When I deliberately flew a tinywhoop via FPV in my own garden without an observer CAA in NZ actually investigated the case. In the end they claimed "it is not in the public interest to prosecute" -- which is bureaucratic speak for "we do not want to look foolish in front of a judge".
It would have been interesting if they had. Would a judge have just said "that's the law" and issued some penalty, or treated it as silly and given a token penalty - say £1 with costs on CAA, or thrown it out, which might have set some sort of precedent (not knowing how NZ law works). From the CAA point of view, not proceeding was probably the smart move.
@@edcbabc in the UK the judge would have based the decision on the letter of the law so convicted, however they may have issued a conditional discharge depending on their viewpoint.
Bruce... Off your topic a bit but do you find that when you fly a drone /quadcopter... You get more a more negative response than when you fly an rc plane... I've found that when you fly a drone people either shake their heads... Of go you can't go anywhere with out an annoying buzzing.... But when I fly my albabird .. People come up and say I saw you flying earlier ... Looks amazing .. Can I have a look.. . I used have a remote control plane years ago, 👌
@@simonwood8685 I've just asked this question on my Facebook timeline and the two themes that emerged were "annoying buzz" and "Spy camera/invasion of privacy". I think we should all think carefully about how we counter these perceptions. One obvious mitigation is to stay well away from people and property (A3 air space).
@@simonwood8685 Because most people in the town already know me and my drones I get a pretty positive response when encountering the public while flying regardless of what I'm flying. Having said that, if I am flying in the parks I tend to do it well away from the public and at times when there are few people about. However, the thing that amazes most of them is when I get them to put on my spare set of goggles. Even with analog people are always so blown-away by the FPV experience that they realise *why* we fly them. They figure out straight away that it has nothing to do with spying on folk or being a nuisance, it's just a magical experience.
@18:09 -- you do realise that these FPV drones have cameras on them so you can *see* whatever it is you're heading towards... right? 😀 If a drone's camera provides sufficient precision to allow the craft to be navigated through tiny gaps and gates, does anyone really think that the pilot would not see a person (or a dog) in front of them? This is the problem with the way regulators think. They haven't actually done any/much FPV flying and experienced how good modern systems are so they assume that when you put goggles on you become deaf and blind -- thus you need a spotter and a white cane to be safe 😛
Fpv drones have a much better safety record than manned aircraft. Wings over dallas... 6 people lost their lives for.. Entertainment... I'm sorry for the pilots involved and their families.. But sometimes at air shows they take thrilling the crowds ... Over safety
Re spotters: the simple truth the CAA need to understand about FPV flying is that spotters add no value whatsoever. I have far better information in my OSD about my position, heading, speed, orientation, altitude, proximity to obstacles and intent than any observer could ever have. My ears work just as well as a warning device as an observer so again no added value, and if they are looking 360, then they are not observing my FPV quad. The issue of BVLOS is also similarly misunderstood. I would say as an FPV pilot that it is perfectly safe to fly BVLOS so long as you are flying safely and reasonably I.E. within the range of your RC and video, and battery capacity and away from people.
Well, that was interesting since FPV is all I do,, and I appreciate the video. It's unfortunate that Callum has virtually zero knowledge of FPV - but one could say that makes him well qualified to give the CAA position. However, it gives me little confidence of anything useful coming from future consultations. It is easy to say everything is on the table, but experience so far does not cause me to think the CAA will do anything helpful. I still think these rules are a ratchet that goes one way only, based on experience. I'd say if they want to get the FPV flyers onside (do they, actually?), they've got to make the first move, and a pretty substantial one at that, because most I know just ignore the CAA as far as possible as a negative influence. I mentioned these future consultations to a friend yesterday. His response? "Oh, not more ****** rules'. That is how this sector sees the CAA. I don't think the CAA cares actually, whatever Callum might say, that's the evidence of their actions. As to an FPV training and competency test, I for one would be 100% against it. I just would not do it. First there's the cost. It would have to be practical as FPV is all about flying skill. But mostly, I just wouldn't do it on principle. I'm very careful about where and how I fly. Touch wood, I have never had any sort of incident. Whilst accidents can never be ruled out, I think I do everything reasonable, so if a test is mooted, produce the justification, explain why this is needed in a sector with such a good record. So probably, if it came to a test, I'm afraid that would be me done and gone.
I would be OK with a DMARES style test that is there really just to check that you know that rules exist. Practical assessment is completely out of the question though. You may be right about the ratchet, but the way to slacken off the pressure might be through Article 16 OA in my opinion. Callum kind of hinted that this might be the way to go and it could be done through FPVUK. There is really no reason for much regulation at all in A3 airspace. A case can be made that the chance of conflict with manned aviation is indistinguishable from zero, and by definition A3 airspace is not over people or property, so it is always safe to land or disarm in case of an incident. Our safety track record backs this up. "Sub-250g" is not a good enough demarcation point. Most 5-inch quads are in the range of 500-800g yet represent probably less risk than a sub-250g camera drone in my opinion.
I started flying toy quadcopters years ago, then last year got my first FPV just as the rules changed to needing a spotter. I got to fly it about 5 times then after the rules changed haven't flown since as I need to drag someone a long with me to fly(typically early morning in the middle of nowhere). Some of these rules make no sense.
@@DavidSmith-oy4of The rules for FPV make no sense on any level. They are arbitrary, capricious, unsafe and impractical. We are effectively banned even though we are probably the least risk to other people and manned aviation. I'm lucky enough to have a willing spotter so at least I can stay legal most of the time, but this mess of regulatory over-reach has to change. Regulation that causes most people to exist outside the law is bad, corrosive regulation.
From years of experience..spotters are NOT necessary. I can see perfectly well with my Fatshark HDO2's and TBS Evo vtx's. If a helicopter approaches..I can hear them very clearly,as helicopters are noisy..not sure the CAA know that? Light aircraft flying illegally under 120 metres..I can hear them too...as they're noisy too. Seems the CAA don't realise how safe FPV really is. Anybody died recently coz if it? No. As an FPV UK member..the CAA cannot justify their price hikes.
Flown FPV for 2 years (safely) how you fly matters more than a spotter (who are mostly useless for fov btw). In fpv I can stop mid air, rotate, see a massive field of view and only ever fly a few meters above a tree or other object. The joy is proximity to structure (not people) in this setting spotters are pretty hopeless tbh. The time you fly is probably more crucial to others safety than anything else. Very early mornings are the normal or very unpopulated spaces. Sadly we will not be generating new generations of expert flyers capable of film work that stuns people. Sadly the existing rules make enjoyment of fpv so difficult for those of us wanting to fly this way. I realise that the regulations want to align us with manned flight but paragliding pilots, microlight pilots and ultralight pilots don't have a spotter and honestly don't have the situational awareness that a competent fpv pilot has, (I've flown in ultralight, glide and paragliders and to date I haven't managed to turn my head 360 degrees from a seat). Please, please, please consider us, our home built quadcopters and our safety records!
@@FishfaceFP Hi Alex!... spot on..AMEN👍 If you are an FPV UK member?... your powerful words would be very useful in submitting to yet another CAA "consultation" (ffs.) FPV UK have given members the link to submit fpv fliers comments. I,m pissed tho..as it appears our wonderful hobby will come to an end within the next 3 years approximately.......ignorantly policed by posh dog walking "Karens" and therefore calls to His Majesty's police force...who will come and fine you/ confiscate your gear for sure. Shame as political crime,(rife in England 🤣, knife crime,drug crime,corruption, are mire worthy contenders for all this "bollocks."
@@chrissofpv3017 I have submitted a comment on costs to that consultation - needs to be done quickly, closes 16th Jan. Seems like the CAA are saying "we need a bigger stick to hit you with, so we're going to charge you more for the stick". A bit like Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil', where one was billed for one's own interrogation.
@@edcbabcThanks Nick👍...I'm doing my response today🙏🍻 Agreed...and smiling of course about your ref to Terry Gillian. Oddly.I AM in Brazil as we speak! 🇧🇷
Imagine someone who doesn't drive a car making all the vehicle and road safety regulations. This is what its like when it comes to drone regulations. These useless jobsworths at the CAA who have never even flown an FPV drone and rarely fly a normal drone making all these hugely overly restrictive laws. It's a JOKE! They need to have some sort of board that votes on these laws, with at least 50% of the members being experienced FPV pilots, regular drone pilots and members of the drone community.
It’s simple….CAA need to take an evidence based approach with their regulatory intent. To over-regulate will result only in a reduction in any attempt for individual compliance. It just needs a regulatory body to understand the data and fight the urge to lean on an increasingly risk averse/lazy approach to mitigating perceived (and not actual) risk. Personally, just focus on the most dangerous behaviours and hit them harder when proven guilty. You’ll increase compliance, greater generate greater respect for the rules and maintain a stronger reputation with with drone user community. Win/Win.
To be fair to CAA, they are mostly only doing what the law says they have to do. I think in some cases they have gone further then necessary but the main problem is that we will have to get the law changed (the CAA can advocate for this if we convince them to do so).
Under article 16, after reading the wording carefully I concluded it was possible to fly without an observer at all if certain conditions were met. I put this to Simon Dale of FPV UK and he said to me that it was not the intent of the regulation, and the intent was actually just to allow races in sterile areas with less than one observer per craft, but not no observer at all. That was not my understanding from the actual wording, however.
Quote FPV-UK... A model aircraft may be flown by a remote pilot using first person view (FPV) equipment subject to the limitations of this authorisation, and following conditions (a) or (b), either: a) The aircraft is flown in accordance with all of the following conditions: i. Within a sterile area- meaning a cordoned off, closed area that uninvolved persons are excluded from; and ii. The aircraft is not flown at a height in excess of 160 feet (50 metres) from the surface; and.... To me (IANAL) this means if I fly in a private field (or my garden) then I can fly FPV without a spotter. However the further points iii. and iv.... iii. In accordance with procedures specifically set out for the purpose of the event, and in accordance with instruction from the race director or other nominated person, including any ‘terminate race and land immediately’ instruction; and iv. Any observers are suitably briefed and aware of their responsibilities, including the monitoring of people or aircraft entering the cordoned off area; Does muddy the definition a bit and make it sound like only events are covered, so who actually knows?
@@wolfmanjm Well personally, I'd say an 'event' is me deciding to go out into my private sterile area, and I'm the nominated person. I concluded that if I wrote myself some appropriate procedure, I'd be fine. Simon Dale didn't agree. But in the end, its not up to him. If a complaint was made and it got to court, a magistrate - probably with zero experience of all this - would interpret it. So, it comes down to "do you feel lucky?".
Very interesting and good point made about how FPV is currently flown without reports of issues - with or without spotters. If the CAA asked all UK FPV pilots if they use a spotter or not (without any repercussions) I suspect the majority (if not all) would admit to flying or have flown without a spotter. However... as you say, currently without issues. FPV pilots have too much time, hard work and money spent building their drones / airframes. It's not quite 'skin in the game' but certainly more invested into their drones than an 'off-the-shelf' drones.
Spot on! The spotters are not useful for fpv to be honest, they get distracted, don't understand what we can see inside the goggles (honestly a better view than the spotter 9 times out if ten) and due to our extreme low altitudes literally a couple of foot from a surface the requirement for a spotter sucks for us.
I do really hate this. I fly sub 100 grams (some sub 30g) fpv drones. I never have a spotter. It is 100% safe. To prove it to my niece once I flew the whoop into my head at full speed to show it won’t hurt. Nothing.. I could crash in to people or property with no damage. Unless I crashed into the pilots eye I cannot crash or damage a plane! I never go above 50 feet!
I agree. I hope, (with possibly false optimism), that we can convince the CAA during the consultations that a line needs to be drawn in the sand, and lightweight fpv needs to be excluded. It is the same in the US, where a tiny whoop pilot is required to get Laanc approval. It needs to change.
Thank you for this, at the very least thank you for considering fpv pilots at all, we feel like the lost and forgotten very much! Just as a slight aside, I teach under 14's to build and fly fpv, they are often quicker to learn, more comptent and better than adults🤣🤣the skills they learn in terms of design, assembly, programming, flight dynamics etc... kids should be encouraged to do this, it's their future world, they will need the skills for future technology and employment.
I think instead of defining small whoops and micros as toys, they should be categorized by assisted flight modes and regulated as such. I consider my fpv "drones" as quads. They are manually flown, require practice to learn, and if you take your hands off the controller, they crash. A drone (to me) is an intelligent device with GPS, Optical flow, or some other system to maintain and control it in the air separate from the pilot. That would allow quads and RC planes to be lumped together, as quads really are just a evolution of the balsa and glow powered planes that hobbyist have enjoyed for decades. Quads take practice and skill, drones can be flown by anyone who purchased it at the local store. (Granted good videography is a skill, but GPS drones fly themselves for the most part.)
The devil is in the details though. Whatever category you can think up, there are exceptions to it. FPV quads can run INAV, for example, which has some autonomous flight modes but they are still FPV quads. I think there does need to be a separate category for "UAS flown in manual mode" i.e. where you are directly controlling pitch, roll, yaw and throttle.
@@timlong7289 you are exactly right. I have a few iNav GPS fpv drones that I have built. Adding the autonomous flight ability changes the category, IMO. Just like how where I live, if you modify your truck's suspension or tire size, you then have to get a modified annual inspection sticker instead of the standard inspection. It's still a truck, but you made the conscious decision to modify it.
There's more to BVLOS than flags at races. There is, or was, an image on the CAA site showing a quad behind a tree with an X against it - forbidden. If you fly - with a spotter - in an open A3 type space and you fly round a course made of isolated trees or the odd small bush - not talking about a whole copse here - the spotter and flyer can clearly see beyond the trees, no-one is around, yet when the quad goes behind one of those trees for maybe half a second, according to the CAA, that's broken the rules. That, to me is silly because there is no safety risk, yet, unless the docs have changed since I last looked, it is specifically forbidden.
Personally, I see FPV as totally separate from other airborne 'drones' and should be regulated as such. I'd say it's highly unlikely for an FPV drone to be involved in any confrontation with any manned aircraft..
I’m going to sound very harsh but to listen to two people discuss the complexities of FPV, both having next to no experience of FPV, is like me, a disabled person, discussing Parkour with a man with no legs. The use of a spotter has yet to be proven to be essential to safety as there is no evidence nor has a risk assessment been made to support such a need. In some situations I might possibly agree, but as FPV is predominately practised in abandoned areas, and other areas of very low to nil population, it is obvious that this requirement was made mandatory through ignorance. The only justification made so far is based on uneducated “what if’s”. I would ask the CAA to provide an example where a spotter was instrumental in averting damage to persons or property. I would also challenge any spotter to maintain orientation whilst I flew something like an Emax Tinyhawk Freestyle beyond a 10foot distance, especially when I have set the rates to rotate about any given axis at over 1000degrees a second. If these regulations were in place for safety issues there wouldn’t be so many of them. If you look at the number of deaths involving hang gliders/paragliders and compare them to the number of deaths due to the use of recreational model flying you will see a very stark difference. Yet I don’t need to register anything if I want to hurl myself off a hill under a wing and with a petrol engine on my back, nor do I have anywhere near the same overreaching regulation that I have when I fly my 250.0000000001g FPV quad in my own garden.
Thanks for joining the discussion. I think you will be hard pushed to find too many experienced FPV pilots at any regulator. I watched a video from a visit to the FAA drone advisory board where people had brought along whoops and goggles for them to try. It was like watching people introduced to VR for the first time... Unfortunately, I cannot suddenly gain experience I do not have but I did feel like it was important to discuss FPV as a specific subject, as it gets forgotten about in many of the regulatory chats despite there being more challenges within the niche than others. I reached out to a couple of experienced flyers to get a few of the discussion points. Although I do not have much experience of FPV, I am fully versed in the regulations and also in deep conversations on the topic with many experienced FPV operators. So I do count myself as knowledgeable of the challenges. I just thought it was important to be open with the audience at the start. We need to ensure the FPV community engage with the consultations and have their voices heard. That is the way to getting the regulator to understand. Once they understand, we can get movement.
All an fpv spotter needs to ever do is watch out for dog walkers and manned aviation in the general area of operation, and warn the pilot/s of the location of said walkers so the pilot can adjust there flight plan. Being able to tell the orientation of a 5inch drone is impossible
Sean, I believe that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) needs to better understand the FPV community. The VLOS rules are sensible in urban / suburban areas, but the requirement for an observer makes no sense when flying in open areas, old buildings, forests, or with small drones like the Tiny Whoop. It is nonsensical and a travesty that active FPV pilots are not part of the CAA team responsible for setting regulations. The FPV hobby is being regulated out of existence by regulators who think they know better, which is not right😢 Thank you for trying hold the CAA to account.
A2CofC is not a competency, merely demonstrates that at the end of that course the learner can demonstrate their knowledge of the safety framework and how it applies to them (which is great but doesn't demonstrate competence in flight). An FPV certificate of confidence? Great, bring it on, all us experienced fpv pilots would happily sit it and enjoy putting a flight examiner in the goggles with us (and make them duck, lean and squeal as we flick, gap, swoop and play). BUT we all had to start somewhere, we all had to build, crash (safely), repair, rebuild, put in horrendous amounts of stick time on a simulator, in real life, on indoor micro drones, work things out, experiment, play before we could develop our skills. If the requirement was for an fpv pilot to have a certificate how the hell would they get all that experience without a certificate? Lovely idea, impractical perhaps. I find it interesting that I terms of pilots FPV pilots are commanding very very high salaries in film and media, although we are a tiny tiny part of the aerial community our contributions are perhaps more relatable to the public at large than drone delivery. Let's nor put barriers in the way of future Alex Vannovers, let's nurture talent, will, determination, let's Foster responsible flight, design and building skills. We have an opportunity to celebrate this weird little form of aerial prowess!
Well based on the fact shall we say 80 % + myself included fpv pilots do not use a spotter and the safety record from etc I will never use a spotter its just not feasible dragging a mate out to stand next to whilst use blast some circuits .....remove the requirement surely you must realise its not being paid attention too
The..... Spotter... Usually an unimpressed girlfriend or wife.... Is as good as a chocolate teapot... When you crash... And ask where is it... They say... Dunno 🙄
After each of these videos there is always a robust discussion of the subject matter by viewers. I would be interested to know whether the CAA also pay any attention to the responses to this series. Especially the tone and the very obvious anger among the community. Or doesn't it matter to them?
From the feedback I get, yes they do. I also get the feedback from government departments, police and others. So they are reading and taking it in. The amount of difference it then makes remains to be seen...
I love FPV. I don’t do all the flips, I leave that to the younger people! But I must admit when I first tried it, I had to sit down. But now I can stand up without leaning side to side lol…. Last year I filmed a water skier while I was in the speed boat! That was scary, especially when the speed boat does a sharp turn…
ive never flown with a spotter, couldnt find anyone at 9am on a sunday to watch me put in 10 packs. if i was flying in an area where there was people i would get a spotter for my own safety, i never fly where people are anyway, its fields, farms, cliffs, woods for me.
All this is well and good, but as with every regulation, freedoms are removed, nothing else. The reason regulation is put in place is to procure security (supposedly - since truthful statistics are still not here to prove this), but the only truth that I perceive is that it creates complexity (exceptions) / lack of reasonable answers (the whoop issue) and ultimately only favours industrials with enough financial capacity (remote ID in the US). The only real simple rule for this should be a blanket rule that ensures that the pilot needs to fly responsibly without putting people and belongings at risk.... then you can let the right legal channels manage the rest.... Stop over regulating! I don't want to pay a unjustified operator ID from an unjustified database. I want to fly my tinywhoop in a park when there is no one on the way. I am happy to fly my 5" under the trees in a private property even if near an airport!
I love FPV, it's so much fun. Flown the BabyHawk 2HD which I ended up losing when lost connections and now flying GEPRC Cinelog25. Both have been sub250 FPV. Would love a new BabyHawk2 and try the Cinebot30 and Nazgul Evoque F5
Mate I’ve ended up with 3 BBHK 2 quads, absolutely brilliant sub 250, I’ve converted mine to longer range with xfire, bigger vtx, better camera and even a lost finder buzzer and still under 250g, can go anywhere my 5” quads do, cruising I can get 12 to 13 mins and change profile for ripping ( basic ripping 😅 ) I get 6 mins, it’s a great piece of kit and tough as nails ✊👍 absolutely crap range out the box but I don’t mind as it keeps the price down 😃👍
@@bugsy742 yeah I got mine DJI cause it was my first but if and when I buy again as stock is limited will go cross fire. I really want them to my an O3 version. GepRC Cinelog 25 is cool to but doesn’t fly as long cause of the ducts but it can freestyle.
A 100g Tinywhoops would not fly, too heavy, generally Tinywhoops are less than 20grams all up weight. FPV has also improved, it’s worth giving it another go now the digital systems are leading the way. Also at our club, we do operate with spotters, and the FPV pilot can often identify the type of aircraft and where it’s coming from long before the visual observer can (we often get overflown by the local aerodrome who interestingly won’t engage with us but because we are outside the FRZ there’s nothing they can do). Also anybody who can fly FPV won’t bother taking a “test” to unlock rights, that’s just wishful thinking because if you can already fly FPV, you’re clearly more experienced and competent than the person who wrote the regulations requiring your to sit an exam for to check you are competent.
I do not believe that is correct re the test. I have flown FPV for a few years, have 10+ quads, thousands of pounds invested and if it meant I could fly without as many restrictions or without a spotter, I would certainly pay for the privilege. I know not everyone will agree, that's just my opinion. My issue is that I live out in the country, so no clubs to visit ect It's difficult to believe that people who do not fly FPV are going to be making decisions on the future of FPV. That's like a lay person making decisions of medical procedures and ignoring all do tors advice. As FPV is my only real hobby, I am very concerned RE it's future and it turn mine. Not all of us want to just bend/break the rules as they have real world consequences. The CAA have to try and get this right as the future of many are dependent on it. I won't hold my breath, but hopefully some compromise can be attained. Retails such as drone authority and others, therefore their livelihoods depend on it. It would be interesting to see injuries/fatalities from cars vs drones, but then again the government doesn't make enough money from drones, until it starts selling the airspace To Amazon and the likes.
@@dyslexicfrog7426 I will loose my job if I get fined for flying without a spotter, out in the middle of nowhere, miles away from people. The regulations, for hobbyists especially, are wholly disproportionate and draconian to the need. The mere fact that they consider a 20gram tinywhoop to be so dangerous that it requires a visual observer tells you all you need to know about the people writing these regulations - aka clueless out of touch bureaucrats.
@@testpilotian3188 I absolutely agree, but, in order to enjoy the hobby I love with more freedom, I would be willing to take a test. Hopefully, sense will prevail but I highly doubt it. That's what you get when a non-FPV person (And it really showed) is tasked with making decisions that affect the FPV community.
As per Open A3 rules you are away from anything and very unlikely to encounter and endanger someone or property, Open A3 should allow BVLOS without observer if VLOS can be established without undue delay (aka looking up or taking goggles off). That's my risk assessment... and only stubbornness of the lawmakers is preventing something like this being an actual thing.
I think enforcement is an important part of the topic with the FPV spotter. I am not aware of a single person who has ever been prosecuted for flying without a spotter. Although the existing rule might be argued as outdated, it does not seem there is an appetite to hunt down FPV pilots. Will that change when the fixed penalty launches, time will tell.
Not just Drones!! There is a sizeable fixed wing FPV community flying for pleasure. We fly FPV aerobatics with lightweight foam planes and generally don’t go much further than if we were flying RC planes LOS (we all do that as well). Regarding spotters, we invariably have another pilot there to keep an eye on things, but it is not really needed. We can see perfectly well in the goggles and we can hear light aircraft approaching from over a mile away giving us plenty of time to get down to low level. In fact we have an agreement with the local airport that if we hear GA traffic we get below 200ft. We are just outside their FRZ and they are completely happy with our model clubs operations. I am an experienced full size helicopter pilot with over 2,000 hours military flying, so I like to think I know my stuff LOL
Another good conversation with Callum, particularly the part about shielded operation in remote A3 airspace and room for maneuver and discussion with the CAA.
I think that is worth pushing hard come consultation time. When flying in A3 airspace, there is very little need for any additional regulation in my opinion. One can anticipate the CAA not wanting to have different rules for FPV quads and camera drones, but they are clearly different animals with different considerations. I think perhaps one way forward would be for someone like FPVUK to get an extended OA under Article 16 that really relaxes the requirements in A3 airspace. I would like to see them completely drop the requirement for a spotter, which implies also dropping the VLOS requirement (that is likely to be the sticking point).
i find it rather amusing that DJI flyers etc don't seem to think they fly FPV simply because they use a screen rather than a set of goggles so the spotter rule doesn't apply to them. if you're using a screen to fly the drone and most do, you're flying in first person view wither you like it or not and should have a spotter just as a goggle user should.
With safety cases @ £1800 a go and given the broken nature of the process then I think this is a non starter as an option especially as it invovles writing a full blown 3 volume manual. This seems niether proportionate nor light touch which I though was one of the core principles behind the CAA's remit on drone regs.
A solid part of the LOS regulation is about making sure the airspace around the drone is safe, and you have the time and situational awareness to react to changes in that environment. It would be incredibly hard to specifically nail down the legislation in enough terms that it would fully encapsulate that, but also exclude any other abuses of the ruling. Wouldn't it be lovely to live in a world where we could just write "you need to be able to see the aircraft, so that you can be safe in the environment the aircraft is in, and continue to be safe if the environment changes"
In practice no individual hobbyist is likely to try to apply for special authorisation for some field or area he occasionally flies round. It is completely impractical. They are much more likely to shrug their shoulders and just go and do it. That's the nub of the problem really, FPVers that i know mainly treat the CAA as something irritating to be avoided, like a wasp in the room.
@@Geeksvana those boys fly mostly lower than really tall people when they race…it’s crazy. I do think there should be more done by the FPV community to move away from using the language ‘Drone’ i think that’s why it’s difficult to separate them out from say DJI kit in legislation.
I think the rules/ laws are like he says, almost impossible to actually police, unless someone is drawing attention to their flight and reported for it. Even though this is likely the case, I still think the biggest majority of drone owners actually do still want to fly as much within the law as possible. The laws will ultimately be there to prosecute, heavily, anyone who ever causes injury, death or damage from flying a drone outside of the law.
The CAA have zero understanding what fpv is and before they attempt to regulate I hope they show some competency. VLOS rules are an actual joke to fpv pilots especially as the whole point of fpv is to be able to fly beyond line of sight e.g. under a bridge, behind a building, inside a building, up the mountain etc and we invest a lot more time learning to do this, in the simulator and practically and no competency test could teach this. Too many suits making up rules on things they do not actually understand themselves. They would do well to add hobbyist and commercial representation to their panel of decision makers. As for the questions asked, I am utterly disappointed that you focused on tiny whoops and racing drones, no one’s worried about flying whoops behind a flag, most pilots start in the simulator, then open fields, bandos and as we get more competent closer to property and people with suitable drones i.e. cinewhoops and ducted quads. I can’t even put the required sticker on my 2.5 inch quad because it’s made of carbon and has no surface big enough so all my flights even though sub250 are already illegal.
Sterile area: no spotter non sterile: yes to spotter... simple... caa please dont make it complex... many people i think are now gettin into fpv other flying with gps... please dont kill the hobby
This was an interesting one. It does seem like the CAA knows there is a problem with how the regulation treats FPV drones. @geeksvana you should teach yourself to fly one, get Velocidrone, it will take you 30-40 hours of stick time in the simulator to not completely suck. My big bone of contention is that the CAA thinks I am going to fly my drone home VLOS if the video fails. I am here to tell you that is never happening. FPV pilots spend time learning to deal with that exact situation because temporary outages are pretty common, but the case where the video completely fails, one of two things will happen. 1. You will put it into "GPS Rescue" mode if your quad even has a GPS, and it will fly itself home and land within a few metres of you. Or 2. You will disarm it and it will "execute an emergency landing and come to rest on the ground". This is the correct response for an FPV freestyle/racing quad. They are tough as nails and designed to take this sort of abuse. There is no way you are taking off the goggles, trying to find it, orienting yourself and flying it home VLOS. Too late, you have already crashed by that point. You have less than a second to decide: GPS rescue or disarm. Therefore the VLOS rules make no sense on any level. You can see people coming a mile off (literally). You are in the air, you have the best view there is, better than a ground level spotter. You can only see forward but the FoV is about 170 degrees so you can see nearly half the sky at any instant, and you can spin around in a few milliseconds. You are most often below 10 metres so the chances of conflict with manned aviation are indistinguishable from zero unless it is in the process of crashing. If that does somehow happen. you fly down (not home) and either return home at under 5m AGL, land, or disarm. I would never intentionally fly over people or property with an FPV drone, too dangerous, don't go there. A3 airspace only, so it is always safe to land or disarm without consequence to people or property, and that is all the regulation needed. I personally almost always fly with a spotter because I'm lucky enough to have someone willing to do it. I find it useful but not completely necessary and I don't think it should be a requirement. As you know, it takes a lot of skill and experience to fly an FPV drone. We spend hundreds of hours in a simulator learning to fly and countless careful flights building up our skills. Having the CAA treat us like children is objectionable at best.
To those of use who have been flying FPV for years the current regulations around spotters seem overly restrictive. But I do see that they need to cater for all pilot abilities and have some rules in place to at least try and prevent recklessness, after all these things are hella fast and they dont half hurt when they hit you (dont ask how I know 🤣 ) If there was a FPV competency test which allowed us spotter-free FPV flights within shielded operations I feel that would be a big step in the right direction. No doubt others would see it as some kind of money grab, but we have to be realistic here, the regulations aren't going to dissapear overnight. Ultimately the more we can make our voices heard and the more we can do to help to educate the CAA as to what it is we actually do, the more favourable the regulations will end up being. The only other option is to sit back and let the regulations pile up and I don't believe anybody wants that.
An online assessment like DMARES or the one put in place by FPVUK to fly under their Article 16 OA would work. Practical assessments are likely to be expensive and inconvenient and I'm not thrilled at that idea. Perhaps a system based on hours of flight experience? That would also encourage people to keep flight logs.
@@marccretten The DMARES test? Have you taken it? It is so trivial as to be easily guessable. I don't see how that would take any fun out of anything. It would be a hoop to jump through, but once done, done.
@@timlong7289 I have yes. The guidelines are not the problem its people lack of ability is where the problem comes in, a Proficiency test is needed. Logbooks can be fudged as well, this i have seen.
@20:45 Imagine having to apply to fly on your own land without a spotter. When is all this crap just going to go away? Show me a risk assessment showing that FPV is 'dangerous enough' to warrant all these rules and regs. Please.
fpv is a tough thing to get rules on, its a large group of different activites, i would suggest no beginner should fly anywhere but a big open field. spotter or no spotter. and being able to fly slowly is one of the more difficult things in fpv, maybe some additional merit given to beginners once they can land on a pad 10/10.
In Germany we have the possibility to fly FPV without a spotter under certain circumstances. The legislator has created the possibility for the large model flight associations in Germany to enact their own sets of rules apart from the EU regulations. If you are a member and decide to fly according to the regulations of the respective association, you can, for example, fly FPV up to a height of 30 meters and a distance corresponding to VLOS without a second person. This is an incredibly good solution, but it also requires discipline from the respective pilot. But as you can expect from any drone pilot at any time. You are insured for the remaining risks.
Spotters are completely unnecessary for self-build FPV enthusiasts. We have been building and flying these things without issues since long before the CAA even knew what a 'quadcopter' was, a safety record that speaks for itself. We have invested a great deal of time, effort, and money into developing, building and learning to fly these high performance drones under full manual control, which means you cannot even get off of the ground without a level of competency well beyond that of the average DJI consumer. I am certainly not trying to belittle the Mavic pilot, but more emphasise the point that we are dealing with two very different things here and IMHO trying to blanket regulate them together is utter madness. Pretty please could the sky gods at the CAA find a way to provide us with some kind of license, certificate, or exemption that would allow us to legally fly FPV to its full potential, without having to constantly pester our loved ones to yet again come and stand in a cold-ass field and pretend to be our spotter.
Flying model aircraft is one of the safest activities I do. It is safer for myself and those around me than cycling to work, getting in the car, or playing football. I can throw a thrisbee twice as far as the CAA says I can legally fly an FPV drone, for which I apparently require an observer even if flying in the middle of nowhere. Low flying manned aircraft are loud and easy to hear in practice. It is very upsetting that the CAA has effectively criminalised my safe hobby in order to solve a hypothetical problem. All available evidence shows that this is a remarkably safe activity. Flocks of birds will always be more of a threat to aircraft than 250g UAS. There will also always be a tiny minority who intentionally misuse UAS, but overcompensatory regulation of hobbyists will do absolutely nothing to prevent this. The current regulation is an embarrassing mess that criminalises safe flying without a spotter. I truly hope that we end up with saner regulation after this consultation, although I am not optimistic. I don't want to risk losing my job for flying a model aeroplane in an empty field without an observer - is that so much to ask?
The problem is the people making these laws and regulations. The pilot is the observer, there is literally no reason for a spotter other than the safety of the pilot getting mugged.
A tiny whoop style quad that was 50g would be a very big one. 65mm quads are typically 20 to 30g AUW. Again all this talk of toy or not bypasses me entirely. I build them myself from parts, and I'm certainly not under 14. These can be flown outside on quiet days, and we do, and it's ridiculous to me these things are covered by CAA regulation.
Here is an interesting scenario, FPV pilot flying with goggles through trees so ZERO chance encountering real planes, 100% concentrating on flying properly so theoretically 100% safe. No observer. One of the drone crashes on youtube was being pilot being attacked by swans & caught the joystick smacking the drone onto the ground whilst legging it from the swans (another one was caused by a dog). Who is keeping the pilot safe if there isn't an observer in the area (NOT 100% concentrating on flying). for multi-fpv flying you certainly wouldn't require 1:1 spotter ratio. Putting the question the other way... how many parks would you stand in, without any drones, with your eyes closed for 10mins without someone watching out for you too.
When I deliberately flew a tinywhoop via FPV in my own garden without an observer CAA in NZ actually investigated the case. In the end they claimed "it is not in the public interest to prosecute" -- which is bureaucratic speak for "we do not want to look foolish in front of a judge".
It would have been interesting if they had. Would a judge have just said "that's the law" and issued some penalty, or treated it as silly and given a token penalty - say £1 with costs on CAA, or thrown it out, which might have set some sort of precedent (not knowing how NZ law works). From the CAA point of view, not proceeding was probably the smart move.
@@edcbabc in the UK the judge would have based the decision on the letter of the law so convicted, however they may have issued a conditional discharge depending on their viewpoint.
Bruce... Off your topic a bit but do you find that when you fly a drone /quadcopter... You get more a more negative response than when you fly an rc plane... I've found that when you fly a drone people either shake their heads... Of go you can't go anywhere with out an annoying buzzing.... But when I fly my albabird
.. People come up and say I saw you flying earlier
... Looks amazing
.. Can I have a look..
. I used have a remote control plane years ago, 👌
@@simonwood8685 I've just asked this question on my Facebook timeline and the two themes that emerged were "annoying buzz" and "Spy camera/invasion of privacy". I think we should all think carefully about how we counter these perceptions. One obvious mitigation is to stay well away from people and property (A3 air space).
@@simonwood8685 Because most people in the town already know me and my drones I get a pretty positive response when encountering the public while flying regardless of what I'm flying. Having said that, if I am flying in the parks I tend to do it well away from the public and at times when there are few people about. However, the thing that amazes most of them is when I get them to put on my spare set of goggles. Even with analog people are always so blown-away by the FPV experience that they realise *why* we fly them. They figure out straight away that it has nothing to do with spying on folk or being a nuisance, it's just a magical experience.
@18:09 -- you do realise that these FPV drones have cameras on them so you can *see* whatever it is you're heading towards... right? 😀
If a drone's camera provides sufficient precision to allow the craft to be navigated through tiny gaps and gates, does anyone really think that the pilot would not see a person (or a dog) in front of them?
This is the problem with the way regulators think. They haven't actually done any/much FPV flying and experienced how good modern systems are so they assume that when you put goggles on you become deaf and blind -- thus you need a spotter and a white cane to be safe 😛
Fpv drones have a much better safety record than manned aircraft. Wings over dallas... 6 people lost their lives for.. Entertainment... I'm sorry for the pilots involved and their families.. But sometimes at air shows they take thrilling the crowds
... Over safety
This is the problem!! Rules made by people who don't even take part in what they are regulating! CAA are a JOKE!
Re spotters: the simple truth the CAA need to understand about FPV flying is that spotters add no value whatsoever. I have far better information in my OSD about my position, heading, speed, orientation, altitude, proximity to obstacles and intent than any observer could ever have. My ears work just as well as a warning device as an observer so again no added value, and if they are looking 360, then they are not observing my FPV quad.
The issue of BVLOS is also similarly misunderstood. I would say as an FPV pilot that it is perfectly safe to fly BVLOS so long as you are flying safely and reasonably I.E. within the range of your RC and video, and battery capacity and away from people.
Or flying FPV BVLOS in your own yard, under your own trees.
Couldn't agree more!
Well, that was interesting since FPV is all I do,, and I appreciate the video. It's unfortunate that Callum has virtually zero knowledge of FPV - but one could say that makes him well qualified to give the CAA position.
However, it gives me little confidence of anything useful coming from future consultations. It is easy to say everything is on the table, but experience so far does not cause me to think the CAA will do anything helpful. I still think these rules are a ratchet that goes one way only, based on experience.
I'd say if they want to get the FPV flyers onside (do they, actually?), they've got to make the first move, and a pretty substantial one at that, because most I know just ignore the CAA as far as possible as a negative influence. I mentioned these future consultations to a friend yesterday. His response? "Oh, not more ****** rules'. That is how this sector sees the CAA. I don't think the CAA cares actually, whatever Callum might say, that's the evidence of their actions.
As to an FPV training and competency test, I for one would be 100% against it. I just would not do it. First there's the cost. It would have to be practical as FPV is all about flying skill. But mostly, I just wouldn't do it on principle. I'm very careful about where and how I fly. Touch wood, I have never had any sort of incident. Whilst accidents can never be ruled out, I think I do everything reasonable, so if a test is mooted, produce the justification, explain why this is needed in a sector with such a good record. So probably, if it came to a test, I'm afraid that would be me done and gone.
Well said mate and plus how is a beginner supposed to pass a competency test? The ratchet analogy is perfect 👍🤝
spot on mate
I would be OK with a DMARES style test that is there really just to check that you know that rules exist. Practical assessment is completely out of the question though. You may be right about the ratchet, but the way to slacken off the pressure might be through Article 16 OA in my opinion. Callum kind of hinted that this might be the way to go and it could be done through FPVUK. There is really no reason for much regulation at all in A3 airspace. A case can be made that the chance of conflict with manned aviation is indistinguishable from zero, and by definition A3 airspace is not over people or property, so it is always safe to land or disarm in case of an incident. Our safety track record backs this up. "Sub-250g" is not a good enough demarcation point. Most 5-inch quads are in the range of 500-800g yet represent probably less risk than a sub-250g camera drone in my opinion.
I started flying toy quadcopters years ago, then last year got my first FPV just as the rules changed to needing a spotter. I got to fly it about 5 times then after the rules changed haven't flown since as I need to drag someone a long with me to fly(typically early morning in the middle of nowhere). Some of these rules make no sense.
@@DavidSmith-oy4of The rules for FPV make no sense on any level. They are arbitrary, capricious, unsafe and impractical. We are effectively banned even though we are probably the least risk to other people and manned aviation. I'm lucky enough to have a willing spotter so at least I can stay legal most of the time, but this mess of regulatory over-reach has to change. Regulation that causes most people to exist outside the law is bad, corrosive regulation.
Damn, I missed this... it wasn't in my feed three hours ago when I went out to mow some grass at the airfield. 😞
You were missed...
@@Geeksvana Those were the exact words uttered by an FAA assassin after his bullet sped past my ear the other day 🙂
From years of experience..spotters are NOT necessary.
I can see perfectly well with my Fatshark HDO2's and TBS Evo vtx's.
If a helicopter approaches..I can hear them very clearly,as helicopters are noisy..not sure the CAA know that?
Light aircraft flying illegally under 120 metres..I can hear them too...as they're noisy too.
Seems the CAA don't realise how safe FPV really is.
Anybody died recently coz if it?
No.
As an FPV UK member..the CAA cannot justify their price hikes.
Flown FPV for 2 years (safely) how you fly matters more than a spotter (who are mostly useless for fov btw). In fpv I can stop mid air, rotate, see a massive field of view and only ever fly a few meters above a tree or other object. The joy is proximity to structure (not people) in this setting spotters are pretty hopeless tbh. The time you fly is probably more crucial to others safety than anything else. Very early mornings are the normal or very unpopulated spaces. Sadly we will not be generating new generations of expert flyers capable of film work that stuns people. Sadly the existing rules make enjoyment of fpv so difficult for those of us wanting to fly this way. I realise that the regulations want to align us with manned flight but paragliding pilots, microlight pilots and ultralight pilots don't have a spotter and honestly don't have the situational awareness that a competent fpv pilot has, (I've flown in ultralight, glide and paragliders and to date I haven't managed to turn my head 360 degrees from a seat). Please, please, please consider us, our home built quadcopters and our safety records!
@@FishfaceFP Hi Alex!... spot on..AMEN👍
If you are an FPV UK member?... your powerful words would be very useful in submitting to yet another CAA "consultation" (ffs.) FPV UK have given members the link to submit fpv fliers comments.
I,m pissed tho..as it appears our wonderful hobby will come to an end within the next 3 years approximately.......ignorantly policed by posh dog walking "Karens" and therefore calls to His Majesty's police force...who will come and fine you/ confiscate your gear for sure.
Shame as political crime,(rife in England 🤣, knife crime,drug crime,corruption, are mire worthy contenders for all this "bollocks."
@@chrissofpv3017 I have submitted a comment on costs to that consultation - needs to be done quickly, closes 16th Jan. Seems like the CAA are saying "we need a bigger stick to hit you with, so we're going to charge you more for the stick". A bit like Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil', where one was billed for one's own interrogation.
@@edcbabcThanks Nick👍...I'm doing my response today🙏🍻
Agreed...and smiling of course about your ref to Terry Gillian.
Oddly.I AM in Brazil as we speak!
🇧🇷
@@chrissofpv3017 thank you CHRISSO FPV, I am an fpv UK member and do comment when I can but I must confess I missed that one😔
Imagine someone who doesn't drive a car making all the vehicle and road safety regulations. This is what its like when it comes to drone regulations. These useless jobsworths at the CAA who have never even flown an FPV drone and rarely fly a normal drone making all these hugely overly restrictive laws. It's a JOKE! They need to have some sort of board that votes on these laws, with at least 50% of the members being experienced FPV pilots, regular drone pilots and members of the drone community.
It’s simple….CAA need to take an evidence based approach with their regulatory intent. To over-regulate will result only in a reduction in any attempt for individual compliance.
It just needs a regulatory body to understand the data and fight the urge to lean on an increasingly risk averse/lazy approach to mitigating perceived (and not actual) risk.
Personally, just focus on the most dangerous behaviours and hit them harder when proven guilty. You’ll increase compliance, greater generate greater respect for the rules and maintain a stronger reputation with with drone user community. Win/Win.
To be fair to CAA, they are mostly only doing what the law says they have to do. I think in some cases they have gone further then necessary but the main problem is that we will have to get the law changed (the CAA can advocate for this if we convince them to do so).
Under article 16, after reading the wording carefully I concluded it was possible to fly without an observer at all if certain conditions were met. I put this to Simon Dale of FPV UK and he said to me that it was not the intent of the regulation, and the intent was actually just to allow races in sterile areas with less than one observer per craft, but not no observer at all. That was not my understanding from the actual wording, however.
Quote FPV-UK... A model aircraft may be flown by a remote pilot using first person view (FPV)
equipment subject to the limitations of this authorisation, and following
conditions (a) or (b), either:
a) The aircraft is flown in accordance with all of the following conditions:
i. Within a sterile area- meaning a cordoned off, closed area that
uninvolved persons are excluded from; and
ii. The aircraft is not flown at a height in excess of 160 feet (50
metres) from the surface; and....
To me (IANAL) this means if I fly in a private field (or my garden) then I can fly FPV without a spotter. However the further points iii. and iv....
iii. In accordance with procedures specifically set out for the
purpose of the event, and in accordance with instruction from
the race director or other nominated person, including any
‘terminate race and land immediately’ instruction; and
iv. Any observers are suitably briefed and aware of their
responsibilities, including the monitoring of people or aircraft
entering the cordoned off area;
Does muddy the definition a bit and make it sound like only events are covered, so who actually knows?
@@wolfmanjm Well personally, I'd say an 'event' is me deciding to go out into my private sterile area, and I'm the nominated person. I concluded that if I wrote myself some appropriate procedure, I'd be fine. Simon Dale didn't agree. But in the end, its not up to him. If a complaint was made and it got to court, a magistrate - probably with zero experience of all this - would interpret it. So, it comes down to "do you feel lucky?".
Very interesting and good point made about how FPV is currently flown without reports of issues - with or without spotters.
If the CAA asked all UK FPV pilots if they use a spotter or not (without any repercussions) I suspect the majority (if not all) would admit to flying or have flown without a spotter.
However... as you say, currently without issues. FPV pilots have too much time, hard work and money spent building their drones / airframes. It's not quite 'skin in the game' but certainly more invested into their drones than an 'off-the-shelf' drones.
Spot on! The spotters are not useful for fpv to be honest, they get distracted, don't understand what we can see inside the goggles (honestly a better view than the spotter 9 times out if ten) and due to our extreme low altitudes literally a couple of foot from a surface the requirement for a spotter sucks for us.
I do really hate this. I fly sub 100 grams (some sub 30g) fpv drones. I never have a spotter. It is 100% safe. To prove it to my niece once I flew the whoop into my head at full speed to show it won’t hurt. Nothing.. I could crash in to people or property with no damage. Unless I crashed into the pilots eye I cannot crash or damage a plane! I never go above 50 feet!
I agree. I hope, (with possibly false optimism), that we can convince the CAA during the consultations that a line needs to be drawn in the sand, and lightweight fpv needs to be excluded. It is the same in the US, where a tiny whoop pilot is required to get Laanc approval. It needs to change.
Thank you for this, at the very least thank you for considering fpv pilots at all, we feel like the lost and forgotten very much! Just as a slight aside, I teach under 14's to build and fly fpv, they are often quicker to learn, more comptent and better than adults🤣🤣the skills they learn in terms of design, assembly, programming, flight dynamics etc... kids should be encouraged to do this, it's their future world, they will need the skills for future technology and employment.
Kudos for teaching valuable skills to kids.
I think instead of defining small whoops and micros as toys, they should be categorized by assisted flight modes and regulated as such. I consider my fpv "drones" as quads. They are manually flown, require practice to learn, and if you take your hands off the controller, they crash. A drone (to me) is an intelligent device with GPS, Optical flow, or some other system to maintain and control it in the air separate from the pilot. That would allow quads and RC planes to be lumped together, as quads really are just a evolution of the balsa and glow powered planes that hobbyist have enjoyed for decades.
Quads take practice and skill, drones can be flown by anyone who purchased it at the local store. (Granted good videography is a skill, but GPS drones fly themselves for the most part.)
Well said mate 🤝
The devil is in the details though. Whatever category you can think up, there are exceptions to it. FPV quads can run INAV, for example, which has some autonomous flight modes but they are still FPV quads. I think there does need to be a separate category for "UAS flown in manual mode" i.e. where you are directly controlling pitch, roll, yaw and throttle.
@@timlong7289 you are exactly right. I have a few iNav GPS fpv drones that I have built. Adding the autonomous flight ability changes the category, IMO. Just like how where I live, if you modify your truck's suspension or tire size, you then have to get a modified annual inspection sticker instead of the standard inspection. It's still a truck, but you made the conscious decision to modify it.
There's more to BVLOS than flags at races. There is, or was, an image on the CAA site showing a quad behind a tree with an X against it - forbidden. If you fly - with a spotter - in an open A3 type space and you fly round a course made of isolated trees or the odd small bush - not talking about a whole copse here - the spotter and flyer can clearly see beyond the trees, no-one is around, yet when the quad goes behind one of those trees for maybe half a second, according to the CAA, that's broken the rules. That, to me is silly because there is no safety risk, yet, unless the docs have changed since I last looked, it is specifically forbidden.
Personally, I see FPV as totally separate from other airborne 'drones' and should be regulated as such.
I'd say it's highly unlikely for an FPV drone to be involved in any confrontation with any manned aircraft..
I’m going to sound very harsh but to listen to two people discuss the complexities of FPV, both having next to no experience of FPV, is like me, a disabled person, discussing Parkour with a man with no legs. The use of a spotter has yet to be proven to be essential to safety as there is no evidence nor has a risk assessment been made to support such a need. In some situations I might possibly agree, but as FPV is predominately practised in abandoned areas, and other areas of very low to nil population, it is obvious that this requirement was made mandatory through ignorance. The only justification made so far is based on uneducated “what if’s”. I would ask the CAA to provide an example where a spotter was instrumental in averting damage to persons or property. I would also challenge any spotter to maintain orientation whilst I flew something like an Emax Tinyhawk Freestyle beyond a 10foot distance, especially when I have set the rates to rotate about any given axis at over 1000degrees a second.
If these regulations were in place for safety issues there wouldn’t be so many of them. If you look at the number of deaths involving hang gliders/paragliders and compare them to the number of deaths due to the use of recreational model flying you will see a very stark difference. Yet I don’t need to register anything if I want to hurl myself off a hill under a wing and with a petrol engine on my back, nor do I have anywhere near the same overreaching regulation that I have when I fly my 250.0000000001g FPV quad in my own garden.
Thanks for joining the discussion. I think you will be hard pushed to find too many experienced FPV pilots at any regulator. I watched a video from a visit to the FAA drone advisory board where people had brought along whoops and goggles for them to try. It was like watching people introduced to VR for the first time...
Unfortunately, I cannot suddenly gain experience I do not have but I did feel like it was important to discuss FPV as a specific subject, as it gets forgotten about in many of the regulatory chats despite there being more challenges within the niche than others. I reached out to a couple of experienced flyers to get a few of the discussion points.
Although I do not have much experience of FPV, I am fully versed in the regulations and also in deep conversations on the topic with many experienced FPV operators. So I do count myself as knowledgeable of the challenges. I just thought it was important to be open with the audience at the start.
We need to ensure the FPV community engage with the consultations and have their voices heard. That is the way to getting the regulator to understand. Once they understand, we can get movement.
All an fpv spotter needs to ever do is watch out for dog walkers and manned aviation in the general area of operation, and warn the pilot/s of the location of said walkers so the pilot can adjust there flight plan. Being able to tell the orientation of a 5inch drone is impossible
Sean, I believe that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) needs to better understand the FPV community. The VLOS rules are sensible in urban / suburban areas, but the requirement for an observer makes no sense when flying in open areas, old buildings, forests, or with small drones like the Tiny Whoop. It is nonsensical and a travesty that active FPV pilots are not part of the CAA team responsible for setting regulations. The FPV hobby is being regulated out of existence by regulators who think they know better, which is not right😢 Thank you for trying hold the CAA to account.
A2CofC is not a competency, merely demonstrates that at the end of that course the learner can demonstrate their knowledge of the safety framework and how it applies to them (which is great but doesn't demonstrate competence in flight). An FPV certificate of confidence? Great, bring it on, all us experienced fpv pilots would happily sit it and enjoy putting a flight examiner in the goggles with us (and make them duck, lean and squeal as we flick, gap, swoop and play). BUT we all had to start somewhere, we all had to build, crash (safely), repair, rebuild, put in horrendous amounts of stick time on a simulator, in real life, on indoor micro drones, work things out, experiment, play before we could develop our skills. If the requirement was for an fpv pilot to have a certificate how the hell would they get all that experience without a certificate? Lovely idea, impractical perhaps. I find it interesting that I terms of pilots FPV pilots are commanding very very high salaries in film and media, although we are a tiny tiny part of the aerial community our contributions are perhaps more relatable to the public at large than drone delivery. Let's nor put barriers in the way of future Alex Vannovers, let's nurture talent, will, determination, let's Foster responsible flight, design and building skills. We have an opportunity to celebrate this weird little form of aerial prowess!
Bloody hell mate you absolutely hit the nail on the head! 🤝🤝🤝
I will never use a spotter with my tiny whoop.
Well based on the fact shall we say 80 % + myself included fpv pilots do not use a spotter and the safety record from etc I will never use a spotter its just not feasible dragging a mate out to stand next to whilst use blast some circuits .....remove the requirement surely you must realise its not being paid attention too
The..... Spotter... Usually an unimpressed girlfriend or wife.... Is as good as a chocolate teapot... When you crash... And ask where is it... They say... Dunno 🙄
After each of these videos there is always a robust discussion of the subject matter by viewers. I would be interested to know whether the CAA also pay any attention to the responses to this series. Especially the tone and the very obvious anger among the community. Or doesn't it matter to them?
From the feedback I get, yes they do. I also get the feedback from government departments, police and others. So they are reading and taking it in. The amount of difference it then makes remains to be seen...
Callum pretty much says that they are paying attention in his comments in this video. Personally, I believe that to be true.
I love FPV. I don’t do all the flips, I leave that to the younger people! But I must admit when I first tried it, I had to sit down. But now I can stand up without leaning side to side lol…. Last year I filmed a water skier while I was in the speed boat! That was scary, especially when the speed boat does a sharp turn…
ive never flown with a spotter, couldnt find anyone at 9am on a sunday to watch me put in 10 packs. if i was flying in an area where there was people i would get a spotter for my own safety, i never fly where people are anyway, its fields, farms, cliffs, woods for me.
This spotter issue needs a serious revisit, especially as the Mini 3 Pro can now be flown with the DJI googles and controller.
You can't fit an operator id at the minimum size on a tiny whoop, if they are not a toy then how are people supposed to fly them legally?
All this is well and good, but as with every regulation, freedoms are removed, nothing else. The reason regulation is put in place is to procure security (supposedly - since truthful statistics are still not here to prove this), but the only truth that I perceive is that it creates complexity (exceptions) / lack of reasonable answers (the whoop issue) and ultimately only favours industrials with enough financial capacity (remote ID in the US). The only real simple rule for this should be a blanket rule that ensures that the pilot needs to fly responsibly without putting people and belongings at risk.... then you can let the right legal channels manage the rest.... Stop over regulating! I don't want to pay a unjustified operator ID from an unjustified database. I want to fly my tinywhoop in a park when there is no one on the way. I am happy to fly my 5" under the trees in a private property even if near an airport!
I love FPV, it's so much fun. Flown the BabyHawk 2HD which I ended up losing when lost connections and now flying GEPRC Cinelog25. Both have been sub250 FPV. Would love a new BabyHawk2 and try the Cinebot30 and Nazgul Evoque F5
Mate I’ve ended up with 3 BBHK 2 quads, absolutely brilliant sub 250, I’ve converted mine to longer range with xfire, bigger vtx, better camera and even a lost finder buzzer and still under 250g, can go anywhere my 5” quads do, cruising I can get 12 to 13 mins and change profile for ripping ( basic ripping 😅 ) I get 6 mins, it’s a great piece of kit and tough as nails ✊👍 absolutely crap range out the box but I don’t mind as it keeps the price down 😃👍
@@bugsy742 yeah I got mine DJI cause it was my first but if and when I buy again as stock is limited will go cross fire. I really want them to my an O3 version. GepRC Cinelog 25 is cool to but doesn’t fly as long cause of the ducts but it can freestyle.
@@DimmyV I was going to get a cinilog actually 😃 ended up spending that money on parts as usual 😅
A 100g Tinywhoops would not fly, too heavy, generally Tinywhoops are less than 20grams all up weight.
FPV has also improved, it’s worth giving it another go now the digital systems are leading the way.
Also at our club, we do operate with spotters, and the FPV pilot can often identify the type of aircraft and where it’s coming from long before the visual observer can (we often get overflown by the local aerodrome who interestingly won’t engage with us but because we are outside the FRZ there’s nothing they can do).
Also anybody who can fly FPV won’t bother taking a “test” to unlock rights, that’s just wishful thinking because if you can already fly FPV, you’re clearly more experienced and competent than the person who wrote the regulations requiring your to sit an exam for to check you are competent.
I do not believe that is correct re the test. I have flown FPV for a few years, have 10+ quads, thousands of pounds invested and if it meant I could fly without as many restrictions or without a spotter, I would certainly pay for the privilege. I know not everyone will agree, that's just my opinion.
My issue is that I live out in the country, so no clubs to visit ect
It's difficult to believe that people who do not fly FPV are going to be making decisions on the future of FPV. That's like a lay person making decisions of medical procedures and ignoring all do tors advice.
As FPV is my only real hobby, I am very concerned RE it's future and it turn mine. Not all of us want to just bend/break the rules as they have real world consequences.
The CAA have to try and get this right as the future of many are dependent on it. I won't hold my breath, but hopefully some compromise can be attained. Retails such as drone authority and others, therefore their livelihoods depend on it.
It would be interesting to see injuries/fatalities from cars vs drones, but then again the government doesn't make enough money from drones, until it starts selling the airspace To Amazon and the likes.
@@dyslexicfrog7426 I will loose my job if I get fined for flying without a spotter, out in the middle of nowhere, miles away from people. The regulations, for hobbyists especially, are wholly disproportionate and draconian to the need.
The mere fact that they consider a 20gram tinywhoop to be so dangerous that it requires a visual observer tells you all you need to know about the people writing these regulations - aka clueless out of touch bureaucrats.
@@testpilotian3188 I absolutely agree, but, in order to enjoy the hobby I love with more freedom, I would be willing to take a test.
Hopefully, sense will prevail but I highly doubt it. That's what you get when a non-FPV person (And it really showed) is tasked with making decisions that affect the FPV community.
As per Open A3 rules you are away from anything and very unlikely to encounter and endanger someone or property, Open A3 should allow BVLOS without observer if VLOS can be established without undue delay (aka looking up or taking goggles off). That's my risk assessment... and only stubbornness of the lawmakers is preventing something like this being an actual thing.
I think enforcement is an important part of the topic with the FPV spotter. I am not aware of a single person who has ever been prosecuted for flying without a spotter. Although the existing rule might be argued as outdated, it does not seem there is an appetite to hunt down FPV pilots. Will that change when the fixed penalty launches, time will tell.
Not just Drones!! There is a sizeable fixed wing FPV community flying for pleasure. We fly FPV aerobatics with lightweight foam planes and generally don’t go much further than if we were flying RC planes LOS (we all do that as well).
Regarding spotters, we invariably have another pilot there to keep an eye on things, but it is not really needed. We can see perfectly well in the goggles and we can hear light aircraft approaching from over a mile away giving us plenty of time to get down to low level. In fact we have an agreement with the local airport that if we hear GA traffic we get below 200ft. We are just outside their FRZ and they are completely happy with our model clubs operations.
I am an experienced full size helicopter pilot with over 2,000 hours military flying, so I like to think I know my stuff LOL
Another good conversation with Callum, particularly the part about shielded operation in remote A3 airspace and room for maneuver and discussion with the CAA.
I think that is worth pushing hard come consultation time. When flying in A3 airspace, there is very little need for any additional regulation in my opinion. One can anticipate the CAA not wanting to have different rules for FPV quads and camera drones, but they are clearly different animals with different considerations. I think perhaps one way forward would be for someone like FPVUK to get an extended OA under Article 16 that really relaxes the requirements in A3 airspace. I would like to see them completely drop the requirement for a spotter, which implies also dropping the VLOS requirement (that is likely to be the sticking point).
The guest has effectively rendered himself unqualified, as he has in other interviews, by his experience and faulty reasoning.
i find it rather amusing that DJI flyers etc don't seem to think they fly FPV simply because they use a screen rather than a set of goggles so the spotter rule doesn't apply to them. if you're using a screen to fly the drone and most do, you're flying in first person view wither you like it or not and should have a spotter just as a goggle user should.
With safety cases @ £1800 a go and given the broken nature of the process then I think this is a non starter as an option especially as it invovles writing a full blown 3 volume manual. This seems niether proportionate nor light touch which I though was one of the core principles behind the CAA's remit on drone regs.
Agreed. I feel it is a theoretical ideal and has no place in practical application in the hobby.
A solid part of the LOS regulation is about making sure the airspace around the drone is safe, and you have the time and situational awareness to react to changes in that environment.
It would be incredibly hard to specifically nail down the legislation in enough terms that it would fully encapsulate that, but also exclude any other abuses of the ruling.
Wouldn't it be lovely to live in a world where we could just write "you need to be able to see the aircraft, so that you can be safe in the environment the aircraft is in, and continue to be safe if the environment changes"
In practice no individual hobbyist is likely to try to apply for special authorisation for some field or area he occasionally flies round. It is completely impractical. They are much more likely to shrug their shoulders and just go and do it. That's the nub of the problem really, FPVers that i know mainly treat the CAA as something irritating to be avoided, like a wasp in the room.
For drone racing specifically. They fly so low could you not make the case that they are not even really occupying any airspace?
@TheVinn3h the concept of shielded operations should be adopted. Anything below tree level if flying a self build fpv. Hopefully, one day!
@@Geeksvana those boys fly mostly lower than really tall people when they race…it’s crazy. I do think there should be more done by the FPV community to move away from using the language ‘Drone’ i think that’s why it’s difficult to separate them out from say DJI kit in legislation.
I think the rules/ laws are like he says, almost impossible to actually police, unless someone is drawing attention to their flight and reported for it. Even though this is likely the case, I still think the biggest majority of drone owners actually do still want to fly as much within the law as possible. The laws will ultimately be there to prosecute, heavily, anyone who ever causes injury, death or damage from flying a drone outside of the law.
The CAA have zero understanding what fpv is and before they attempt to regulate I hope they show some competency.
VLOS rules are an actual joke to fpv pilots especially as the whole point of fpv is to be able to fly beyond line of sight e.g. under a bridge, behind a building, inside a building, up the mountain etc and we invest a lot more time learning to do this, in the simulator and practically and no competency test could teach this.
Too many suits making up rules on things they do not actually understand themselves. They would do well to add hobbyist and commercial representation to their panel of decision makers.
As for the questions asked, I am utterly disappointed that you focused on tiny whoops and racing drones, no one’s worried about flying whoops behind a flag, most pilots start in the simulator, then open fields, bandos and as we get more competent closer to property and people with suitable drones i.e. cinewhoops and ducted quads.
I can’t even put the required sticker on my 2.5 inch quad because it’s made of carbon and has no surface big enough so all my flights even though sub250 are already illegal.
Sterile area: no spotter non sterile: yes to spotter... simple... caa please dont make it complex... many people i think are now gettin into fpv other flying with gps... please dont kill the hobby
This was an interesting one. It does seem like the CAA knows there is a problem with how the regulation treats FPV drones. @geeksvana you should teach yourself to fly one, get Velocidrone, it will take you 30-40 hours of stick time in the simulator to not completely suck. My big bone of contention is that the CAA thinks I am going to fly my drone home VLOS if the video fails. I am here to tell you that is never happening. FPV pilots spend time learning to deal with that exact situation because temporary outages are pretty common, but the case where the video completely fails, one of two things will happen. 1. You will put it into "GPS Rescue" mode if your quad even has a GPS, and it will fly itself home and land within a few metres of you. Or 2. You will disarm it and it will "execute an emergency landing and come to rest on the ground". This is the correct response for an FPV freestyle/racing quad. They are tough as nails and designed to take this sort of abuse. There is no way you are taking off the goggles, trying to find it, orienting yourself and flying it home VLOS. Too late, you have already crashed by that point. You have less than a second to decide: GPS rescue or disarm. Therefore the VLOS rules make no sense on any level. You can see people coming a mile off (literally). You are in the air, you have the best view there is, better than a ground level spotter. You can only see forward but the FoV is about 170 degrees so you can see nearly half the sky at any instant, and you can spin around in a few milliseconds. You are most often below 10 metres so the chances of conflict with manned aviation are indistinguishable from zero unless it is in the process of crashing. If that does somehow happen. you fly down (not home) and either return home at under 5m AGL, land, or disarm. I would never intentionally fly over people or property with an FPV drone, too dangerous, don't go there. A3 airspace only, so it is always safe to land or disarm without consequence to people or property, and that is all the regulation needed. I personally almost always fly with a spotter because I'm lucky enough to have someone willing to do it. I find it useful but not completely necessary and I don't think it should be a requirement. As you know, it takes a lot of skill and experience to fly an FPV drone. We spend hundreds of hours in a simulator learning to fly and countless careful flights building up our skills. Having the CAA treat us like children is objectionable at best.
To those of use who have been flying FPV for years the current regulations around spotters seem overly restrictive. But I do see that they need to cater for all pilot abilities and have some rules in place to at least try and prevent recklessness, after all these things are hella fast and they dont half hurt when they hit you (dont ask how I know 🤣 )
If there was a FPV competency test which allowed us spotter-free FPV flights within shielded operations I feel that would be a big step in the right direction. No doubt others would see it as some kind of money grab, but we have to be realistic here, the regulations aren't going to dissapear overnight.
Ultimately the more we can make our voices heard and the more we can do to help to educate the CAA as to what it is we actually do, the more favourable the regulations will end up being. The only other option is to sit back and let the regulations pile up and I don't believe anybody wants that.
They just need to look on youtube to see, not every one races or has an interest in racing. Many prefer bandos, freestyle etc...
An online assessment like DMARES or the one put in place by FPVUK to fly under their Article 16 OA would work. Practical assessments are likely to be expensive and inconvenient and I'm not thrilled at that idea. Perhaps a system based on hours of flight experience? That would also encourage people to keep flight logs.
@@timlong7289 I think the would take the fun aspect out of FPV. For the commercial guys yes
@@marccretten The DMARES test? Have you taken it? It is so trivial as to be easily guessable. I don't see how that would take any fun out of anything. It would be a hoop to jump through, but once done, done.
@@timlong7289 I have yes. The guidelines are not the problem its people lack of ability is where the problem comes in, a Proficiency test is needed. Logbooks can be fudged as well, this i have seen.
@20:45 Imagine having to apply to fly on your own land without a spotter. When is all this crap just going to go away? Show me a risk assessment showing that FPV is 'dangerous enough' to warrant all these rules and regs. Please.
fpv is a tough thing to get rules on, its a large group of different activites, i would suggest no beginner should fly anywhere but a big open field. spotter or no spotter. and being able to fly slowly is one of the more difficult things in fpv, maybe some additional merit given to beginners once they can land on a pad 10/10.
In Germany we have the possibility to fly FPV without a spotter under certain circumstances. The legislator has created the possibility for the large model flight associations in Germany to enact their own sets of rules apart from the EU regulations. If you are a member and decide to fly according to the regulations of the respective association, you can, for example, fly FPV up to a height of 30 meters and a distance corresponding to VLOS without a second person.
This is an incredibly good solution, but it also requires discipline from the respective pilot. But as you can expect from any drone pilot at any time. You are insured for the remaining risks.
Spotters are completely unnecessary for self-build FPV enthusiasts. We have been building and flying these things without issues since long before the CAA even knew what a 'quadcopter' was, a safety record that speaks for itself. We have invested a great deal of time, effort, and money into developing, building and learning to fly these high performance drones under full manual control, which means you cannot even get off of the ground without a level of competency well beyond that of the average DJI consumer. I am certainly not trying to belittle the Mavic pilot, but more emphasise the point that we are dealing with two very different things here and IMHO trying to blanket regulate them together is utter madness.
Pretty please could the sky gods at the CAA find a way to provide us with some kind of license, certificate, or exemption that would allow us to legally fly FPV to its full potential, without having to constantly pester our loved ones to yet again come and stand in a cold-ass field and pretend to be our spotter.
Flying model aircraft is one of the safest activities I do. It is safer for myself and those around me than cycling to work, getting in the car, or playing football. I can throw a thrisbee twice as far as the CAA says I can legally fly an FPV drone, for which I apparently require an observer even if flying in the middle of nowhere. Low flying manned aircraft are loud and easy to hear in practice. It is very upsetting that the CAA has effectively criminalised my safe hobby in order to solve a hypothetical problem. All available evidence shows that this is a remarkably safe activity. Flocks of birds will always be more of a threat to aircraft than 250g UAS. There will also always be a tiny minority who intentionally misuse UAS, but overcompensatory regulation of hobbyists will do absolutely nothing to prevent this.
The current regulation is an embarrassing mess that criminalises safe flying without a spotter. I truly hope that we end up with saner regulation after this consultation, although I am not optimistic. I don't want to risk losing my job for flying a model aeroplane in an empty field without an observer - is that so much to ask?
Oh no... my Mobula6 HD has a 14+ sticker on it, the world will end!
The problem is the people making these laws and regulations. The pilot is the observer, there is literally no reason for a spotter other than the safety of the pilot getting mugged.
When are my easter bunnies arriving?
A tiny whoop style quad that was 50g would be a very big one. 65mm quads are typically 20 to 30g AUW. Again all this talk of toy or not bypasses me entirely. I build them myself from parts, and I'm certainly not under 14. These can be flown outside on quiet days, and we do, and it's ridiculous to me these things are covered by CAA regulation.
You'd probably do more damage lobbing a mars bar at someone, than a tinywhoop would do at full pelt into your face.
Regarding the gates and flags or inflatable pylons, the model aircraft flying fraternity have always done pylon racing, so I don’t see the difference.
So let me get this right. The CAA people who make the rules. Don't have any experience in the thing they're making the rules for.
Feeling like its ok for amazon to fly out of the rules but not us.
Here is an interesting scenario, FPV pilot flying with goggles through trees so ZERO chance encountering real planes, 100% concentrating on flying properly so theoretically 100% safe. No observer. One of the drone crashes on youtube was being pilot being attacked by swans & caught the joystick smacking the drone onto the ground whilst legging it from the swans (another one was caused by a dog). Who is keeping the pilot safe if there isn't an observer in the area (NOT 100% concentrating on flying). for multi-fpv flying you certainly wouldn't require 1:1 spotter ratio.
Putting the question the other way... how many parks would you stand in, without any drones, with your eyes closed for 10mins without someone watching out for you too.
smashing good show, ole chap 🫵🏻👍🏼 24:47
Cheers!