Advanced Failsafe options for rotor craft now approved!!

[Big A]

See http://www.bmfa.org/News/NewsPage/tabid/93/ArticleID/2127/Advanced-Failsafe-Options-for-Rotorcraft.aspx for further details.

[Ynot6]

excellent news, saw this on the FPV facebook group and posted it on the FPV hub. it proves that the CAA are following the advance of our technology.

[miniconverter]

Good to see the BMFA are taking credit for it.

[tupoar]

So long as they are seeing sense, I suppose you can let them off....

[Big A]

Good to see the BMFA are taking credit for it.

The article is just an accurate reflection of how it';s come about. See http://www.bmfa.org/Downloads/tabid/120/Default.aspx?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=926 for it';s origins.

[Friskle]

Well, to be fair, I didn';t really need the bmfa, to tell me not to close the throttle on my multirotor, people have been aware of these features for a long time, just took a while for the bmfa to catch up.

[Big A]

Well, to be fair, I didn';t really need the bmfa, to tell me not to close the throttle on my multirotor, people have been aware of these features for a long time, just took a while for the bmfa to catch up.

It';s not about anyone telling anyone to do anything. Its also nothing to do with the BMFA catching up. It';s about the fact that the CAA have now given approval for failsafe settings for multi-rotors other than throttle to idle or off.

[kilby]

Would have considered that the BMFA adding their name to  representations to the caa which will only improve things for us.

Considering those of us with BMFA cover can feel a bit happier if RTL kicks in and then something bad happens.

I notice that the 1.3GHz bit has been ignored,  along with autonomous flight proposals and the suggestion that incorrect ';drone/privacy'; stories should be challenged.

But then anything involving the BMFA should be bitched about even if it';s something useful

[Hands0n]

Thanks for posting this @Big A.  As a fervent non-member of ANY flying club or association it is good to get this feedback on public forums.

May I just ask for clarification of the use of the word "live" - culled from the linked-to article.

Level 3 rotorcraft must only be made "live" once out on the flight line and this location must be confirmed as the RTH point prior to the commencement of any flight.

What exactly does the word "live" mean? 

For example, APM 2.5 with Arducopter confirms its RTH point at the moment the flight controller is armed - not "once out on the flight line". I do know that Naza FCs do likewise, as does MultiWii.  Has the CAA something else in mind?  Or is this wording simply ambiguous and perhaps inaccurate given today';s technology?

It is good, indeed, to have a CAA legal FailSafe policy for the various levels of multi-rotor aircraft.  Recognition (if even partial) of these aircraft has been a little while coming.

[flybywire]

So does this mean folk flying multi';s on bmfa insurance are now covered when their failsafe triggers and their pride and joy doesn';t come crashing to earth? 

Well amen if it does, an end to trial by ordeal, failsafe triggered + crash = you';re legal, failsafe triggered, rth, uninsured.

No win, no claim.  Hm, i knew i should have swallowed the ';blue pill';.

[flybywire]

Thanks for posting this @Big A.  As a fervent non-member of ANY flying club or association it is good to get this feedback on public forums.

May I just ask for clarification of the use of the word "live" - culled from the linked-to article.

What exactly does the word "live" mean? 

For example, APM 2.5 with Arducopter confirms its RTH point at the moment the flight controller is armed - not "once out on the flight line". I do know that Naza FCs do likewise, as does MultiWii.  Has the CAA something else in mind?  Or is this wording simply ambiguous and perhaps inaccurate given today';s technology?

It is good, indeed, to have a CAA legal FailSafe policy for the various levels of multi-rotor aircraft.  Recognition (if even partial) of these aircraft has been a little while coming.

Danny, i think you';ll find club members are somewhat paranoid about multi';s and their devilish tech bringing the back to the flight line.

You need to re register home point over sewage farm, or yonder lake..

[Big A]

Live=Armed

[Hands0n]

Live=Armed

Ah, "... flight line ..." - I get it now ...  The line on the club field from where the model takes off (and will now be expected to RTH to).  It read to me as if the aircraft had to be in flight first! 


Andy - I did emphasise my not being a member of any club at the outset ::)  Being a motorcyclist I am used to being looked upon as a social outcast that beats up old grannies and bites the heads off chickens, and fights on Brighton beach each Sunday.

[Big A]

So does this mean folk flying multi';s on bmfa insurance are now covered when their failsafe triggers and their pride and joy doesn';t come crashing to earth? 

Well amen if it does, an end to trial by ordeal, failsafe triggered + crash = you';re legal, failsafe triggered, rth, uninsured.

No win, no claim.  Hm, i knew i should have swallowed the ';blue pill';.

What it means is the CAA have accepted the use of settings other than idle/off for rotorcraft if they enter a fail safe state. BMFA members are covered for any civil liability arising out of recognised activity which includes flying multi';s in a lawful manner. So yes!

[Big A]

Ah, "... flight line ..." - I get it now ...  The line on the club field from where the model takes of (and will not be expected to RTH to).  It read to me as if the aircraft had to be in flight first! 


Andy - I did emphasise my not being a member of any club at the outset ::)  Being a motorcyclist I am used to being looked upon as a social outcast that beats up old grannies and bites the heads off chickens, and fights on Brighton beach each Sunday.

its about ensuring that the rth position is a safe position to rth to.

Nothing wrong with not being in a club. I';m not currently in a club.

[Hands0n]

its about ensuring that the rth position is a safe position to rth to.

Pardon my typos ... now corrected in my original.

That all sounds fair enough - always accepting that the pilot has selected a safe position from which to lift off.  I generally advise picking a spot with a fair bit of clearance to allow for GPS drift.  So that would seem to fit in with the CAA intentions.

This is all welcome news