Jump to content


Trusted Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Daytona

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    United Kingdom
  1. I thought some people might be interested in this news: The British FPV Model Flying Association committee are today pleased to announce two new types of membership to the association. In addition to the usual £15 insured membership which renews each August, as of today members will be able to take a 9 month 'bridging' membership which begins December 1st and expires 31 August annually. This new membership costs £11.25. We are also now able to offer membership without insurance for those members who wish to be part of the BFPVMFA but already have insurance from elsewhere. This will cost £3 and will run from 1st August to 31st August annually. Please visit http://www.bfpvmfa.org/join.htm if you're interested.
  2. Hi Terry, I see your point and I would not be surprised if the CAA's rules were initially based on the BMFA's but then they have been worded in such a way that they outlaw FPV entirely. I don't think the BMFA meant for FPV to be banned entirely so they may back us up and push the CAA to at least make the rule more clear (I also think that the way they've worded the clause actually outlaws flying models whilst wearing glasses...which will surely affect a huge number of model pilots). The BMFA's guidelines are a little more explicit than the CAA's. They say: Two pilots must take part • A buddy Box system must be employed • The pilot in charge must operate the master transmitter • The pilot in charge must not wear the headset or view a screen • The aircraft remains within the natural unaided visual range of the pilot in charge • Reliable operation of the Buddy Box is established • A clear handover protocol is established • The pilot in charge is solely responsible for the safety of the flight These operating conditions very clearly place the legal responsibility for the safety of the flight on the pilot in charge. These are quite different to the changes that the CAA propose. The CAA change makes no mention of a second pilot or a buddy lead or any of that stuff. If I had to defend myself in a court of law I would find it very hard to argue that the "Person in charge of the aircraft" was anyone other than the person in control of the aircraft - ie the person moving the sticks. The CAA's proposed changes affect UK law where as the above are a guideline to members so this is quite a different issue. I think speaking to the BMFA is definitely worth a go, although I'm not sure I'm the best person to do it All the best Simon
  3. Hi Terry, I agree with you. Would you make an approach to the BMFA and find out if they know/ if they can do anything to stop it please? I guess it would be Manny Williamson. In the past I've heard (2nd hand news) that he is a little anti-FPV but I'm very willing to be proved wrong on that. Thanks Simon
  4. That was a reply to a question on the comment and response document relating to the regulation of surveilance and data aquisition. No permission will need to be sought to have a camera on a model if you are doing it for recreation and away from people and property. However, separate to that, they have added 98(3) to the ANO which will make FPV flying illegal because we can not "maintain direct unaided visual contact with the aircraft". Incidentally this also outlaws anyone who wears glasses/ contact lenses or sunglasses when they fly.
  5. Dear All, I discovered yesterday that the CAA intend to make flying by FPV illegal in changes to the Air Navigation Order due to be introduced in November this year. This is despite previous written assurances that FPV flying would not be caught up in the new changes for UAV/ UAS operations. Page 13 of the document here http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1727/20090923lLightUAVLetterOfIntentImpactAssessment.pdf includes the clause: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE AIR NAVIGATION ORDER ARTICLES Regulation of Small Aircraft 98 (3) The person in charge of a small aircraft shall maintain direct unaided visual contact with the aircraft sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions I have this morning written to my local MP (my letter attached in PDF format) and I urge each of you to do the same very urgently. If 30 or so of us each write to our local MP we may stand a chance of blocking this new clause from becoming law. You can find your local MP here: http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/ I have attached a rough draft of a letter that each of you could use as a basis for your letter in Word format. I have also approached a Barrister this morning who specialises in aviation law in the hope that he might help us on a pro bono basis and I also intend to seek help through these two pro bono websites: http://www.barprobono.org.uk/ and http://www.probonouk.net/ I hope we can stop this becoming law by working together. Please publicise this and get as many people as possible to write to their MPs. Thanks Simon SampleLetter1.doc CAAANOchangeLocalMP1.pdf
  6. Hi, I have an unopened brand new Dragon OSD for sale. I bought it about 3 months ago and have never got around to installing it. As you can see from the photos it is exactly as brand new. You can see more details of the product here: http://www.intelligentflight.com/webstore/DragonOSD-Starter-Kit-P34.aspx This OSD has been developed by Daniel Wee and is open source and incredibly powerful. There is a big user community around the Dragon OSD. You can see from the link above that the item cost $564.75 AUS which is £294/ $480 USD/ 336 EUR today. I would like to get around £199 for it. Please make me an offer by PM. Many thanks Daytona
  7. Hi Kilrah, I absolutely agree with you. No insurance company will cover anyone who is being intentionally reckless, blatantly dangerous or stupid. We must promote safe flying at all times and our safety guidelines will be promoted thoroughly within the membership. We never want anything bad to happen to a 3rd party and we don't ever want to claim on the insurance. Because all of our members will be following our carefully thought out and thoroughly promoted guidelines the risk of this should be kept to an absolute minimum. We just need to be sure the policy covers normal risks and that it is not directly linked to our advice, guidelines, etc. The two things are separate. You make good points about the size of the organisations in question having an impact on this. Hopefully the few of us FPV pilots can steer clear of the red tape neccessary to manage many thousands of members like the BMFA has. Regards Simon
  8. Hi guys, The BMFA quite clearly believe that none of their members will take any notice of anything they say unless they back up their statements with vague threats of the insurance being invalidated. Either this means that the BMFA have placed their insurance with a bunch of crooks or they are stretching the truth to make their guidelines seem a bit more like rules. The BFPVMFA insurance and its guidelines are two separate things and I think we should avoid the BMFA's tactics and never try to link the two. The insurance policy is a standard radio control model/ model engineer policy with an additional covernote to include FPV flying. As soon as the policy documentation arrives I will review it and make sure that there is no link to any rules about FPV, etc. I will also publish the document for everyone to see. As a separate issue regarding the guidelines themselves I suggest that we all look at your points, along with some that other people have made, when the BFPVMFA starts. I’ll install a forum system for the BFPVMFA and we can discuss the new BFPVMFA guidelines there (perhaps we'll even decide not to use the FirstPersonView.co.uk guidelines as a basis at all and we'll start from scratch). To give you an idea we're up to 31 interested members so far I think so I think we're on! All the best Simon Dale
  9. Fixed. This forum had included the ) as part of the url. Thanks Simon
  10. Dear All, Here is an email that I sent to everyone on the FirstPersonView.co.uk mailing list yesterday evening. I've had a fantastic response so far and the membership and insurance will cost under £20 each at the moment. With a few more members it'll come down further still. Please let me have your expressions of interest as mentioned below either by email through the contact form on firstpersonview.co.uk or by private message on this forum. Many thanks Simon Dale www.firstpersonview.co.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear UK FPV Pilot, I am writing to you today because you are a member of the FirstPersonView.co.uk mailing list and I have important news to share with you about FPV (First Person View) flying in the UK. Over the last several months the following points have become clear to me: • A large number of pilots who fly FPV find the BMFA rules regarding buddy leads are impractical and ill thought out, and as such those people find themselves flying safely and legally (as far as the CAA are concerned) but without 3rd party liability insurance (because they are not covered by the BMFA when not following their rules). • The BMFA do not have the interests of FPV pilots as their primary focus and as a result the interests of FPV pilots have already been, and are likely to continue to be, under-represented/ misrepresented in discussions with the CAA and other bodies. To address these issues several UK FPV flyers have approached me about forming a properly constituted flying association which would promote safe and responsible FPV flying (such as in these guidelines http://www.firstpersonview.co.uk/myfiles/file/FPVsafety.pdf), represent FPV pilots to the CAA and other bodies (E.g. Ofcom for spectrum allocation) and offer 3rd party liability insurance to its members. I am very pleased to announce that I have now negotiated £5m 3rd party liability insurance which includes FPV flying (and all normal RC flying, European cover, etc) and we are therefore now in a position to form such an association. In the absence of a less wordy name I propose the British FPV Model Flyers Association (BFPVMFA). The insurance will cost £395pa for up to 50 members. If there are enough interested people I propose that we form the BFPVMFA and charge a nominal fee (perhaps £1) for membership plus the insurance. So if we got the full 50 members it would be £9 each. I have the UKSport constitution documents here to form the association and I would invite people to put themselves forward for the committee positions (chairman, membership secretary, treasurer, safety officer, etc – perhaps one person can do several jobs?) and then we can have an online election from the candidates. (I would hope that this association could be run entirely by email with the absolute minimum of paperwork/bureaucracy: we certainly don’t want to build a monster). Obviously this is all only feasible if we get enough members so that the group insurance premium can be covered - I would think that if there are twenty of us willing to pay £20 each then we are off and running – but obviously the more the merrier (and the cheaper). Could you therefore reply to this email and let me know: • If you are interested in becoming a founder member. • If so whether you are interested in having a committee position/role. • What is the most you would be prepared to pay. Further details on the insurance will be available before anyone is asked to produce any money – at the moment what we need is an expression of interest. Please pass this email on to any other UK FPV pilots that you know. Yours sincerely Simon Dale
  11. We have a few bits and bobs available too... What do you need specifically? Simon www.firstpersonview.co.uk
  12. There are two things here. 1) The BMFA's FPV guidelines (in my opinion a knee jerk reaction without spending any time understanding FPV) 2) The CAA's rules (IE Law) about aerial work. First of all its important to remember that the BMFA don't make law. You will need follow their rules to be covered by their insurance and fly on their sites but that's quite different to air law. If you can fly on a non-BMFA site, ideally with your own insurance then you're clear of the BMFA's influence. Hopefully one day soon there will an FPV association with its own best practice guidelines and its own insurance cover. The BMFA guidelines say that the pilot in charge must be the person looking at the aircraft directly with his eyes from the ground. They graciously allow for another person to be connected by a buddy lead and wear goggles, etc. but that second person must not be in charge. From what you've said (the charging bit notwithstanding - see below for that) I think the BMFA would be perfectly happy with your setup and you would be covered by their insurance (all they care about is that nobody actually flies FPV...the real flying (the pilot in charge) flies conventionally). The CAA on the other hand do make law and they make a very clear distinction between recreational flying and "aerial work" (anything involving reward in exchange for flying work). I think you would fall foul of this. In the upcoming changes to CAP658 once you step outside of recreational use you become a UAV operator and there are all sorts of extra rules (including a license fee, notifying the CAA when and where you will be flying, etc). Basically it is to be avoided if possible. With other kinds of aviation I've seen a couple of work arounds for this aerial work restriction which you may want to look into. I'm not 100% on the ins and outs of this so please look into it yourself: 1) An "air experience trial lesson" from a flying school is different to a "30 minute joy ride". When you see a place on the side of the road offering "helicopter rides" they'll most likely actually be a registered school and you would partake in a trial lesson. I'm not sure if this one will help you but perhaps you could form a flying school of your own. 2) Members of a flying club can all chip in towards the running of the club. In theory you could form a tiny club, make your "ab initio pilots" (punters) into members and then ask them to contribute £3 towards the running of the club equipment. Like I say I'm not 100% on the ins and outs of this but its how Gliding clubs and Microlight schools work as far as I know. Simon
  13. Mark tells me we'll have these available first half of next week. The wait is almost over! Thankyou to the all of our patient customers who have pre-ordered. Simon
  14. I have been doing some digging and unfortunately 5.8GHz looks like a no go for legal use in the UK. Ofcom have reserved this for "Fixed Wireless Access" for Rural Broadband use and you need to apply for a license to use it for that purpose. Other uses, such as aerial video sending, seem to be illegal in the UK. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/ifi/lic.../5.8_fwa_index/ What services may use 5.8 GHz Band C? The band at 5725 MHz to 5850 MHz (Band C) can be used for the Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) services, with particular application in areas where broadband is unavailable through standard delivery platforms. FWA operating at band C can be used to provide broadband services to a range of business, private and public users. 900MHz also seems to be out of the question, legally speaking, and Vodafone and o2 operate on 900MHz. I have got hold of a Wi-Spy USB spectrum analyser and 2.4Ghz is certainly busy where I live (in dense apartment accomodation in the centre of a city (I can pick up over 10 WiFi networks with a standard 4db stock WiFi antenna for instance)) but out at the flying field there was virtually nothing detected, which is good.
  15. Daytona

    Hi Folks

    Hi Dan, You're just down the road from us, we're based in Wetherby, West Yorkshire (and admin office in Brighton). Welcome to a fantastic hobby/ sport! It sounds like you're going to be a very interesting one to watch with your knowledge and access to equipment! Anything you need to know, just ask. I, or the many many more experienced FPVers here, will be happy to help. Happy Flying! Simon
  • Create New...