid considerations.
13.    Definition of model flight.
14.    PR considerations.
15.    Future wish list.
16.    Summary of feedback to CAA.
17.    AOB

[bunnygirl80]

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!

[dazza22]

you would think the meeting was for multicopters only ,
does anyone have any inform on the BMFA views on multicopter ,could
this be the start of a witch hunt , or is it the opposite ? they are wanting
to  embrace us ?

[Big A]

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!

Hang on!!  Items 5 & 9 are the only multi-rotor specific items. Note it is  a Multi-rotor AND FPV interest group. Certainly no witchhunt anywhere!

[Gaza07]

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 

Not all flight controllers have return home so I hope they dont insist on it, I would of thought the current If a fail safe is fitted then it should be working would be enough 

[SimonS]

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.

[Big A]

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.

However producing guidance to help those that wish to comply with CAP658 seems an entirely reasonable and responsible thing to do.

[Biffa]

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 

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.

[bunnygirl80]

Gaz, Would it be possible for us to have a poll on the website?

1. How many multirotors do you have?
2. Do you use GPS?
3. Do you use Return to Home?
4. Do you use FPV?
5. Do you use waypoints?
6. Any other questions you can think of which might be relevant?

I';m intrigued to find out how many of us actually use all these features. This would be useful information that we could feed back to the BMFA which might help them.

[bunnygirl80]

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.

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.

I think it is clear that not all multirotor pilots fly fpv, use gps and features like return to home. These types of features are now becoming commonplace and a few members at our club have fixed wing aircraft with fpv, gps and return to home. My concern is that fpv and gps shouldn';t be bundled in with multirotors and should have a place all by themselves as they can apply to anyone who flies a model aircraft.

[Jumpy07]

Knocked one up for you..

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VWHL3MT

[Biffa]

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.

I don';t need the BMFA.

The input or involvement of the BMFA with the CAA will only benefit the organization itself or it';s members, they don';t represent the 1000';s of flyers who are not part of them.

[Tony Campbell]

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?

[Biffa]

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.

The problem is, this will run no matter what anyone wants. The only thing that comes from more and more bodies wanting a say in how things are managed is even more restrictions being put on what you can and cannot do.

I';d rather fly as I do, enjoying myself and following the rules already in place to protect us and everyone else. I don';t need a group who had no interest in MR or FPV in particular in the first place suddenly looking out for me and helping to ';shape'; the future of the hobby.

Maybe I am a little cynical, but it just looks like someone trying to get  hold on a hobby that is slipping away from them and they can no longer keep up with.

[Allanm]

Knocked one up for you..

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VWHL3MT

I';m a sucker for surveys. I filled it in!
Allan

[esoarer]

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?

If you have not seen this - it may be worth a read - plus the associated links.
http://www.bmfa.org/news/
I have been involved indirectly with the BMFA for many years, and have played a part in rule making particularly over the last 5 years with new electric powered glider classes (eSoaring). The BMFA is the National Body for all model flying and represent the FAI in the UK as well as having the strongest voice in the UK with the CAA. They have been watching developments in the FPV field in particular for some time and are naturally concerned about some of the very obvious infringements of CAA "Guidance" which are openly published on the web on a daily basis. Anyone in the BMFA will have read the recent articles in the BMFA news and in particular Manny Williamson';s comments on page 4 of the April BMFA news. You can be sure that the BMFA have the interests of ALL model flyers at heart and that the SIG they are setting up will enable a much stronger voice to the CAA and other involved international bodies than any other approach. There is nothing to stop anyone contacting the BMFA directly if they are at all concerned about their motives. I can understand the concerns - I';ve been flying model for over 50 years, so I know a little about "politics" within clubs and organisations, but I';m sure you will find that BMFA involvement will be well worthwhile and maybe even essential if we are not be faced with unreasonable restrictions imposed by certain bodies with no direct interest or involvement in our fascinating branch of RC model flying.

[SimonS]

However producing guidance to help those that wish to comply with CAP658 seems an entirely reasonable and responsible thing to do.

If you wish to comply with something then it should be CAP 393 which it the law.

I agree that there should be a guide produced to make it easier to understand what the law means and the CAA have done that by producing CAP658.

To talk about compliance with CAP658 is totally wrong!  You need to comply with the law as set out in CAP 393.

[steve fh]

I';ve posted this on the survey form thread but may as well say it here as well......

I think aerial photograpyh/filming need to be separated from FPV.  While they use similar equipment generally the flight pattern is very different.

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.

AP or filming is more likely carried out with the multi rotor in normal visual flight at closer ranges where it';s possible if the down link failed to still fly without the need to resort to automated return to home as the down link or "FPV" element is only used to frame a shot.

As far as i can see autonomous flight IE GPS led auto return to home or way-point flying where the pilot cannot intervene is one of the biggest areas any model flying is conflicting with the ANO as it prevents the observe and avoid requirement of VFR rules

While 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.

Both of these scenarios are more likely in full FPV type use (though not if you are following all the guide lines to the letter of the law) than AP use.

Items 5,6, & 7 on the list of topics being discussed are hopefully aimed at making this distinction but there has to be a slight worry that the two activities may get pushed together as far as private flying (non commercial flying) goes.

I think people also need to think some times about what they post on youtube, vimeo etc.  Crash clips and Daredevil urban flying may look good but lets not give people and the authorities a stick to beat us with.

[rickp]

As far as I can tell, the BMFA ignored multi-rotors (snobbery over the stabilised aspect perhaps?) - and now realise that the genie is out of the bottle and there are more and more folks flying them, making the BMFA less and less relevant.

As far as FPV is concerned - the BMFA sat back and let someone else do all the donkey work with the CAA and now want to muscle in.

Sorry, they';re not impressing me much with their attitude...

[Ross]

Quote: Steve fh:   
I think people also need to think some times about what they post on youtube, vimeo etc.  Crash clips and Daredevil urban flying may look good but lets not give people and the authorities a stick to beat us with.

Hear! hear!.....

[powerlord]

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.

maybe generally true, but you do have intelligent orientation (DJI) or simple mode (megapirateng), etc as an option.

I mostly use video on my DJI for just viewing on LCD connected to controller to see that I';m filming what i expect to be filming. And mostly fly in ';simple'; mode. However, occasionally I fly FPV and stick the goggles on - then obviously I need to disable simple mode to fly properly.

When I swap back to non-FPV whether because I just want to, or because I';ve lost video signal, I just flick back to simple mode again, and therefore always know how to get it back without caring about orientation.

so RTH is not required other than as a failsafe on signal loss (or manually because I';ve lost contact/control/etc)

[SimonS]

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.

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.

While 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.

You can override the RTH on a Naza by switching flight mode.

[steve fh]

Hi Simon.

Sorry if it came across as me implying that most FPV flyers are breaking the law. I don';t mean to imply that just that by the nature of FPV flown at any range there is more chance of it. (deliberate or accidental)

I did say later in my post that if the guide lines/rules for FPV are followed then there is no issue.

I agree you can over ride Naza RTH but only if it';s in radio range. So if it kicks in due to loss of signal long range there is a period where it is autonomous until it';s back in range. Ok that should be only a matter of a few seconds as it will come back into range once RTH kicks in.

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.

[SimonS]

No problem.  There have been a few posts on various forums that falsely claimed that once the Naza was in RTH there was nothing you could do to get it back out.

[davidnclare]

This hobby is supposed to be fun, join the BMFA or not join it is up to you.
Put your self in the other persons shoes, it somebody was flying around my house with a camera on it I would be upset.

[Big A]

http://www.bmfa.org/news/2013/07/fpv-multi-rotor-speciaf-interest-group-meeting-minutes-2042013/

[Col_M]

http://www.bmfa.org/news/2013/07/fpv-multi-rotor-speciaf-interest-group-meeting-minutes-2042013/

Page 3, section 8 - "visual line of site of the pilot"
Sorry, I let such stuff go if it';s an individual on a forum but as it';s a document from an organisation I couldn';t help it. 

[Big A]

Well spotted!!  Should be OK now.  :lipsrsealed