First-Person-View Model Aircraft Classed as Drones
 

Any one seen the following and will this eventually happen in the UK? Just after peoples thoughts......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28089286

Bruce Simpson's view on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWqPrDqfFUo



It's bad news as a whole. Hopefully the CAA won't take a similar course of action.

The action still doesn't stop some clueless muppet who goes out and buys a DJI phantom and sticks it up in the air where they shouldn't, over people and property.

If you think about it, whilst you got a normal helicopter, there isn't much damage you can do, with GPS waypoint, FPV etc, you are now putting the model into a commercial and security context. You could, in theory, have an FPV quad copter with a live camera on it and record what you see etc.

It isn't so much the 'hobbyist' it is the person who can use it for other uses. I even considered the costs of a 'quad copter', camera gimbal and sell my services photographing properties for estate agents etc. That takes it from Hobby to Commercial uses.

Have you seen the damage and how many people you could slice in half with a 650 or 700 sized rc helicopter... seriously capable of killing many people, slicing heads and limbs off... whist in complete control and line of site vision, having a moment of skill lapse. seriously dangerous.

Yeah, but they are saying that a small micro-quad with a camera/fpv goggles is not a model, but a UAV drone and therefore a danger to airspace. When the airspace is completely different. I'm talking about 250-350mm sized quads flown in fields or parks, etc.

In the UK, there are already commercial conditions, licences and insurance you need in place to operate as a business. This is fine and well understood.

These rules won't stop stupid people flying Phantom2's where they shouldn't, nor will it stop "the terrorists" flying stuff with explosives on, into targets.

They need to engage with the model flyers to act properly, not try to ban an industry/hobby they haven't quite understood

This is the FAA and not the CAA though.

And as much as I fully understand the damage a large heli can do, I can fully understand where the FAA are coming from to. With FPV and high power 2.4GHz radio, you can fly beyond the site the aircraft etc, you are personally responsible for that vehicle. Being that I have done numerous repairs to real aircraft from impacting with small/medium/jesus christ that was big type bird strikes on aircraft, a large octo-copter with a 10s LiPO and a large camera slung below it will make a monumental mess.

I think that the FAA are saying is, if you can't physically see it, you have no perception of what is around the aircraft hence can not fly safely.