RSS Facebook

RCMF

*

RCMF Donations

Enjoy using RCMF? How about a wee donation to help us keep you in the style to which you've become accustomed?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 18, 2019, 15:03:00 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Articles

Author Topic: 400 feet  (Read 4015 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Michael_Rolls

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 133
  • -Receive: 103
  • Posts: 26,453
  • Liked: 1165
  • Country: gb
  • The older I get, the better I was!
  • BMFA Number: 20862
400 feet
« on: June 25, 2018, 13:09:18 PM »
Part if the carry over from the drone situation was the expectation that from the end of July a/c under 7 kgs would be restricted to at altitude limit of 400 feet. It looks as though this now may not be the case:-



From: BMFA South East Area [mailto:webadmin@bmfa.org]
Sent: 16 June, 2018 7:39 PM
To: bobhop@ntlworld.com
Subject: The Latest on the new regulation from head office.

 

Dear BMFA Club.

The following was published on the BMFA website on the 15th June. Please pass on to your members.

I think you will agree this is good news for us all and a big thanks to Dave Phipps.

The latest meeting between the Department for Transport (DfT), Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and representatives from the UK Model Flying Associations took place this afternoon (Friday 15th June) at the DfT offices in London.

The most urgent matter to address was the recent change to the Air Navigation Order (ANO) which introduced (in Article 94A) a 400ft height limit on the operation of all Small Unmanned Aircraft (SUA) which will come into effect on the 30th July 2018. Whilst the changes to the ANO are primarily aimed at regulating ‘drones’, the 400ft restriction will also apply to model aircraft below 7Kg.

However, we are pleased to report that agreement was reached that the Model Flying Associations will collectively apply for an exemption from Article 94A to allow their members to continue operating model aircraft below 7Kg above 400ft as they do under the current ANO. The DfT and CAA were supportive of this course of action and did not foresee any reason why the exemption would not be in place in time for the 30th July.

Negotiations on the other changes introduced in the ANO (operator registration and online testing for pilots) remain ongoing, but for now it is business as usual for members of the BMFA, LMA, SAA & FPVUK. Happy flying!

 

https://bmfa.org/News/News-Page/ArticleID/2528/Update-on-changes-to-UK-Regulations-and-the-400ft-height-limit

Stuart Willis.

Area chairman


Properly trained, a man can be a dog's best friend


Offline itsme

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 157
  • -Receive: 86
  • Posts: 21,877
  • Liked: 2411
  • Country: gb
  • BMFA Number: 30131
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2018, 13:39:31 PM »
More unseen work the useless old grabbing BMFA does....we must be due a BMFA News soon- you would not believe the slagging off it gets from normally sensible model flyers. Well done Dave Phipps and all the other anonymous guys working on our behalf.  :af

Offline lanicopter

  • Renegade
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Air Commodore
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 22
  • -Receive: 22
  • Posts: 945
  • Liked: 301
  • Country: gb
  • FPV Pilot
  • BMFA Number: 206020
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2018, 14:17:42 PM »
Well it isn't just the BMFA doing the work - FPVUK have been doing it as well, they released this same summary weeks ago...

It's all moot anyway - neither the CAA or DfT have yet been able to define exactly what a drone is despite repeated attempts to extract that particular bit of information from them.

In summary - after years of talk, threats and ridiculous attempts at adding restrictions to the hobby, we'll all simply be able to carry on as normal.
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"


Offline EssJay

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Air Commodore
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 2
  • -Receive: 21
  • Posts: 773
  • Liked: 152
  • Country: gb
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2018, 16:05:52 PM »
When they say “business as usual for members” are they restricting this to BMFA affiliated club members or does it also include the many BMFA Country ( non-club) Members as well?
No trees were harmed by this post, but some electrons have been slightly inconvenienced

Offline Michael_Rolls

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 133
  • -Receive: 103
  • Posts: 26,453
  • Liked: 1165
  • Country: gb
  • The older I get, the better I was!
  • BMFA Number: 20862
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2018, 16:21:03 PM »
Well it isn't just the BMFA doing the work - FPVUK have been doing it as well, they released this same summary weeks ago...

It's all moot anyway - neither the CAA or DfT have yet been able to define exactly what a drone is despite repeated attempts to extract that particular bit of information from them.

In summary - after years of talk, threats and ridiculous attempts at adding restrictions to the hobby, we'll all simply be able to carry on as normal.
Absolutely - although as the meeting was on the 15th it can hardly be 'weeks ago'.
MIke
Properly trained, a man can be a dog's best friend


Offline Bad Raven

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 65
  • -Receive: 27
  • Posts: 6,194
  • Liked: 432
  • Country: gb
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2018, 17:02:47 PM »
As the two commonest places I fly are both 120 metre/400 feet limited already, and anyway I don't fly specs in the sky, I play with the terrain, its not going to change my situation very much. It of course would have done if the overall dropped and that cascaded the already lower limits or ranges.

Used to flying with altimeter screen and switch triggered readout on the thermal worthy stuff now, though mostly I'm flying models as fast as possible between 10 and 150 feet.
The user formerly know as Bravedan........... Well if Prince can do it....................

Offline rbp28668

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 2
  • -Receive: 5
  • Posts: 1,151
  • Liked: 7
  • Country: gb
  • Models, Computers, Electronics
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2018, 20:33:00 PM »
Given that the ANO uses the term "Small Unmanned Aircraft" the definition of a "drone" is moot.   Giving members of relevant associations an exemption seems unusually sensible as it's mainly muppets operating outside any framework (of legislation or common sense) they want to deal with.

Bruce

Bruce Porteous

Offline Alan H

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Wing Commander
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 6
  • -Receive: 18
  • Posts: 376
  • Liked: 22
  • Country: gb
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2018, 10:31:26 AM »
It may well be that members of recognized organisations such as the BMFA become exempt from the 400 foot rule but I was curious what sort of heights I was actually reaching. I put a recording altimeter in my Edge 540 (1.3m span balsa/ply electric powered) aerobatic plane at yesterdays club flying meeting. I have attached the results from two of the flights, on the first flight I did my usual selection of aerobatics but on the second flight I climbed up for a spin (I think I managed about twenty). You can see that on flight one everything was within 200 feet agl but when I climbed up to perform the spin I reached 600 feet.

Offline ludwig

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 6
  • Posts: 1,636
  • Liked: 57
  • Country: gb
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2018, 17:35:42 PM »
Naughty boy.  ;D


Offline Michael_Rolls

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 133
  • -Receive: 103
  • Posts: 26,453
  • Liked: 1165
  • Country: gb
  • The older I get, the better I was!
  • BMFA Number: 20862
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2018, 17:45:41 PM »
Naughty boy.  ;D
No he's not -the limit (hopefully) doesn't apply until the end of NEXT month
Mike
Properly trained, a man can be a dog's best friend

Offline Bad Raven

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 65
  • -Receive: 27
  • Posts: 6,194
  • Liked: 432
  • Country: gb
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2018, 05:47:56 AM »
No he's not -the limit (hopefully) doesn't apply until the end of NEXT month
Mike

Sorry Mike, but that is no blanket answer, as it depended where he was. Also its his responsibility to ensure the flight could be completed safely, which he may well have done, with (say) a spotter watching for full size incursion since he was exceeding their safe minimum. He may or may not have been in controlled airspace, he may or may not have undertaken the flight knowing there was the strong possibility of full size traffic in the area flown. He may have done it miles from air traffic on a NOTAM notified location.

Not making ANY accusations or inferences, or asking for justification/confirmation, its irrelevant to the post above, just saying, you don't KNOW enough detail from his report, so cannot confirm. 

Limits are conditional, not absolute.
The user formerly know as Bravedan........... Well if Prince can do it....................

Offline itsme

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 157
  • -Receive: 86
  • Posts: 21,877
  • Liked: 2411
  • Country: gb
  • BMFA Number: 30131
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2018, 06:57:45 AM »
Sorry Mike, but that is no blanket answer, as it depended where he was. Also its his responsibility to ensure the flight could be completed safely, which he may well have done, with (say) a spotter watching for full size incursion since he was exceeding their safe minimum. He may or may not have been in controlled airspace, he may or may not have undertaken the flight knowing there was the strong possibility of full size traffic in the area flown. He may have done it miles from air traffic on a NOTAM notified location.

Not making ANY accusations or inferences, or asking for justification/confirmation, its irrelevant to the post above, just saying, you don't KNOW enough detail from his report, so cannot confirm. 

Limits are conditional, not absolute.
exactly. Its not a rules are the rules situation. The catch all is 'making a safe flight' bit. I can fly to any height (although why would you?) as we have a notam on the airfield, but need an observer to look for skydivers.

Offline Michael_Rolls

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 133
  • -Receive: 103
  • Posts: 26,453
  • Liked: 1165
  • Country: gb
  • The older I get, the better I was!
  • BMFA Number: 20862
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2018, 08:00:17 AM »
Sorry Mike, but that is no blanket answer, as it depended where he was. Also its his responsibility to ensure the flight could be completed safely, which he may well have done, with (say) a spotter watching for full size incursion since he was exceeding their safe minimum. He may or may not have been in controlled airspace, he may or may not have undertaken the flight knowing there was the strong possibility of full size traffic in the area flown. He may have done it miles from air traffic on a NOTAM notified location.

Not making ANY accusations or inferences, or asking for justification/confirmation, its irrelevant to the post above, just saying, you don't KNOW enough detail from his report, so cannot confirm. 

Limits are conditional, not absolute.
I see what you are saying, but his comment was about getting down to a legal 400 feet in the clear assumption that the 400 limit was already in place. Based in that I have no grounds for considering that any of the criteria (all of them correct, of course) applied in this case
Mike
Properly trained, a man can be a dog's best friend

Offline lanicopter

  • Renegade
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Air Commodore
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 22
  • -Receive: 22
  • Posts: 945
  • Liked: 301
  • Country: gb
  • FPV Pilot
  • BMFA Number: 206020
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2018, 13:31:25 PM »
I find it fairly amusing that experienced modellers are debating which rules apply, whether a flight was safe etc.

I wonder if Joe Phantom will be inclined to spend his time doing the same, or if he'll just simply fly and not give a monkeys... I mean, it's fairly easy to see which is the least painful scenario simply by reading stuff on here.

Who do these rules help again? As Bruce Simpson has said on many an occasion, perhaps we should concentrate more on education than making rules...
« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 13:32:41 PM by lanicopter »
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

Offline itsme

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 157
  • -Receive: 86
  • Posts: 21,877
  • Liked: 2411
  • Country: gb
  • BMFA Number: 30131
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2018, 16:08:26 PM »
We are not going to speculate on people who fly illegally. If an unfortunate incident happens, I want to stand up in court with a clear conscience. They can do as they wish. (just not on my flying field) Guy has just ridden past my house on a motorbike with no helmet, far too fast and pulling wheelies. What do you expect me to do about that? Its his problem.

Offline lanicopter

  • Renegade
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Air Commodore
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 22
  • -Receive: 22
  • Posts: 945
  • Liked: 301
  • Country: gb
  • FPV Pilot
  • BMFA Number: 206020
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2018, 20:43:52 PM »
Well you've kind of just illustrated the point that no matter how many rules there are, they won't make a blind bit of difference except to those who already follow them.
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

Offline itsme

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 157
  • -Receive: 86
  • Posts: 21,877
  • Liked: 2411
  • Country: gb
  • BMFA Number: 30131
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #16 on: June 28, 2018, 05:49:29 AM »
Well you've kind of just illustrated the point that no matter how many rules there are, they won't make a blind bit of difference except to those who already follow them.
This is true in all walks of life.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk



Offline e-flite_rules

  • .
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Air Commodore
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 17
  • -Receive: 14
  • Posts: 836
  • Liked: 35
  • Country: gb
  • .
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2018, 11:25:35 AM »
Has the exemption mentioned in the BMFA bulletin been approved?  ie come Aug 1 can I legally fly my 1kg plane at 500ft?

Offline Alan H

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Wing Commander
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 6
  • -Receive: 18
  • Posts: 376
  • Liked: 22
  • Country: gb
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2018, 08:46:30 AM »
As far as I am aware, we are still waiting for an announcement on the subject of 400 foot rule exemption.

Offline FrankS

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 42
  • -Receive: 57
  • Posts: 3,399
  • Liked: 102
  • Country: gb
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2018, 22:02:12 PM »
As far as I am aware, we are still waiting for an announcement on the subject of 400 foot rule exemption.

Not anymore https://www.largemodelassociation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/UK-Model-Aircraft-Associations-Permission.pdf  :af

Follow members gave a thank to your post:


Offline e-flite_rules

  • .
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Air Commodore
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 17
  • -Receive: 14
  • Posts: 836
  • Liked: 35
  • Country: gb
  • .
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #20 on: July 25, 2018, 02:00:46 AM »
Not anymore https://www.largemodelassociation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/UK-Model-Aircraft-Associations-Permission.pdf  :af

Excellent news!  Well done to the various model flying organisations that sorted this out.  So I can continue flying 500 ft diameter loops with my ridiculously over powered Sunrise.  :)

Offline Michael_Rolls

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 133
  • -Receive: 103
  • Posts: 26,453
  • Liked: 1165
  • Country: gb
  • The older I get, the better I was!
  • BMFA Number: 20862
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #21 on: July 25, 2018, 05:28:04 AM »
Great!
Mike
Properly trained, a man can be a dog's best friend

Offline wunwinglow

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Air Commodore
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 6
  • -Receive: 9
  • Posts: 742
  • Liked: 34
  • Country: gb
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #22 on: July 25, 2018, 08:00:50 AM »
Thanks to all the people in BMFA, LMA, SAA, and FPVUK for their hard work, and to the CAA for their continued support for our hobby.

Offline PDR

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 6
  • -Receive: 80
  • Posts: 22,984
  • Liked: 2535
  • Country: gb
  • Stupid is as stupid does. My mission is to stop it
  • BMFA Number: 63119
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #23 on: July 25, 2018, 08:44:42 AM »
It's a bit unfortunate that the wording seems to restrict a model chinook to below 400', but I guess we can live with that.

PDR
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...

Offline lanicopter

  • Renegade
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Air Commodore
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 22
  • -Receive: 22
  • Posts: 945
  • Liked: 301
  • Country: gb
  • FPV Pilot
  • BMFA Number: 206020
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2018, 09:00:19 AM »
It also does not exempt any aircraft which has RTH "capability" which is a little ridiculous to say the least. The exemption essentially means nothing for FPV pilots.

I feel that the FPV crowd have been screwed, when arguably our aircraft pose less of a threat to both air and ground than the huge behemoths being flown by traditional pilots (albeit in a fixed location).

I'm viewing this as a good thing though - I've always said that it wasn't distance from home which was the problem, it was more the altitude.  A 400ft ceiling works nicely to separate 99.9% of aircraft which are usually above 500ft AGL
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

Offline itsme

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 157
  • -Receive: 86
  • Posts: 21,877
  • Liked: 2411
  • Country: gb
  • BMFA Number: 30131
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2018, 09:29:35 AM »
'I feel that the FPV crowd have been screwed' bit of poetic justice there then, as all of this is because some of their antics. And how the heck can you see which way up a tiny drone is from 400 feet below?

Offline lanicopter

  • Renegade
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Air Commodore
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 22
  • -Receive: 22
  • Posts: 945
  • Liked: 301
  • Country: gb
  • FPV Pilot
  • BMFA Number: 206020
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2018, 09:42:24 AM »
I don't need to, I have a solid video link for me to navigate with, an on-screen display showing altitude/heading/airspeed/distance from home/battery remaining/direction to home and, if all else fails, a switch (on failsafe) to automatically bring it home.

The technology is safe.
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

Offline PDR

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 6
  • -Receive: 80
  • Posts: 22,984
  • Liked: 2535
  • Country: gb
  • Stupid is as stupid does. My mission is to stop it
  • BMFA Number: 63119
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2018, 10:38:20 AM »
I feel that the FPV crowd have been screwed,

Whilst I don't think that was a specific objective I can see that it was an unexpected benefit, yes.

PDR
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...

Offline Big A

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 9
  • -Receive: 41
  • Posts: 6,211
  • Liked: 359
  • Country: gb
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2018, 11:42:42 AM »
Whilst I don't think that was a specific objective I can see that it was an unexpected benefit, yes.

PDR
Apart from they haven't been screwed, below 400ft the same applies to be lawful as before, above 400ft and below 1000ft now restricted to non-autonomous and fixed wing. Its a pragmatic approach by the CAA that permits operations safely but within line of sight.

Offline itsme

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 157
  • -Receive: 86
  • Posts: 21,877
  • Liked: 2411
  • Country: gb
  • BMFA Number: 30131
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2018, 13:50:32 PM »
I don't need to, I have a solid video link for me to navigate with, an on-screen display showing altitude/heading/airspeed/distance from home/battery remaining/direction to home and, if all else fails, a switch (on failsafe) to automatically bring it home.

The technology is safe.
So the law of line of sight does not matter when you have a model which flies itself? The point of which being?

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk


Offline FrankS

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 42
  • -Receive: 57
  • Posts: 3,399
  • Liked: 102
  • Country: gb
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2018, 18:12:29 PM »
I don't need to, I have a solid video link for me to navigate with, an on-screen display showing altitude/heading/airspeed/distance from home/battery remaining/direction to home and, if all else fails, a switch (on failsafe) to automatically bring it home.

The technology is safe.

Complete with collision avoidance systems to ensure it doesn't come into contact with any full sized aircraft? BTW my friends DJI Mavic did a flyaway from him the other day and another friend crashed his multirotor (mini racing one) when the video link failed, so the technology isn't infallible.

Offline lanicopter

  • Renegade
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Air Commodore
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 22
  • -Receive: 22
  • Posts: 945
  • Liked: 301
  • Country: gb
  • FPV Pilot
  • BMFA Number: 206020
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #31 on: July 25, 2018, 19:10:03 PM »
I never said it was infallible, I said it was safe.

I mean there have been fly-aways with larger models due to installation errors, but there's no call for banning those despite the added danger of weight, flammable fuel and wood/metal structures as opposed to foam.

You do realise that this regulation won't actually stop FPV pilots from flying though, right? The ones who cause the "issues" are already flouting the laws, stricter rules won't do anything to change it.

The only thing it does is cover the CAA's backside because now they can say "we did something" but the reality is that it changes nothing - but further demonises a legitimate part of the hobby.

I find it a little disappointing that you can't at least see some mileage in working with FPV pilots and adjusting the airspace for the safety and convenience of everyone. Perhaps enforcing a minimum 500ft limit for all manned aircraft, yes, including VFR, would get rid of 99.999% of all potential incidents. it seems so simple.
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

Offline PDR

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 6
  • -Receive: 80
  • Posts: 22,984
  • Liked: 2535
  • Country: gb
  • Stupid is as stupid does. My mission is to stop it
  • BMFA Number: 63119
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2018, 19:18:16 PM »
Perhaps enforcing a minimum 500ft limit for all manned aircraft, yes, including VFR, would get rid of 99.999% of all potential incidents. it seems so simple.

Not that simple. It would make taking off and landing a bit difficult, and they'd have to install some awfully large fuel tanks...

PDR
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...


Offline lanicopter

  • Renegade
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Air Commodore
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 22
  • -Receive: 22
  • Posts: 945
  • Liked: 301
  • Country: gb
  • FPV Pilot
  • BMFA Number: 206020
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2018, 19:37:19 PM »
Ha......... ha. Obviously within the realms of existing regulation so a 4km exclusion zone around airfields for landing/takeoff.

See this pisses me off:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csTkMwBE45g

THAT is what FPV pilots are tarnished with and it isn't fair in the slightest. As near as dammit 100% of us would never dream of being so absolutely stupid as to fly like that, yet people like this have screwed us.

There has to be a middle ground somewhere.
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

Offline FrankS

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 42
  • -Receive: 57
  • Posts: 3,399
  • Liked: 102
  • Country: gb
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #34 on: July 25, 2018, 20:14:42 PM »

I find it a little disappointing that you can't at least see some mileage in working with FPV pilots and adjusting the airspace for the safety and convenience of everyone. Perhaps enforcing a minimum 500ft limit for all manned aircraft, yes, including VFR, would get rid of 99.999% of all potential incidents. it seems so simple.

I do fly FPV occasionally , both Multi-rotor and fixed wing, I am fine with the new regulations, I don't see the point in wanting to fly with the fullsized stuff, 400ft for a Multi-rotor and 1,000 ft for fixed wing works for most FPV fliers (who were already flying legally). But I think until we have FPV planes have transponders and identifiers on them to alert fullsized aircraft of their proximity then the regulations requiring a spotter and keeping the model within visual range so the spotter can alert the model pilot of nearby full sized activity, is about as good as we are going to get. But maybe give it a few years and the technology will exist that allows models to be flown BVLOS without endangering fullsized aircraft.

Offline itsme

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 157
  • -Receive: 86
  • Posts: 21,877
  • Liked: 2411
  • Country: gb
  • BMFA Number: 30131
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #35 on: July 26, 2018, 13:20:32 PM »

Offline itsme

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 157
  • -Receive: 86
  • Posts: 21,877
  • Liked: 2411
  • Country: gb
  • BMFA Number: 30131
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #36 on: July 26, 2018, 13:28:16 PM »
Ha......... ha. Obviously within the realms of existing regulation so a 4km exclusion zone around airfields for landing/takeoff.

See this pisses me off:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csTkMwBE45g


A lot of people think this is fake. I tend to agree.

Offline lanicopter

  • Renegade
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Air Commodore
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 22
  • -Receive: 22
  • Posts: 945
  • Liked: 301
  • Country: gb
  • FPV Pilot
  • BMFA Number: 206020
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #37 on: July 26, 2018, 16:30:56 PM »
On what basis? A lot of people think it's real.

I'm not arguing with you but I'm interested in your thoughts.

I heard that it was posted by an active A380 captain who put it on his profile but it went viral and he attempted to shut it down and now refuses to answer questions regarding its source.... could it be that he knew where to position the drone with regards the flight path in order to get some footage that would cause outrage against the things?

I mean tin-foil hat stuff but.... makes you think :)

Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

Offline PDR

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 6
  • -Receive: 80
  • Posts: 22,984
  • Liked: 2535
  • Country: gb
  • Stupid is as stupid does. My mission is to stop it
  • BMFA Number: 63119
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #38 on: July 26, 2018, 18:06:37 PM »
On what basis? A lot of people think it's real.

I'm not arguing with you but I'm interested in your thoughts.

There's a thread on this video on Pprune which is also split, but I gather one of the issues which causes doubts is the detail that it shows one A380 taking off while a second one is taxiiing in having just landed. The airline people couldn't remember a schedule which had two A380s on Mauritius so close together. I have no idea whether that's true or not - just reporting what they said.

PDR
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...

Offline The Saint. (Owen)

  • The Saint. (Owen)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 162
  • -Receive: 52
  • Posts: 11,629
  • Liked: 192
  • Country: gb
  • Proper aeroplanes are powered by engines.
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2018, 19:08:25 PM »
Do they actually make runway's as narrow as the one in the video?  ???
Electrickery is the work of the devil.
Proper aeroplanes are powered by engines.

Offline SteveBB

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 77
  • -Receive: 194
  • Posts: 7,442
  • Liked: 494
  • Country: gb
  • I have left the surly bonds of Earth....
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #40 on: July 26, 2018, 20:09:24 PM »
A lot of people think this is fake. I tend to agree.


I agree. Isn't real.
Rimmer: Step up to Red Alert!
Kryten: Sir, are you absolutely sure? It does mean changing the bulb.

Offline itsme

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 157
  • -Receive: 86
  • Posts: 21,877
  • Liked: 2411
  • Country: gb
  • BMFA Number: 30131
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #41 on: July 26, 2018, 20:16:55 PM »
Do they actually make runway's as narrow as the one in the video?  ???
Not been to Corfu?

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk


Offline lanicopter

  • Renegade
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Air Commodore
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 22
  • -Receive: 22
  • Posts: 945
  • Liked: 301
  • Country: gb
  • FPV Pilot
  • BMFA Number: 206020
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #42 on: July 26, 2018, 20:22:43 PM »
Narrow? It's an A380 :)
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

Offline EssJay

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Air Commodore
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 2
  • -Receive: 21
  • Posts: 773
  • Liked: 152
  • Country: gb
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #43 on: July 26, 2018, 20:56:56 PM »
Of course it’s a fake! How much turbulence wake do you think an A380 would generate? At the distance the ‘supposed’ drone is shown, it would be thrown around as if in a tumble drier, flight stabiliser or not. And yet it remains rock steady long after the aircraft has passed!

I will admit that the producer of the video has made a very good job of adding a ‘flight sim’ copy of said A380 onto a live background, and is to be commended for his ‘fakery’, but that’s all it is!
No trees were harmed by this post, but some electrons have been slightly inconvenienced

Offline The Saint. (Owen)

  • The Saint. (Owen)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 162
  • -Receive: 52
  • Posts: 11,629
  • Liked: 192
  • Country: gb
  • Proper aeroplanes are powered by engines.
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #44 on: July 26, 2018, 21:08:54 PM »
Narrow? It's an A380 :)

I'm talking about the runway, not the aeroplane. ;)
Electrickery is the work of the devil.
Proper aeroplanes are powered by engines.

Offline SteveBB

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 77
  • -Receive: 194
  • Posts: 7,442
  • Liked: 494
  • Country: gb
  • I have left the surly bonds of Earth....
Re: 400 feet
« Reply #45 on: July 27, 2018, 03:21:51 AM »
I'm talking about the runway, not the aeroplane. ;)


Which makes most runways look narrow.  :)
Rimmer: Step up to Red Alert!
Kryten: Sir, are you absolutely sure? It does mean changing the bulb.


 

BloQcs design by Bloc
SMF 2.0.2 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
TinyPortal © 2005-2012
Page created in 1.192 seconds with 102 queries.