Just been reading the latest BMFA News (British Model Flying Association); they've got a small article about European UAS Seminar 2008 they presented at - essentially they're saying that the UAS guys needs to get their act together! Apparently they're unhappy that the UAS community don't have an umberella organisations, and don't appear to be taking safety seriously...The other article that caught my eye was entitled "First Person R/C". It summarises their safety concerns, and lists the following requirements if an FPV flight is to be legal and insurable under BMFA insurance:1. The activity is solely for "sport and recreation" purposes;2. Two pilots must take part;3. A buddy box system must be employed;4. The pilot in charge must operate the master transmitter;5. The pilot in charge must not wear the headset or view the screen;6. The aircraft remains within the natural unaided visual range of the pilot in charge;7. Reliable operation of the buddy box is established;8. A clear handover protocol is established;9. The pilot in charge is solely responsible for the safety of the flight (i.e. they take the legal responsibility.).Seems mostly reasonable to me, but requirement 6 appears to prejudice those wearing spectacles! I'm assuming that's not what is intended, but it's a clause that an insurance company might decide to use to squirm out of their responsibilities in the event of a hefty claim...How do these rules compare with those for other countries?
When folks are given perscriptions for eyeglasses it's to return their vision to that of typical natural range. So unless a person were perscribed bionic eyes or glasses that provide vision like the vision a set of binoculars would provide I think they'd be good to go.
Comments
I agree that the rules seem pretty reasonable.