Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

FPV Soaring...

Recommended Posts

Rob Thomson
1 minute ago, Andy_B said:

Yup.  But it is completely over-rated and ill thought out.

Few things.

1. DSMX is NOT the most popular protocol for drones.  FrSky ACCST is.   Yup.. maybe it stops kiddes with toys which are not really a risk anyway!

2. They have just created a massive 'gotcha'.  So...  I am flying illegally.. and I crash into a plane.  Oh damn.. but it was not me officer.  I was in los and suddenly somebody took over and flew it away!  So plausible deniability means you have no legal case to make a a law suit.

3.  Can we really assume that the channel order being received by the 'drone' is in the order you expect?  So.. TAER. RAET etc..  So.. when you 'highjack' the drone and take control of the channel in the wrong order..  well.  Then you have a big problem.  Imagine the drone being hijacked and then actually causing the crash that the real pilot would not have had.  Who then takes legal responsibility?

Ho hum..

No issue to me.  I dont fly out of line of site etc.. so no real problem!

Rob

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
micktss

Sign of our times!!! seen at Dunotar Castle near Stonehaven Aberdeenshire

 

Mick WSTONEHAVEN CASTLE DRONE2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

But, outside castle opening times you CAN fly drones?:o

Wonder who commissioned that sign?

Obviously not a lawyer.......^_^

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jef Ott

Not sure I understand your point here Pete. 

Yes of course you can fly your drone over the castle if there are no people roaming the place. It is only the danger to / privacy of PEOPLE that is of concern.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tilman Baumann
7 hours ago, Andy_B said:

My € 0.02

 

No RC protocols are actually designed to be resilient against intenational lock outs. Random hopping sequences and random transmitter ID protect extremely well against accidentall lock outs. That is what they are designed to do.

Any RC protocol could with little effort be 'hacked'.

If that where a reasonable attack vector for which you would want to be protected against, then something like WLAN or Bluetooth with the well known hassles of two way key exchanges would be required. Including long bind times and difficult bind procedures.

(That is a bit of a lie. Simple symmetric encryption and pre shared key solutions would not have some of the limitations but also be less secure)

Crypto is hard and of course a bit more expensive.

Anyway what I'm rambling about. Complaining about lack of security in RC protocols is kind of beside the point. ;)

So yea, if you ever weaponise your drone, please don't use a RC protocol as command and control. Be sensible. :D

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi Jef

This sign implies that there is no objection to the flying of drones outside castle opening times

or even that permission has been given to fly drones at this site at all times other than castle opening times

A better form of wording would be NO DRONE FLYING AT ANY TIME

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve J

A better form of words would be 'No drone flying from castle grounds' as the castle has no authority over the airspace above it.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chiloschista

Hello,

nice to read that the castle owners are even not free to decide what they like or not. Maybe consider that they are open minded people, who likes aerial pictures, and eventually hopes they will be shared on the net for humanity benefit? Just don't do it during the opening hours to not disturb visitors?

I'm impressed!

Now back to my drones, which uses an esoterical protocol, probably not so easy to hack = : D

Best regards,

Ric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
satinet
17 hours ago, Rob Thomson said:

Yup.  But it is completely over-rated and ill thought out.

Few things.

1. DSMX is NOT the most popular protocol for drones.  FrSky ACCST is.   Yup.. maybe it stops kiddes with toys which are not really a risk anyway!

2. They have just created a massive 'gotcha'.  So...  I am flying illegally.. and I crash into a plane.  Oh damn.. but it was not me officer.  I was in los and suddenly somebody took over and flew it away!  So plausible deniability means you have no legal case to make a a law suit.

3.  Can we really assume that the channel order being received by the 'drone' is in the order you expect?  So.. TAER. RAET etc..  So.. when you 'highjack' the drone and take control of the channel in the wrong order..  well.  Then you have a big problem.  Imagine the drone being hijacked and then actually causing the crash that the real pilot would not have had.  Who then takes legal responsibility?

Ho hum..

No issue to me.  I dont fly out of line of site etc.. so no real problem!

Rob

point 3 is what I don't understand about "hijacking" drones. I don't know how drone works with speed controllers etc, because I obviously only adhere to the one true religion (glider flying/f3b). But how do you hijack a model without knowing anything about the way it is setup. All you are going to do is crash it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi  Steve

sorry, but - "A better form of words would be 'No drone flying from castle grounds" is, IMHO not better.....:no:

A warning sign must be "clear, brief, unambiguous and well sited"

Drones could be operated from outside the castle grounds, and therefore not covered by "your" sign:yes:

This year, flyers at Ivinghoe have been surprised by a camera-carrying drone popping up from below the lip of the West face and travelling along the face, we assume filming......it was operated from the farm below, and roughly half a mile from the Ivinghoe slope, from their campsite area, in fact, and the operator could be clearly seen doing this, from the slope edge of the West face.......

If the West face had been the castle, the miscreant would not have been operating from its grounds, and therefore not covered by your sign

Anyway, can I suggest we've milked this subject enough now? I was replying to Jef, who wasn't clear as to what I was saying, all I was doing was trying to make my post clearer, not to critique the sign's effectiveness.......:(

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve J
6 minutes ago, pete beadle said:

Drones could be operated from outside the castle grounds, and therefore not covered by "your" sign:yes:

Which is my point. The owners of the castle have no authority to stop people overflying it. If they feel that the people overflying are violating the ANO, they can complain to the police, but that is it.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyM

Seems to have wandered away from FPV soaring a bit!

Rob, is there a UK supplier of the Skyhook?  I'm very interested, but unsure as to shipping and import tax on the aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi AndyM

"Seems to have wandered away from FPV soaring a bit!" - not really Andy, FPV flying is in the front of the queue of those  affected by the proposed regulation changes, as it is potentially operated outside "line of sight", and my example of the problem at Ivinghoe was an FPV incident

Also Steve "they can complain to the police, but that is it", yes, indeed, but the police won't be able to do anything about the complaint, apart from logging it, will they?

As I have said before, many times, these changed regulations are unenforceable, especially by the understaffed and overworked police......

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyM

If you say so chap, but I can see a dozen posts that don't mention FPV soaring - the title of the thread.  Perhaps a separate thread discussing proposed law changes would be better.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi Andy

"If you say so chap, but I can see a dozen posts that don't mention FPV soaring - the title of the thread.  Perhaps a separate thread discussing proposed law changes would be better."

I do say so, I was answering the comments on my posts, and am not responsible for anyone else's........and there are already two items "discussing proposed law changes", under News and Information, "This Looks very Worrying" and "EASA prototype Commission on Unmanned Aircraft operations"  I'm surprised you haven't read them

Anyway, I'll give up if you will

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jef Ott
18 hours ago, pete beadle said:
18 hours ago, pete beadle said:

Hi Jef

This sign implies that there is no objection to the flying of drones outside castle opening times

or even that permission has been given to fly drones at this site at all times other than castle opening times

A better form of wording would be NO DRONE FLYING AT ANY TIME

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

 

 Pete.

The point I was making (apparently quite badly) is that the person responsible for the sign, had worded it exactly how they wanted and that it is clear to understand what they want. That people can enjoy flying their drones over the castle and headland (and even other types of slope and thermal soaring camera wielding aircraft), from the mainland (away from where the castle is situated), while the beautiful place (accessible only by a narrow path) is shut to general entry of the public. It is the perfect site for responsible drone use. Have you even seen pictures of it?

Why are you so keen to prevent camera fliers from acting responsibly - ie prohibiting them from flying over beautiful sites when and where there is no perceivable danger to others?

Thank heavens you are not on the CAA!

Now then let's finish this nonsense and get the thread back on subject, I believe that AndyM is interested in purchasing a Skyhook.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
micktss

just a quick final  picture - you are right it is perfect for drones !STONEHAVEN CASTLE2b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

 

Jef

I am amazed that you can write a reply like this without realising that you have completely misunderstood the content, and totally missed the point, of every one of my replies to the original posting by MickTSS 

I am NOT the one calling for the banning of “camera flyers acting responsibly”. It is the proposers of this new legislation designed to restrict the use of DRONES who are, by describing all and every radio-controlled model aircraft as a DRONE, instantly demonising every single flyer, including those flying camera carrying aircraft, in order to push through the restrictions they want to apply on DRONES

If it were up to me I’d call for these new proposals to be thrown out at the first possible opportunity

Is that clear enough?

Pete

BARCS1702

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Danny Chapman
1 minute ago, pete beadle said:

I am amazed that you can write a reply like this without realising that you have completely misunderstood the content, and totally missed the point, of every one of my replies to the original posting by MickTSS 

Perhaps this is because Jef replied to what you wrote, rather than what you meant.

1 minute ago, pete beadle said:

I am NOT the one calling for the banning of “camera flyers acting responsibly”. It is the proposers of this new legislation designed to restrict the use of DRONES who are, by describing all and every radio-controlled model aircraft as a DRONE, instantly demonising every single flyer, including those flying camera carrying aircraft, in order to push through the restrictions they want to apply on DRONES

Actually, you wrote: "A better form of wording would be NO DRONE FLYING AT ANY TIME". You were suggesting the land owners completely "ban" drone flying.

Perhaps this was meant to be ironic - I don't know. Probably a good lesson that irony doesn't work very well on forums, and is best avoided! People are not mind readers - when there's no social/body language clues, all they can go on is the words.

That's a great looking castle - perfect for FPV soaring, not just drones!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.