Not Good News for FPV'ers

[Marty McFly]

I just came across this early this morning,   http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2209217 I hope that the CAA dont follow suit,its a catch 22 situation I think.

Most of the guys that do FPV on here are competent saftey conscious person';s that take the hobby seriously,and try and fly within safe limits with air worthy craft.

The big problem is the person that goes into "Maplin';s" buy';s a Phantom goes home charges it then goes fly with no idea of what it can do or the danger';s,they are the blight for this great hobby.

                            Marty and the borrowed doggie, :scotland:

[nub]

so if it was made illegal in this country or rules were changed to make it near impossible to fly FPV legally, would you stop?

[Marty McFly]

I personally would probably stop,and just continue with helis,but thats my choice no one elses,Marty and the borrowed doggie, :scotland:

[nub]

don';t think i would not until i was locked up and my gear confiscated

personally i think they can get stuffed (putting it politely) i';m not doing anybody any harm, causing any trouble so i don';t see why i should stop just because some authority decides its not legal anymore.

[teslahed]

Fortunately i think the CAA has a much more balanced view than the FAA on things like RC model flying in general and FPV in particular. At least i hope this is the case...

For once it seems like the law is better and more liberal in the UK than the USA. Good stuff - hope it lasts.

And lets all hope that we don';t get some idiot flying down their local high street causing problems and making the papers in the worst possible way - it wouldn';t take many such events hitting the papers before the powers that be are likely to reconsider their position. So far the CAA have prosecuted a bunch of individuals without having to change the law and i hope they continue to take this approach rather than blanket banning the lot of us. Alton towers guy - i';m thinking of you!

[DarkButterfly]

No I wouldn';t stop,

I would change my methods of doing FPV,
A smaller ship possibly indoors or on private land with landowner';s permission.

And ground pounding with surface models, CAA can';t do jack about them because they';re not flying.

 

[Marty McFly]

I hope what Chris says is the way it stay';s as this is a great hobby both from a flying experience to the building and set up,long may it continue,Marty and the borrowed doggie, :scotland:

[Biffa]

Even if FPV did get a blanket ban, who would know?

I didn';t see the news, I don';t belong to a club or forum I just fly models, I didn';t get the memo, I know nothing

Problem is over in the states they are security mad and probably genuinely believe Al-Qaeda or some other extremist group will use it to mount an attack.

I can see it now, the air full of Bixlers and dynamite!

[tupoar]

And obviously in the states, flying FPV is far more dangerous that carrying a gun.

[Biffa]

And obviously in the states, flying FPV is far more dangerous that carrying a gun.

The "right to bear arms" is in the constitution,  the "right to FPV" however is not.

[Andy7]

Actually, this is a GOOD thing.

Any spaz with an RTF that wants to buzz old ladies on the high street will be safely locked up and kicked in a cell by angry rozzers (okay, I';m dreaming here), while us good fellows going about peacefully in quiet places bothering nobody won';t even be noticed.

Bring it on!!!   

[teslahed]

The "right to bear arms" is in the constitution,  the "right to FPV" however is not.

[spiff]

Even if FPV did get a blanket ban, who would know?

I didn';t see the news, I don';t belong to a club or forum I just fly models, I didn';t get the memo, I know nothing

Problem is over in the states they are security mad and probably genuinely believe Al-Qaeda or some other extremist group will use it to mount an attack.

I can see it now, the air full of Bixlers and dynamite!

yip it';s just a matter of time before some low life does exactly that and that would be the end of FPV for all of us not just America. the fbi / nsa / cia / nci will scream patriot act and that would be the end of it.

the fact that American kids can legally buy semi & fully automatic weapons and go murder their buddies in school - just boggles the mind. but an innocent hobbits can';t fly in FPV quadcopter his backyard?!

[Friskle]

Actually, this is a GOOD thing.

Any spaz with an RTF that wants to buzz old ladies on the high street will be safely locked up and kicked in a cell by angry rozzers (okay, I';m dreaming here), while us good fellows going about peacefully in quiet places bothering nobody won';t even be noticed.

Bring it on!!!   

Yes they could bring it on, they could decide to make it so everyone has to be qualified to fly one, and how many responsible flyers would that possibly take away from the hobby ?

I doubt they would go that far, but who knows.

As for them being used for terrorist acts, doubtful they would buy RTFs, as they seem to like making stuff out of bits and bobs, and for them, they seem to like being made martyrs, so sending a multi up may be deemed wrong ? Who knows.

Just think how much more the IRA could have done in the 60`s if they decided to use radio controlled aircraft, yes, they were around then...the aircaft that is..

For the most part now, terrorists only need to utter the words "jump" , and everyone does, the damage has already been done now.

As for America, perhaps when they get thier fingers out of everybody elses pie, things might quieten down.

[flybywire]

Most folk fly ';illegal'; anyhow (above 25Mw of Vtx power/ no sober ';spotter';/ closer to buildings than 50m/ etc etc etc) so I guess, it would just make their job a little easier perhaps?!   

[Oakie]

Hi spiff, loving the gopro test!

Paul

[Hands0n]

Unlike the Americans we have upcoming EU laws to yet contend with. The consultation papers make encouraging reading. So we may have to wait until 2015/16 to see what we';ll have to contend with. Until then I expect the CAA to continue to issue their 12 month temporary permission.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Marty McFly]

Unlike the Americans we have upcoming EU laws to yet contend with. The consultation papers make encouraging reading. So we may have to wait until 2015/16 to see what we';ll have to contend with. Until then I expect the CAA to continue to issue their 12 month temporary permission.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Thank you Danny,that gives us a bit of light at the end of the tunnel,so hopefuly,we can all fly for a long time to come,Marty and the borrowed doggie, :scotland:

[kilby]

What could terrorists do with a bixler full of dynamite, hmmm probably bugger all.

Terrorists build mortars out of acetylene cylinders and lob them a few hundred metres they are heavy, smash their way through roofs and walls, are a source of shrapnel and carry a lot of explosives.

A foam or balsa plane (or a quad) will carry next to no explosives, provide very little shrapnel and bounce off anything that they hit. While I would not fancy being anywhere in the area in reality very little damage would occur beyond 20 feet feet away (lethal radius of appx .5 kilo of C4 and the radius obeying the inverse square rule then even a kilo of C4 would not be a viable weapon), with no shrapnel other than a brushless motor and a couple of servos (packing shrapnel in would adding more weight).

Hit something big with such a weapon and the plane would probably bounce off in some semi random direction before anything triggered.

The ease of disrupting video feeds (as well as control systems) would probably mean flying LOS (in full view) makes it fairly poor delivery system unless you want to be caught and also prevents any sort of targeted delivery on the other side of that high tech security product which is commonly known as a wall.

Highly targeted radio countermeasures have been available for donkeys years.

Once more this is FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) being used to show that the "government really cares" couple the ineffectiveness of a plane with the ease of disrupting video feeds (have to be especially stupid to fly LOS) and limited capability for damage

[nbpicklesno2]

A foam or balsa plane (or a quad) will carry next to no explosives, provide very little shrapnel and bounce off anything that they hit. While I would not fancy being anywhere in the area in reality very little damage would occur beyond 20 feet feet away (lethal radius of appx .5 kilo of C4 and the radius obeying the inverse square rule then even a kilo of C4 would not be a viable weapon), with no shrapnel other than a brushless motor and a couple of servos (packing shrapnel in would adding more weight).

Despite the legal position, you cannot uninvent technology. These things are already in the terrorist arsenal.

You need to look up the stats for a Claymore mine on wikipedia. Imagine it under slung, on a quad over a crowded football stadium.

Sorry to be the barer of bad news.

[Biffa]

Almost anything is possible, wasn';t that long ago that airliners were flown into buildings. Until that actually happened no one ever thought it would actually happen.

The reasoning behind a blanket ban of FPV in the States cannot just be down to airspace safety and the fear of a model bringing down an airliner.

There has to be more to it than that, I can';t see no other reason other than possible terror activities.

[Hands0n]

An M18A1 Claymore mine is around 1.5kg (citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Claymore_mine ), which is luggable by any medium to heavy lifter.  However, without being fastened to anything the effectiveness of the explosion and resulting shrapnel distribution would be limited.  As much of the force would be applied to the aircraft as would be directed downwards.

Still, i wouldn';t want to be standing underneath one, and the resulting terrorist impact would be quite effective.

As for how to fly one in ... well anyone with an APM, for example, could program in an Auto Mission to specific GPS coordinates and carry out an activity when it arrives.  Typically that would be to activate a camera shutter, and that could equally be a detonator for the explosive payload. 

It would take very little technical expertise to assemble a suitable vehicle. The hard part would be obtaining the terrorist materials undetected, which appears to be difficult to do in the UK. Hence the rather large time gaps between domestic terrorist atrocities in the UK.

I think that much easier and much more effective than all this gubbins would be a well-stocked Transit van detonated in Parliament Square or similar.

[kilby]

I';ve witnessed claymore demonstrations including the epoxy cube versions.

There';s easier and more reliable delivery methods than RC models.

My point is that it';s an excuse for justifying the current fpv man and not an especially valid reason.

A largish lpg powered spud gun could fling something a suitable distance from a Ford transit (even better a multi barreled ome) from the car park.

Fud and justification for their land grab in my opinion

[flybywire]

Ok, so the ';terrorist'; is going to read the FAA/CAA rule book first?  just to make sure they';re not breaking any rules along the way?

More insanity. 

The answer lies in curbing imperialistic and interventionist foreign policies, leave global policing to the UN, that';s what it was set up for.

Hm, now back to my ';fun rotor';.   

[Tean]

I';m new to FPV, but am an experienced RC heli pilot.
I wonder if some of the problem with "drones" and their irresponsible use is due to the ultra simple and easy to fly modes available on the controllers. Not so many years ago it took time and patience to learn to fly any RC aircraft and by the time a newcomer had learned to fly, they had also learned about safety and responsible use.
Now anyone seeking instant thrills can auto-takeoff in their garden with their ready-made machine and whiz off down the street without any skill or concept of danger etc, annoying the public and bringing bad publicity to our hobby. In "the old days" they would probably have crashed before they reached the garden fence and the neighbours would have hardly noticed.

[Liftseeker]

Ok. Lets forget bombs.

Too small, has to be directed very close to a target to be effective, requires (usually heavy(ish)) shrapnel.

So, you could try 1kg of sarin - dispersed at altitude. Quad copters would be great for that with an effective means of ensuring dispersal.

Or how about anthrax?

How about a small dirty bomb

The problem is - it isnt just inefficient explosives you have to worry about, there are far more insidious and horrifying things you can deliver ...

But then again, why not just chuck a couple of kgs of sarin in the local drinking water, wouldnt even have to learn to fly then.

[teslahed]

All these issues and more will present themselves when self driving cars hit the roads.

They';ll make the payloads your average radio controlled ';drone'; can carry look like nothing.

[Friskle]

All these issues and more will present themselves when self driving cars hit the roads.

They';ll make the payloads your average radio controlled ';drone'; can carry look like nothing.

Technology is fine, but imho, we are and our general roads are far from being ready for these....

[kilby]

Better ban any sort of timing mechanism or mobile phone technology incase people use it to trigger something bad.

The roof of a tallish building, will do the job for you too, a lot less complicated and larger volumes of material too

[spiff]

wonder if the authorities will ban balloons? since during WW2 the Japanese launched explosive balloon';s across the pacific sea to bomb America. they can also be used to spread toxic chemicals & disease? far more effectively than a multirotor