PDA

View Full Version : A message for the haters ...



Trappy
10th August 2011, 05:34 PM
FPV is a new, super-cool trend emerging from the R/C community that allows us to enjoy the fascination of aviation in ways perviously not thought possible. As always, new innovations or trends collide with traditions. Within TBS, we have the firm belief that one or a series of technological breakthroughs is sufficient to challenge the way we have looked at things in the past. Before cars had lights, it would have been extremely dangerous to drive at night. Now that they do, driving at night is not much different from driving during the day. The majority of people are able to grasp this concept. However, there are others. We shall call them haters.

Pretty much all the criticism we FPV pilots have received from haters over the past few years is based at least in some part on the notion that FPV pilots fly their R/C aircraft where they previously did not fly: Over mountain tops, under bridges, in city parks. R/C aircraft need to remain on R/C fields, be flown within line of sight of the only pilot controlling them, and any kind of proximity to solid objects, be it a statue, house or tree, is to be avoided. Anything else is extremely dangerous, illegal and is to be stopped with every means possible. Or so they say.

Fact of the matter is, UAVs many times larger than anything that any hobbyist has ever flown have been flying over cities, over people, in restricted airspace and beyond visual line of sight for ages. R/C planes many times the size, weight and possibility for damage fly near people all the time. If a 20kg turbine jet loses control it can fly for a few hundred meters before hitting the ground. So why is FPV getting all the heat? The complaints are based on the perception, not in the danger itself. When you show a video of flying directly over a street, the haters are in uproar. When you show the same model from the point of view of a car on the street, nobody cares.

The lack of cognitive ability to change the perception is probably why haters try to keep UAVs limited to old, traditional R/C spaces. Because that is the perception that they are used to. Similar to a control-line pilot 50 years ago complaining about the new wireless control mechanism and demanding a control-line pilot be kept in place due to the potential of danger coming from wirelessly controlled R/C aircraft. Where would R/C be today if these people were part of the majority? Luckily they were not, and they still are not today. Sadly, however, they are backed up by some R/C organizations. R/C organizations are advocating these limitations because, in essence, they are insurance companies. Insurance companies do not like risks, that is why they try to constrain our hobby to match what they have previously assessed (and are making good money on) to be safe.

So what can you do against it? The only way to vote in today's times is with your wallet. If you think that your R/C organization is not representing your needs well, quit. Send them an e-mail why you quit and tell them once they come to their senses then you will consider joining them again. Ask all your friends to do the same, too. You can still fly with all your R/C buddies just fine, you just need to launch outside the property of the flying field (you can still fly over it as much as you like). You can even support your local club financially by bringing drinks and meat for barbeque. That way you are doing your part to keep the club going, but are making sure that the parent organization is not receiving its share.

Is an R/C magazine writing negatively about certain aspects of FPV without doing their homework properly? Are their views of FPV different than yours? Send an e-mail to the editor and cancel your subscription. Ask all your friends to follow suit. There are plenty of other magazines on the same topic, no need to feed the very same people that are trying to ruin your hobby.

Is a FPV forum censoring information or constantly harassing you as a member because your vision of FPV does not correspond to that of the owners? Stop posting there and ask all your friends to move to a new forum. Why would you donate your time and provide credibility to a project when you do not share the same goal as them?

Together we can start a movement, we can change our hobby for the better, and we can show these haters that we can practice our hobby safely and responsibly. We can force R/C organizations to adapt, or to die like old, stubborn dinosaurs. I am convinced that the number of FPV pilots will one day exceed the number of R/C pilots, just like with control line and R/C. And then they will need to ask us to join OUR club. Until then, let's give them hell - Team BlackSheep style.

FPVLAB
10th August 2011, 05:43 PM
Very well said sir!!! This message is supported by FPVLAB. :)

cliffkot
10th August 2011, 06:30 PM
It really irks me that we get criticized for flying 2 pounds of foam, when others are applauded for flying 1/4 scale aircraft with lawn mower engines up front. One of these days an aircraft of that size is going to plunge into a crowd of people at an RC air show and we will all pay heck for it with negative publicity and perhaps an outright ban.

Ultimately, I would bet that all the negative press is about advertising, or the lack of it in the magazines. Our aspect of the hobby is relatively new. There are no magazines devoted to FPV and there never will be. This is because everything we do is discussed via the internet. One guy has a bad experience with a product, and that product is either quickly fixed by the manufacturer or disappears. Conversely, somebody else does something very interesting, posts pictures or video, and the product sells like hotcakes.

All we can do is support those who support us.

Cliff

Coyote
10th August 2011, 06:39 PM
Excellent piece Trappy, totally agree :)

IBCrazy
10th August 2011, 08:41 PM
Well written. The RC community needs to be educated to accept FPV. Unfortunately that's a difficult thing to do.

I actually had a neighbor very upset about flying FPV over his property abut 2 hours ago. I offered to take him for a flight and show him what it was like and also explained the camera resolution doesn't allow me to identify anyone unless I'm less than 50 feet from them. At this point he backed down and didn't want to go for a flight. So even a few non RCers have an issue with it simply because they do not understand. However, I now have his permission to fly all over his property so long as I don't make low dives over his house.

-Alex

roberto
10th August 2011, 10:33 PM
I felt exactly the same when I started flying r/c helicopters back in '95. And yet today there are still heli haters around the RC clubs. Donīt expect the haters to change their minds but do expect much more newcomers into FPV than into LOS.

Alex, I had an argument with my crazy neighbor for exactly the same reason... cracked me up really good. Only thing is I donīt fly over her property anymore because If I crash, that plane is never coming out of there. :)



Well written. The RC community needs to be educated to accept FPV. Unfortunately that's a difficult thing to do.

I actually had a neighbor very upset about flying FPV over his property abut 2 hours ago. I offered to take him for a flight and show him what it was like and also explained the camera resolution doesn't allow me to identify anyone unless I'm less than 50 feet from them. At this point he backed down and didn't want to go for a flight. So even a few non RCers have an issue with it simply because they do not understand. However, I now have his permission to fly all over his property so long as I don't make low dives over his house.

-Alex

Windbreaker
10th August 2011, 10:53 PM
A very thoughtful note.

And that's the problem. Too many others aren't doing enough thinking.

As the sport/hobby evolves, FPV will find its place in the world. But only if more people consider it thoughtfully, rather than blindly react to its presence.

Blizzard1287
11th August 2011, 12:23 AM
A very valid point Trappy, however, you are preaching to the choir here. To truly start a movement may I make an amend to the above statement and say take one non-FPV'er with you every time you fly. Be honest. informative, and change his/her perspective on the world around them. Then you will see that more people around you can speak from experience, not out of ignorance, because you have shown them how safe it really is! Not everyone will agree, but then again in my limited experience most people have no idea what their missing out on.

my $.02

volto
11th August 2011, 01:38 AM
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.urlesque.com/media/2010/05/haterplane.jpg

TallyHoe
11th August 2011, 02:30 AM
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.urlesque.com/media/2010/05/haterplane.jpg

lol, he must have had some interference in his goggles just as he was landing.

All hale FPV!

radialmind
11th August 2011, 03:14 AM
Good post. You can't compare the multiplex FPV models of a couple of years ago to a highly tuned zephyr, which is built with items coming from all over the world nowadays. I had to order from seven different suppliers to get everything I needed for the zephyr in terms of glues, pushrods, foam, etc... The reliability of these models has increased significantly. You could actually 'split' up the current market in two. There's a cheap "beginner's" section, which is a piece of foam with a camera on top and there's the advanced segment with quality electronics and high structural strength. One will cost you $1200 to get started, the other may push you over $2500.

You can only innovate when you keep going forward, otherwise you're at a standstill.

Trappy
11th August 2011, 03:55 AM
thanks guys. sorry for preaching to the choir, just had to vent as some german moron wrote a shitty piece about team black sheep (or all the people that don't fly according to the traditional R/C club codes). really grinds my gear. not sure what to do about it either, but venting felt good :D it's nice to know that the majority of the FPV scene "gets it". I have a bad feeling that these haters will be around for some time, but as the FPV community grows rapidly (ask any FPV vendor, he'll tell you just HOW quickly we're growing) even the loudest hater is going to be silenced by the sheer volume of people that tell them to suck it.

radialmind
11th August 2011, 04:56 AM
It does start some interesting questions though. As Alex pointed out, first people get all kind of wild ideas of what the plane is about and what you can do and see with it. Then he sees it with his own eyes and eventually agrees on a set of guidelines where one can enjoy the hobby without annoying the other. There will always be some 'inconvenience' to others, but if that falls within acceptable limits, there is no problem. These limits are very difficult to lay down by law, but if they're frequently violated, then people will classify this kind of flying as annoying, threatening and dangerous in general. The end result is an altogether ban.

I think annoyance is mostly about the generated sound, whereas threat is about flying straight towards people or otherwise scaring the hell out of them. Whether the sound is annoying or not is highly contextual. You wouldn't start a lawn mower at 7am, a washing machine at 3am or spin a loud chopper through a nature reserve. So it's about time and place for flying that defines this.

Having said that, where a high-powered plane in a nature reserve would probably be seen as annoying, a sailplane would not be. I'd also think it likely that a zephyr zooming past on a deserted mountain trail would rather be seen as a pleasant, interesting surprise.


Rather than "rebel" against everyone, it makes sense to hook up to local governments, showing them what you're doing with your hobby. It's very likely they'll become very interested in what you do, because you also provide capabilities in case of emergencies and so on that they may want to make use of. The other thing is that if the local government doesn't have a channel to talk to, their only option is an outright ban. Doing this as a group makes this much more powerful than a single individual. The point is that I think it's much more effective to be close to people doing the legislation than rebelling against them. In the latter, you're extremely likely to draw the shortest straw in the end... it'd just be a matter of time.

Trappy
11th August 2011, 05:09 AM
radialmind, the challenge here is to get in touch with the RIGHT people. We have been invited in Germany to have a discussion with their R/C association. the problem was the only people that were invited have been the same people that have been the most vocal against FPV. In another country (which shall remain nameless for now) we have been invited to a talk with R/C association and also the aviation authority to assess possible challenges to the current laws in future. We expect big things from such settings, and are really looking forward to this discussion.

What we need to do is circumvent haters and skeptics. A lawmaker is not going to listen to us if there is a moron standing next to him spreading FUD. With all the positive media attention that TBS has been getting, we are quickly evolving into a "force" within the R/C comunity who advocate true FPV. the only thing standing between FPV and the lawmakers are the haters. We need to drain their financial power and kill them that way, anything else is fighting a losing battle.

radialmind
11th August 2011, 06:00 AM
I agree on that one and I think we're saying the same thing in different words. It's not relevant for someone to agree with you if they're not decision makers. It's partially relevant if they're strong influencers. If they *are* influencers, then it means they're already snug with them and there's some investment to be made there.

From a psychological perspective, if you ask someone for permission, you give them the idea that they have some say in the matter *and* that your activity has negative consequences for them (if they don't know much about the activity itself, this includes fear). Usually though they do not have a say and it depends on how your activity is executed whether there are any consequences. It would be better if they agree with you, but other than that it's irrelevant, unless they are strong influencers. So if you project it this way, some people will end up rejecting the idea and combat it, even though rationally speaking there is no reason to do so.

This is why it's more effective to show your activities to local lawmakers without these dinosaurs standing around waving their hands and panicking. I have personal experience with some high grade equipment being used for surveillance purposes. The local government got quite excited about this, even though there are dubious questions of privacy and 'necessity'. So it's always good to be positive and receptive towards the local government and demonstrate how responsible the equipment can be operated, but also what its real capabilities are and where you intend to go. Obviously, they are people to, so it depends who you talk to in the end.

The problem when you issue blank cheques without having a channel to talk through is that you can't control it. They are able to control r/c model clubs, because there are established communication channels. If you license individuals with a blank cheque without such a communication channel, they have no (apparent) method of controlling or influencing it from their pov. This is why operating as a group, to get leverage in real legislation, is I think the only way to get anything off the ground.

IBCrazy
11th August 2011, 08:01 AM
but as the FPV community grows rapidly (ask any FPV vendor, he'll tell you just HOW quickly we're growing)

My best estimate is that the number of FPV pilots doubles every 10-12 months. Why?

First of all we innovative FPV pilots are developing technology that makes it much easier not only to get into FPV, but it's far more reliable and affordable now too. Think of all the technology that FPVers have developed:

Antenna trackers (4 types)
Long range radio systems (at least 6 that I know of)
On Screen displays (15 maybe more)
Diversity (3 major players plus 3 or so DIY designs)
Antennas (I've lost count)
Purpose receivers (3 maybe more)
Video Goggles (3 FPV brands)
Autopilot systems (6 maybe more)

And a slew of other technologies such as the L1D variometer, IR landing lights, ect. All developed by FPVers for this hobby in the last 3-4 years. So if you think FPV is going to be crushed by the RC community, think again. We are far more advanced than almost and other RC enthusiast.

-Alex

IBCrazy
11th August 2011, 08:08 AM
What we need to do is circumvent haters and skeptics. A lawmaker is not going to listen to us if there is a moron standing next to him spreading FUD. With all the positive media attention that TBS has been getting, we are quickly evolving into a "force" within the R/C comunity who advocate true FPV. the only thing standing between FPV and the lawmakers are the haters. We need to drain their financial power and kill them that way, anything else is fighting a losing battle.

You guys aren't the only force. Flite Test is getting into FPV now too. I am hoping to visit them next week to do a little flying and education as it is obvious to many of us here that they are very green when it comes to FPV. With their popularity, it helps to have them educated and promoting this hobby.

-Alex

BloomingtonFPV
11th August 2011, 08:48 AM
There is a technique in hostage negotiation called tone matching. If the bad guys are using panicked and shrill tones and language, use calmer more rational words and tones. You will seem more believable to a neutral party and the other guys will be forced to match your tone.

jimmaplesong
11th August 2011, 09:15 AM
Alex, it's going to be great to see you on flitetest. I really like their series, and learned a bunch about how CP accomplishes multi-path rejection from when David was on last month. I'm really looking forward to this week's episode too. The preview made it look like they did a fpv missile drop.... Where one FPV plane drops an FPV projectile that's then guided to the target. Either that or I saw something else and totally made that up.

Edit: David on FPV antennas: http://www.youtube.com/user/flitetest#p/c/65E7478CBD4FEE87/0/I2m169lcBYs

radialmind
11th August 2011, 09:46 AM
Looking forward on seeing Alex there too.


Re: tone matching... there's a technique used in business negotiations called Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP). Although not everything works in this theory, the important part to remember is that if you have not established "rapport" with people, they're not going to listen to you. So this is all about communicating with an agenda, requiring a high effort from the start of some conversation. Name people by their name to get their real attention, do not just react if you wish to make an argument without directing the phrase. Mimic the stance/position of the person you want to influence nonchalantly, never assuming the stance from the person you're arguing with in the event of an argument with a decider. From time to time, you'll notice you get some good contacts regarding your arguments, which is what this is about. It helps if you have an apparent meaningless object (report, DVD) which you came into the room with, which you then give in their hands exactly at the time you establish the rapport moment ( called anchoring ).

Blizzard1287
11th August 2011, 09:51 AM
My best estimate is that the number of FPV pilots doubles every 10-12 months. Why?
-Alex

Mainly 3 people. Trappy, IBCrazy, SENTRY

I think I can speak for probably 1/2 the people here that Trappy (and his FPV Living 2 video) sparked my interest in FPV.
IBCrazy (and innovators like him) make access to the knowledge of antennas and radio gear easy to learn and understand.
SENTRY because... well if it wasn't for him we'd still be stuck in the mud over at RCG... el oh el haha


We're doing just fine guys but if you feel strongly about reaching the "right people," just go to your local national parks officer and give 'em a ride. Tell em about all the benefits you can offer and form RELATIONSHIPS. I think a park manager would be crazy to pass up on an opportunity for free high def aerial video of mountain peaks, fall foliage, mist rising over a river/lake, etc. Once you have a good working relationship they will know of other people higher up and can vouch for you. PR, search and rescue, agricultural surveillance, you name it... we can offer a valuable service.



Radialmind - NLP is a good book, not an easy read, but highly recommended. :D Have you read how to win friends and influence people? Horrible name, but another amazing read.

IBCrazy
11th August 2011, 12:17 PM
Have you read how to win friends and influence people? Horrible name, but another amazing read.

I highly recommend this book. I gave two copies away already (and one was hghlighted all over the place for reference). If it weren't for this book, my neighbors probably would have killed me by now and I certainly wouldn't have the job I do right now. Perhaps the most influential book I have ever read in my life. Why? Because it teaches the basic techniques of dealing with people. Being an engineer, this is something I lack.

Chapter 2: You can't Win an argument

This chapter will explain how to deal with the FPV haters (as will several subsequent chapters in the second section).

I am currently reading "Getting to Yes". I hope to learn how to negotiate better from it.

-Alex

luzaban
11th August 2011, 12:50 PM
The problem we have with FPV right now is that the way most people do it is always illegal in some way or at least i a very grey area. For example in germany: 2.4ghz 10mw and 5.8ghz 25mw is allowed. However everyone agrees that it is not much fun to use so low power setups. Another law is that the aicraft has to be flown within a range where you can fly it also without any optical helpers. Those factors limit the range to maybe 700m if you want to stay legal.
In germany we build up a comitee consisting of parts of the german fpv community and members of the big R/C Associations to "legalise" our hobby. We are making very good process in this. They even visited our community meeting to see whats going on. However some certain TBS videos seem to destroy that work because they look like all fpvers are kind of illegal street racers. Problem is they dont know what is behind those videos, preperations etc.. Some behind the scenes video would be nice :D

ssassen
11th August 2011, 12:55 PM
Alex, would you recommend that book to me? :D

Trappy
11th August 2011, 01:05 PM
luzaban: don't kid yourself, these efforts are not underway and BVLOS will not be legalized. did you read the recent statements from the FPV-Community owner? And the DMFV? They want to keep FPV within LOS at all cost. our best spotter can locate our plane 2.4km away and fly it back visually (yes, without binoculars). My vision is not perfect, so when I'm spotting people need to stay within 1.5km. The problem is not that we are illegal street racers or that our videos portray us as such, the problem is that the haters (I don't put a name to them on purpose) are trying to make us look like we are. I don't know what purpose this has, but it's not going to further our hobby. Almost all people that watch our videos enjoy them, safety concerns are far and between, the only negative press we get is from the people mentioned above.

In any case, we don't really care anymore. We have broken off all communication with the haters and will continue to do what we do best: make cool FPV videos. The more people jump on our ship, the higher our chances are that one day we can go directly to the aviation authority in germany and tell them what we FPV pilots need and why it also increases safety that way. Same like we are doing in other countries already. Because by now I think everyone knows that the spotter law is about the most retarded thing to happen to the FPV scene since fpv-community.de :) it doesn't increase safety, it doesn't limit FPV pilots (at least not those technically-savyy enough to work out a multi-TX-link) and it doesn't really help prevent mid-air collisions. but how should these people know, they've never flown in congested airspace ... they just talk big and in the end their rigs fall out of the sky at the first hint of interference. I'd like to see their spotter do something about it then :)

roberto
11th August 2011, 07:51 PM
heard this today.

your mind is like a parachute, if it doesnīt open, itīs no good.

pesbra
11th August 2011, 09:42 PM
Let me give my 2 cents. Of course I agree with Trappy. Keeping FPV in LOS is nonsensical, and outright ridiculous. Trappy's and many others videos is what got me interested in this aspect of the hobby, just as many others. I think what scares most of the haters is that this is a part of the hobby that reaquires a great deal of technical knowledge and skill unlike general RC. I can't bring myself to imagine doing the things Trappy does in the near future because of that. I'm new to this and I can appreciate how much I have yet to learn on the technical side to do those things safely. I think theyr probably scared that a lot of new people without much skill will try to emulate those flights placing people and property at risk.

The probelm I think is that this line of thought is commonly followed by an alarmist outlook, which by definition lacks objectivity. It is commonly an uneducated guess of evrething that can go wrong. It leads to psicosis.

Now let me put on my lawyer cap. When an argument is raised by an alarmist (it happens even within the FPV community -tons of examples on RCG), they will say outright that what you guys do (I wish I can soon say "we") is illegal and will lead to a ban of this hobby. Only problem is that their view of what illegal is, is most times based on misconceptions and poor understanding of what the law actually says.

Most FPV pilots are a lot more educated on what is legal with respect to the use of radio communications than any "general RC" pilot simply because almost all FPV pilots want to do things to a point that a HAM license is required. That means a certification of technical knowledge to operate our craft. Something the naysayers do not have, giving rise to their misconseptions. But I think we are obligated to have the same degree of technical knowledge of other aspects of legislation not related to the use of the radio spectrum. How about legislation regarding the use of airspace. The most frequent argument I have read in these forums is that we are placing lives at risk because of a colision with an airliner. If a duck can bring one jumbo jet down can't a zephyr do the same. A discussion that comes again and again with cloud flying.

As in most cases the naysayers are pointing the finger without knowing the full facts. But if we are pushing the envelop it is our responsability to have a full and clear understanding of the laws where we are operating. Not all airspace has traffic but we have to know where we are flying. If we do not have knowledge of local regulation we will easily convey an image that we are reckless and do not know what we are doing. Every endeavor that entails some risk can be managed to an acceptable level. But to make others confident that what we are doing is safe enough we need to be prepared with knwoledge of the local regulations.

I think the best way to protect our hobby, is to organize ourselvs in clubs and organizations that promote an understanding of local regulations and certification of proficiency levels to provide incentives for a safe progression, and put the naysayers to rest. It will bring credibility and confidence in what we do. That is exactly how AMA and other organizations came about.

So that's my 2 cents. Sorry for the rant.

luzaban
12th August 2011, 02:21 AM
About the real aircraft collision topic:
I never fly withou my buddies spotting for me and normally i try to stay below 500 feet just in case. However on some days my flying spots a kind of crowded with hobby pilots and some of them are definately lower than 500 feet. Last week i had the chance to have a talk to some hobby pilots and i asked them what their rules are about minimum altitude. They said officially we are not allowed to go lower than 500 but we dont care because its fun to go lower....

radialmind
12th August 2011, 02:51 AM
blizzard: haven't read it. I followed "communication training programs" where this stuff comes up.

pesbra: The rule of law is important when it comes to incidents. Should anything serious happen and someone becomes crippled or dies, then your general insurance may decide to not cover it, since it was caused by illegal action. The national laws here are clear with regards to flying height, distance and so on. Even though they're not making things safer, it is the current law and that's what will be used to judge a situation.

A point of concern are newcomers. Good risk assessment is impossible for any activity you're new in. Insufficient investment in technology or buying the wrong equipment significantly affects your chances of bringing the plane back in one piece. Because of the adrenaline, it's possible to lose your situational awareness at certain points, which takes some time to regain. This is why some organization of FPV fliers are helpful to exchange experiences (in real life).

Re: certification... I have a friend who got his first "certificate" by joining a club somewhere. The challenge was to take off, fly one circle and land 30 meters near a point. I don't want any of that. You get to fly when it's "your turn" and when you mess about with your own plane you get told off because they can't hear their own plane any longer. I just want to throw it up in the air and start flying without someone else deciding stuff for me. For them, it's all about building a plane and showing it off to as many people as possible. It's more of an airshow and that's why you need both people to show off to, but don't want everyone flying at the same time, because nobody would be looking at yours :).

I imagine that FPV teams have a really different objective, which is to collaborate on mission execution. That takes some teamwork, planning and knowledge sharing.

Trappy
12th August 2011, 03:26 AM
The collision topic is the same for R/C and FPV pilots (assuming a spotter is monitoring airspace). The cloud flights are a little dodgy IMO, however if the clouds are cumulus type (bubble here and there) it's manageable because you can see aircraft fly into and out of (or over) the clouds that you are close to. flying over huge layers of clouds is going to feed the haters, so it's something we try to avoid and also educate other FPV pilots we see that do this not to do.

pesbra
12th August 2011, 11:04 AM
radialmind I completley agree with what you say. Part of the important thing about knowing the law is to understand what aspects of it don't make sense and therefore you should push to change it. Organization helps here. What you say about clubs is true. When a club operates that way it just won't work. When I'm thinking of an organization or a club I'm thinking more of a body that can guide the newcomers and assess their skills, the airworthines of their plane. and once al that seems to work then you go fly. It's very much like the learning curve for rc heli pilots. You buy one, you go to a club and have someone experienced look at your set up, then he will help you with your first flights and when you can hover on your own, you can go flying on your own. I think that way you promote safe flying in an appropiate area.

Trappy I think you are right when you say that the collision topic is the same for RC and FPV. I'm not a pilot here but I think if one is going to try cloud flying one needs to be knowledgable about flight traffic, to go flying where there isn't any. Not every cloud out ther has a plane flying in it.

gaben
13th August 2011, 04:26 PM
Fpv haters are two groups of people.Hate for stupid reasons/You can see his property from above for example/an hate for serious safety reasons.
Fpv flying was illegal and its stays illegal till the FPV plane becomes as least as safe then the realones.
See and to be seen.....who is listnening the local air traffic radio during his long distance flight?Who has any transponder on his FPV plane?
Redundancy.....who has any redundant equipment onboard?
And I can follow on.....
If with any reason anybody goes down,and a personal injury occurs that is a problem.
If anybody hits a realone causes a serious damage and that plane goes down,now that could end with catastrophic results.
No one can convince me FPV flying is safe,it got more reliable since it started,but never hit the standard called safe.
Beside that I will still do that, like many others with more or less gots.
If you lucky,you going to heaven,if not deephell comes.
And there is no such person FPV pro.
Godspeed for everyone

radialmind
13th August 2011, 06:53 PM
I don't agree with any of this. Redundancy is only required if you want your plane to remain in the sky. Rather than investing an extra $2k in building failsafe systems, it's much simpler to ditch the plane, lose the $2k and build a new one. You get a lighter plane (thus safer) this way, it will be more fun to fly and it can still be launched by hand.

If you fly out of the vicinity of airfields/airports and lower than 300m, then you won't meet any real planes, ever. Hanggliders are in a similar situation to fpv planes... what do they do and what are their requirements? How do hanggliders avoid getting hit by a plane (I'm not even going to ask "avoid hitting one" ). It's very doubtful that a gas-powered one/two seater will ever be seriously affected by a foamie. A wooden plane with much higher strength gets completely destroyed by the strong props of a real plane. How fast would you need to fly a wing into a real plane and where would you have to hit it to get this plane to go down? I'd say that you'd have a chance with turbines perhaps, but they're only flying from airports and they have completely different flight levels. This is what you get if there was a collision:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoZD9pczEVs

I own an easystar and catch it singlehandedly in a landing. Should it go into a dive and drop down, the very worst it does is cause a "hey!" moment. A leather football has a worse impact. I haven't done any impact tests on a zephyr, but perhaps someone can shed some light on how it would feel if it went down in a zero throttle dive.

A car would certainly cause more damage or injury than an fpv plane. The reason why a car driver gets away with it, is because the government officially issues driver licenses to allow (too many) person(s) to drive. A car accident is just called 'an accident'. Insurance kicks in, we mop up the collateral damage in the hospital and that'll be the end of that. You could probably crash an fpv plane in someone's backyard not hitting anyone, but the mere fact of the yard owner complaining to court might get you in serious legal trouble for "putting lives in jeopardy". Yet compare how much damage you could have caused versus the damage of a car and re-evaluate such a decision. Humans just are not very rational in their thinking :).

volto
13th August 2011, 08:35 PM
<snip>No one can convince me FPV flying is safe,it got more reliable since it started,but never hit the standard called safe.
</snip>

Are part 103 ultralights safe? How about experimental aircraft? What high standard are you holding foam planes to that aren't applied to other larger more dangerous aircraft? You sir are illogical.

luzaban
14th August 2011, 03:08 AM
No one can convince me FPV flying is safe,it got more reliable since it started,but never hit the standard called safe.
Beside that I will still do that, like many others with more or less gots.
If you lucky,you going to heaven,if not deephell comes.
And there is no such person FPV pro.
Godspeed for everyone

I totally agree to this one! For me flying fpv is all about minimizing the risks and always beeing prepared that something happens that you did not expect. But still i think FPV is saver than traditional rc flying.


If you fly out of the vicinity of airfields/airports and lower than 300m, then you won't meet any real planes, ever.
Wrong see my post before this one!

gaben
14th August 2011, 09:34 AM
A car would certainly cause more damage or injury than an fpv plane. The reason why a car driver gets away with it, is because the government officially issues driver licenses to allow (too many) person(s) to drive. A car accident is just called 'an accident'. Insurance kicks in, we mop up the collateral damage in the hospital and that'll be the end of that. You could probably crash an fpv plane in someone's backyard not hitting anyone, but the mere fact of the yard owner complaining to court might get you in serious legal trouble for "putting lives in jeopardy". Yet compare how much damage you could have caused versus the damage of a car and re-evaluate such a decision. Humans just are not very rational in their thinking :).

In a car accident I assumed You have a licence to drive.
You cannot get a licence or even insurance for FPV flying,because its not legal....
You talking to hit the neighbor yard and the owner will be pissed.
It just a matter of luck You dont hit the guy itself.
What could happen it WILL happen......that is rational thinking:)

Any of You using the Dean style T connectors?Well dont.
That its not safe at all.
And just a MATTER OF LUCK I did not hit anyone.

gaben
14th August 2011, 09:47 AM
If you fly out of the vicinity of airfields/airports and lower than 300m, then you won't meet any real planes, ever.

Never say never....
If a real plane with any reason goes below 300/it happens/ and You collide with him quess whoes a.s will be kicked??
A manned airplane versus the unmanned toy no matter what height.........always the manned has a right to be there.
Foamies........there are exeptions

Belevie me we are rowing in a same boat.........

sim_io
14th August 2011, 05:36 PM
I've seen planes fly really low. In my area I see Cubs/Cessna chill around 300-600ft most of the time but that's because there's an airport 5 miles away from where I usually fpv. I was flying fpv with my friend and I could see the Cessna below me.

volto
14th August 2011, 06:45 PM
I've seen planes fly really low. In my area I see Cubs/Cessna chill around 300-600ft most of the time but that's because there's an airport 5 miles away from where I usually fpv. I was flying fpv with my friend and I could see the Cessna below me.

That's how it is around my house. I live about 4 miles from a small airport but luckily the wind is usually perpendicular with my vector to the airport, so planes don't approach or take off in my direction. I may start calling the control tower and telling them when I fly, but im not even sure that is necessary.

FPV FLYER
14th August 2011, 09:05 PM
TBS, DITTO! Well said.

KMart
14th August 2011, 09:14 PM
I woudn't recommend calling them telling them that you are spewing illegal RF noise all over the place, or that you are flying an RC plane in their area. More than likely, they won't like that. ;)

brosius85
14th August 2011, 09:21 PM
please close this thread... i really dont want to hear about people flying fpv when they know they are around planes+airports. the discussion will go to shit. GUARANTEED

volto
14th August 2011, 10:27 PM
Since when is FPV illegal? For ham operators that is.

KMart
14th August 2011, 11:29 PM
I think HAM rules say all video transmissions need to be ground based, and have your callsign every 15 minutes or something like that. I couldn't care less what the rules are, I just fly. My point though is if you're trying to be "safe" by telling the tower, you may not technically be 100% legal. Again, don't quote me on that- I don't know exactly what it is, mostly because I don't care. :D

-Kevin

volto
14th August 2011, 11:38 PM
Hmm, I think it's a giant grey area. I am trying to go about this 100% legally - I just passed my HAM technician exam. Where there are no laws I suppose it's all legal. It's a free country, right?


Right?

Bueller?


*cricket chirping*

brosius85
15th August 2011, 07:42 AM
asking questions like that makes you seem like you dont know what you are doing.

ignorance of the law is not an excuse, so if you are really concerned about the laws look them up.

if you want to ask somewhere i would ask on a HAM forum or call the local HAM club to get an educated opinion.

most people here either dont care if its legal or dont know.

in australia there a 3 types of RF licence and the free kind is very limited in power.

KMart
15th August 2011, 08:04 AM
It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission. ;)

My fpv motto.

kenkos68
15th August 2011, 09:38 AM
I think HAM rules say all video transmissions need to be ground based, and have your callsign every 15 minutes or something like that. I couldn't care less what the rules are, I just fly. My point though is if you're trying to be "safe" by telling the tower, you may not technically be 100% legal. Again, don't quote me on that- I don't know exactly what it is, mostly because I don't care. :D

-Kevin

I think its 10 minutes. When I studied for my exam, there were specific questions relating to rc models. You are in remote control. From what I gather, everything is legal. As for the rest of the HAM stuff, they expect common sense. Know where you fly.

BTW, not contradicting you in any way. I agree with you.

-Ken

volto
15th August 2011, 11:45 AM
asking questions like that makes you seem like you dont know what you are doing.

Questions like what? You must pride yourself in having an opinion on everything.


ignorance of the law is not an excuse, so if you are really concerned about the laws look them up.

You don't think I've looked? There is no law prohibiting transmitting from a remote controlled aircraft, look for yourself. http://www.arrl.org/part-97-amateur-radio

if you want to ask somewhere i would ask on a HAM forum or call the local HAM club to get an educated opinion.
While I want to do this legally, I still want to stay "under the radar", I know how opinionated, hostile and self deluded people can be.


most people here either dont care if its legal or dont know.

in australia there a 3 types of RF licence and the free kind is very limited in power.

You wanted this thread closed because you don't want to read it, why are you still posting in it?

volto
15th August 2011, 11:59 AM
I think HAM rules say all video transmissions need to be ground based, and have your callsign every 15 minutes or something like that. I couldn't care less what the rules are, I just fly. My point though is if you're trying to be "safe" by telling the tower, you may not technically be 100% legal. Again, don't quote me on that- I don't know exactly what it is, mostly because I don't care. :D

-Kevin

I forgot to address this. kenkos is correct, it is at least every 10 minutes and at the end of a transmission (§ 97.119). Also the AARL rules allow for installation aboard aircraft (§ 97.11).

whakahere
15th August 2011, 05:03 PM
Germans are funny people aren't they Trappy? My experience has been pretty good so far. Just about every day I go flying I end up taking someone who comes over for a look. I have let 4 people who have NEVER flown rc before and they all flew for 40 minutes (well all but one but he had the heaviest fingers I have ever seen). I would have to say flying FPV is much easier for people who have never flown before. My only bad experience is with Germans ages in the mid 40's to 50's. They want everything by the bloody rules. Must fly at a club, and panic about everything. This age groups seem to complain the fastest and not ready to even look into it as quick. Get over that age (retired) and they are just loving the feeling. I get stopped by this age group even when walking with my plane to my flying field. The younger generation have all used flight sims on computers growing up so it really isn't that new for them. They understand what is happening on the screen and move their fingers with it.

So I think we need to educate the generation before computers about how people have had this experience before and can translate their skills from the computer faster. Older generation are now ready to give anything a go and I would have to say are the most fun people to take flying. They just want to know everything and .. low and behold their wives that are with them just smile and let them go. :)

KMart
15th August 2011, 06:14 PM
Hmm. The editor of AMA mag left a message on my home phone today asking me to call him back. I think he want's Raphael's phone number. ;) :D

SENTRY
15th August 2011, 06:22 PM
Give him mine. ;)

roberto
15th August 2011, 07:30 PM
OMG, Iīm not FPV approved age....




My only bad experience is with Germans ages in the mid 40's to 50's. They want everything by the bloody rules. Must fly at a club, and panic about everything. This age groups seem to complain the fastest and not ready to even look into it as quick. Get over that age (retired) and they are just loving the feeling. I get stopped by this age group even when walking with my plane to my flying field.

whakahere
16th August 2011, 01:49 AM
OMG, Iīm not FPV approved age....

you old German bastard :D

Mictronics
16th August 2011, 04:56 AM
My only bad experience is with Germans ages in the mid 40's to 50's.
The generation who rules Germany right now, and you see where it goes...
2595

brosius85
16th August 2011, 08:37 AM
please- volto- we are all FPV enthusuiasts here. please forgive any assumtions i made about the nature of your enquiries. did not mean to offend. if you are transmitting picture legally, transmitting RC control legally, and flying legally then you really ought to be congratulated.

it is not the accounts you are giving that has put a frown on my face.

luzaban
16th August 2011, 10:23 AM
if you are transmitting picture legally, transmitting RC control legally, and flying legally then you really ought to be congratulated.

well if you want to FVP seriously in europe you have no other choice than irgnoring all laws.

- UHF RC -> not allowed
- < 25mw Video -> not allowed
- fly out of visual range -> not allowed

Trappy
16th August 2011, 11:54 AM
whakahere: I hate categorizing people according to country. There are morons in every country in this world. The problem here seems to be that the morons are the most vocal in germany. In other countries morons are less vocal, i.e. they know they're not the smartest and they congregate amongst themselves. In germany, people tend to look up to morons and the stupid shit they spew is generally accepted as a "conservative and well thought line of argumentation", when in reality, well, they're morons :)

luzaban, with 10mW you can go up to 10km, there are multiple ways to work around the "line of sight" rule and UHF R/C is not a problem. please inform yourself before declassifying all serious FPV in Europe as illegal.

Trappy
16th August 2011, 12:01 PM
Hmm. The editor of AMA mag left a message on my home phone today asking me to call him back. I think he want's Raphael's phone number. ;) :D
oh ... can he call me? PLEASE? HAHAHAHAHA. I'll record the call :D

radialmind
16th August 2011, 12:02 PM
Another discussion over @ diydrones.com:

http://www.diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/irresponsible-fpv-flights

Trappy
16th August 2011, 12:10 PM
Another discussion over @ diydrones.com:

http://www.diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/irresponsible-fpv-flights
I love how the pilot goes "dude, chill, it's not a big problem" and all the others (probably not even R/C pilots) go: "MADNESS! THEY WILL BAN US, I SAY, BAN US!".

We should have a "FPV hater of the month" competition, don't u think?

SENTRY
16th August 2011, 12:11 PM
Wow.

jimmaplesong
16th August 2011, 12:54 PM
There are a couple of idiot haters there, but I like Hai and what he has to say. He even responds to one of the haters:
"@Tony, Trappy video flight was fantastic! The issue wasn't about fly too high and risk for hit a real aircraft"

He clarifies over and over that FPV isn't the problem, and it's just a matter of avoiding collisions.

Toby is cool too, he says, "if he[Trappy] had a collision with any piloted aircraft while flying that close to a bridge, i'd have pretty major concerns about what on earth a piloted aircraft was doing there."

It's a really good discussion overall, and the real idiots reveal themselves quickly, and are argued with.

volto
16th August 2011, 01:41 PM
please- volto- we are all FPV enthusuiasts here. please forgive any assumtions i made about the nature of your enquiries. did not mean to offend. if you are transmitting picture legally, transmitting RC control legally, and flying legally then you really ought to be congratulated.

it is not the accounts you are giving that has put a frown on my face.

Apology accepted, I am just a little defensive because I have done my best to do this legally, as futile as that may seem. For someone to come along and say all FPV is illegal and I don't know what I am doing kind of struck a nerve. I will try not to be so sensitive :)

radialmind
16th August 2011, 02:24 PM
Also notice how the discussion changed from specifically FPV (those morons flying around with camera's, what the hell are they thinking?) towards r/c model flying in general. We're all interested in structurally reliable planes in the end and it proves that you need to make efforts to avoid flying dangerously near people (because some of them will actually run towards your plane... *duh*).

People are notoriously bad at (true) risk assessment, especially when there is the potential of emotional consequences and (political) embarrassment. Airport security for example has done extremely little in comparison to the cost to make flights safer for us, but huge amounts of money are still spent on it. Disagreeing is a sure way to get the "glove treatment" :). There are two major factors that improved flight security and they are very simple: 1. People *will* jump the geezer trying to do anything stupid, 2. Reinforced cockpit doors. All the rest is just a waste of money and investments on the attacks of yesterday, rather than security against those of tomorrow.

Trappy
16th August 2011, 02:35 PM
Agreed. DIYDrones discussions are a little like the ones on RCG, except with fierce moderation (not always fair, but consistent) and about 50 additional IQ points per participant on average :) most of the time the outcome is pretty good. When they start frwaking out about a copter (ar.drone??) next to or over people it just makes me wonder ... So much worse is done onna daily basis for all kinds of applications, why get mad aboutba single incident?


There are a couple of idiot haters there, but I like Hai and what he has to say. He even responds to one of the haters:
"@Tony, Trappy video flight was fantastic! The issue wasn't about fly too high and risk for hit a real aircraft"

He clarifies over and over that FPV isn't the problem, and it's just a matter of avoiding collisions.

Toby is cool too, he says, "if he[Trappy] had a collision with any piloted aircraft while flying that close to a bridge, i'd have pretty major concerns about what on earth a piloted aircraft was doing there."

It's a really good discussion overall, and the real idiots reveal themselves quickly, and are argued with.

ssassen
16th August 2011, 02:48 PM
That reminds me, the question still lingering in my mind is whether Gary sent you a bday card? :)

Trappy
16th August 2011, 03:05 PM
He probably made another video? Not sure, I think he still hangs out on that forum that is disappearing into insignificance :)


That reminds me, the question still lingering in my mind is whether Gary sent you a bday card? :)

KMart
16th August 2011, 05:06 PM
Talked to him today. This is the Editor of their magazine, but from the same office. They want GoPro to send them a camera for some event. Good publicity maybe (for FPV and aerial photography)?

Trappy
16th August 2011, 05:09 PM
pff, what a cheapster :D

KMart
16th August 2011, 05:17 PM
That was the first thought to come across my mind too... :D

I should say, "You know, Trappy bought probably half a dozen GoPros before he asked for GoPro to sponsor him... Haha!

Trappy
16th August 2011, 05:22 PM
well, that's true too ... and I don't run an insurance business on the side :)

KMart
16th August 2011, 08:15 PM
Interesting phone conversation. Apparently, the "I hate Trappy" bug is NOT universal in the AMA building. He seemed to love your videos, but it sounded like he was timid to say it.

Good to know there are people in the ranks there that AREN'T super old and extremely "old school", but are open to the idea of FPV.

Trappy
16th August 2011, 08:38 PM
interesting ... maybe we should start a campaign on my YT channel ;)

BloomingtonFPV
18th August 2011, 09:46 PM
With over 2 million total views your YT channel would be a perfect platform. Maybe you could do a little Q&A in the description that would address immediate questions like a) is this legal and b) did we put anyone at risk when making this video.

Trappy
18th August 2011, 10:10 PM
Yup. We are working on it. The problem is it has to be done in a manner that fits the "Team BlackSheep" brand ... and it requires a lot of creativity to fit a "security campaign" into the rebel image. Either way, it will be done, it's just a matter of time.

brosius85
21st August 2011, 08:31 AM
i think it would be a mistake to bring up the legality discussion on your front page of TBS or YT channel. anyone interested in the "sport" seriously will work it out the legality themselves, all other spectators arent going to get all sweaty and panic- unless you start bringing up the topic. i think the biggest drawcard of FPV as something to immerse yourself in, is the feeling of absolute freedom.
the first videos i saw gave me such an absolute feeling of freedom, i felt like i had the opportunity to see anything- to fly anywhere no limits, nothing to tie me down. if i knew what i know now, about the pitfalls of radio interference, about the limits of where you can fly, red tape, etc, i would have been less quick to jump right in and go for an FPV setup.
unless your videos had a 10% dislike rate or something i think it would do more harm than good.

if you wanted to do a pisstake on all the haters by pretending to quit the hobby because of all the negative feedback i would laugh heartily though.

volto
21st August 2011, 02:20 PM
<snip>
if you wanted to do a pisstake on all the haters by pretending to quit the hobby because of all the negative feedback i would laugh heartily though.

Now this would be funny.

durangoflyer
26th August 2011, 05:07 PM
I forgot to address this. kenkos is correct, it is at least every 10 minutes and at the end of a transmission (§ 97.119). Also the AARL rules allow for installation aboard aircraft (§ 97.11).

In my research I have found the same information. If you want to transmit video without a ham license you have to use an FCC Part 15 device (Like 10mw or something lame like that). If you have a licence then you have to display your callsign like volto indicated. Basically it means that unidentified transmissions are not allowed. So if you don't have an OSD with your callsign or flash a card in front of the camera on takeoff or landing, that is considered an unidentified transmission. But seriously how many people follow that rule. I would venture to guess over half of the current FPV fliers have not obtained an HAM ticket and are transmitting illegally.

flyboy_____
26th August 2011, 06:59 PM
TRAPPY
CONTROL LINE?!?!?? I love control line!
since my 15 year I practice stunt, combat, team race in control line and some years ago I learned to fly RC

In control line I use 21m lines in stunt and about 16m in other classes, so my vision of the model is always close watching all reactions and I feel the model traction, vibrations and sustentaion trought the lines in your hand.
It feels almost like FPV, with tremendous adrenaline (1,5m normal height to star/end stunt manouvers)

RC always had a dificulty to me that was seeing the model far away and understanding its position in the sky. So I learned that in RC bigger is better planes or helis.
Now FPV solves that dificulty.

Control line, RC and FPV all have it's own attractions and there is place for all.
Many haters just hate. Others after learning more about the subject start to gain some logic and understand that FPV is the closest feeling to pilot one airplane, when RC just let us be the spectator that can control the actions of the model from a distance.
FPV allows you to get more sensations from the model, then RC and similar to Control Line

KMart
26th August 2011, 11:08 PM
I would venture to guess over 90% of the current FPV fliers have not obtained an HAM ticket and are transmitting illegally.

Fixed.

volto
27th August 2011, 01:53 AM
I know someone who was fined big time by the FCC for interfering with an emergency system, ever since I heard about that I felt I had no choice but to get my license. Glad I did, I could care less about stupid laws but a law that could potentially save someone's life is worth listening to.

Danub
27th August 2011, 02:02 PM
What kind of fine is big time? what was the situation? It is possible that I may not be following all of the rules. :rolleyes:
When I am speeding a just accept the $400 ticket.

And for the haters. . . PI$$ OFF!! :D

volto
27th August 2011, 02:13 PM
Over $5000 if I remember correctly. I am not saying you absolutely need a ham license to be safe. You do to be legal, but not to be responsible. Obviously even if you have a ham license you can still cause harmful interference, but you are less likely to because of the knowledge required to get the license. But really, it's only $15 and a bit of time to get it, it's worth it IMO.

BloomingtonFPV
27th August 2011, 04:36 PM
I hate to redirect to rcg, but here's more info on getting your license:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1384449

SENTRY
4th October 2011, 07:36 PM
Very well-said response. It's hard to argue that paragraph. :) Keep it as safe and respectful to full-scale aviation as you can guys.

egosession
4th October 2011, 08:04 PM
An RC pilot talk to me today while I was packing my FPV stuff back to my bike. He didnt say it direct, but I felt that he was afraid of that hobby. Obviously he had heard or seen videos with low flight and reckless FPV flying. For him it must look horribel, because he doesnt know whats behind the scene. We know whats behind sutch videos.

I really start to be scared, that one day, FPV will be forbidden and I only can go fly FPV if I find a empty area with no people at all. Or that I need to hide behind bushes while wearing a video goggle. Because I cant stop doing FPV... I just cant.

roberto
16th October 2011, 08:38 PM
man..... this is hilarious.

"I lived in fear for a long time that the MTVGenXYZ would come of age and it appears it has, negatively."

KnightHawk
16th October 2011, 10:11 PM
The original post of this thread reminded me of something interesting I recently learned. As I was flying in a nearby field (not an official RC flying field), a very interested & enthusiastic older fellow stopped by to talk about my plane (was not flying an FPV aircraft that day) and his interest in aviation. He told me about his experience in aviation and that he was in the military for years. He was stationed somewhere in Maryland and his job was to instrument (with sensors & actuators) unmanned FPV F4 full scale aircraft. Keep in mind, this was all back in the 1970's (although it's still a current practice). The actuators & control systems were operated in first person view via terrestrial antenna systems (not GPS or satellite as today's drones are) with technology that would be laughed at when compared to the systems we use as hobbyists in 2011. He said these F4's would fly up and down the East coast all the time; sometimes in low-level supersonic flight. Isn't that crazy? I find this especially interesting because our audience of RC-FPV haters probably do not have the wherewithal to read about military practices such as low level supersonic unmanned flight with an aircraft carrying 5000+ lbs of Jet A-1 fuel that could easily take out an elementary school as a result of a simple failure. You can read more about the current practice of this here: http://www.fencecheck.com/content/index.php?title=The_Final_Mission:_The_USAF%92s_QF-4_Target_Drones

You have to admit, it would be pretty awesome to have remote control of a full scale jet. Especially if it was within line of sight.
3672