littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

At least someone recognizes how important the "right people" are... I guess it just depends on what one thinks the right people are.

After reading much of what has been put out so far by everyone, I think we are in very deep do-doo... sorry, but despite your best efforts to smooth everyones feathers on the internet, there really seems to be an underlying willingness to accept or even perpetuate an erosion of our freedom to peruse our happy hobby. Seems we are embarking on one more road that will eventually require certain credentials to pursue that "liberty" as well...

Woody218

My Feedback: (24)

You probably aren't old enough to remember that we used to be required to have an FCC license to use a transmitter on the old 27 and 72 mhz bands.

Silent-AV8R

All I am doing is presenting the facts as I know them and my impressions of the situation. Regardless of how you feel about the situation, the simple fact is that the FAA is writing a new regulation and it will impact us. Our willingness to accept or not is meaningless. Love it or hate it they are still doing it.

on_your_six

My Feedback: (11)

Does anyone else here get the feeling that things changed almost overnight... in December the RC aircraft world was crashing... and now it is all love and roses in bloom? OK maybe a bit of exaggeration, but some truth too.

Now we are hearing OK for jets, OK for flying above 400 feet. Wonderful, but our club is within 5 miles of an operating airport though rather small GA field with few departures. So we can fly all the stuff, but we have no place to do it.

Hope everyone realizes that an FAA infraction is going to cost you plenty and likely need a lawyer to tell you what you can and cannot say.

I like the idea of enforceable rules as long as they are reasonable and not petty.

As to FPV... I would hope that there is some way that a hobbyist can enjoy what they do as an amateur without being over burdened with regulation. Someone mentioned the need for a private license, then another rumor was that an instrument rating was going to be required. The private is somewhat easily achievable, but the IFR would require a huge investment in lessons and plane equipment for RC planes that are being flown under VFR conditions. Those FPV guys are doing the same things you like to do, only in an expansive manner... kind of like cross country RC. While I can understand the need to limit it in some urban areas, there is a lot of open space where FPV could easily be done safely. AMA should be willing to stand up for the FPV guys too.

So please, if anything can be done, give the FPV people a slot in the AMA coverage.

I expect the result to be somewhere between the end of RC and a field of wild daisies.

tinner1

And the FCC application form was included with most RC manufactures transmitters sold at the time! If I remember correctly it cost $20 every 5 years. It was only the continued "law breaking" by truckers using their CB's and NOT buying licenses, that the FCC dropped the requirement. So we really haven't had "an erosion of our freedom" as we now have something that costs nothing that used to cost $20 for 5 years!

phlpsfrnk

FPV already has it's place;

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf

Regards
Frank

Silent-AV8R

The impression at the time was that indeed the world was coming to an end. However, since that time there have been some personnel changes at the FAA UAPO that have made a world of difference.


It is not clear right now what your situation will be. Now if you were within 5 miles of JFK you might definitely be hosed, but 5 miles from a sleepy GA airport? Maybe not.

As they explained, they are not going to be out looking for infractions. Those will be triggered by an incident or accident. As the one FAA person put it, you are required to have insurance and registration for your car, but about the only time anyone will know for sure is if you are in an accident. Sort of the same thing here. The FAA is not going to be doing "ramp checks" at RC fields, but bring down a 747 full of people and they may also nail you for violating the rule. Of course in that situation the FAA may be the least of your worries.


The AMA has been consistent in saying that nothing is off the table. I am sure that includes FPV. However, commercial FPV will most definitely be covered under the sUAS Rule. AMA has a pretty solid FPV standard right now and I suspect they intend to include that in the standards they are writing for the future.

on_your_six

My Feedback: (11)

AMA - Regulations of FPV;... only within line of sight... now how is that a reasonable rule? Flying within 80-90% of LOS is really a reasonable requirement. Not flying over populated areas. There are vast areas in the midwest where this can be done safely.

As I previously stated, it is not for every location, especially urban area. The size of the aircraft could be restricted and more insurance required or some path other than throwing non-commercial personal FPV to the UASo.

And the AMA should also be considering easing the restrictions on autonomous flight. This method of flight is not that much farther down the road from FPV...

EMBRACE TECHNOLOGY... remember, while we are restricted, the rest of the world advances. These technologies are necessary for jobs and advancement. Don't place onerous requirements on the small time tinkerer. This is where the true innovations come from.

The AMA should be forward thinking, not forward restricting. Talk about computer controlled flight around here and all you see is glazed eyes.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

[sm=thumbs_up.gif] You said that right!

We(AMA) should make every effort to push the envelope of technology... After all, we tout ourselves as an Academy of education. How does it work if we are not actively trying to find ways to facilitate growth in any direction of model aviation.

Silent-AV8R

It is reasonable because one major concern for the FAA is how to ensure "see and avoid" operations. With FPV beyond VLOS you cannot do that. hence it is reasonable for a hobby operation to operate within VLOS.

FWIW, I have heard rumors that even the commercial sUAS will not be permitted beyond VLOS operations.

KidEpoxy

well well well
Heres an example of why I said what I said in post#2:
I would love to see the grant text that uses the term 'non fullscale activity'.
I will hazard a guess that it doesnt say non fullscale, but uses some different and well defined text

a matter of interpretation vs verbatim/citation

KidEpoxy

Silent-
wait, I thought you have reported over & over in this thread that the FAA dont want to regulate models,
now you are saying they want to regulate models to fly a certain way
and regulate models to fly in certain places
... what else are they wanting to regulate about models DESPITE their claims (you frequently cite) that they dont want to.

aviti

My Feedback: (54)

If I understand it correctly, FPV by today's AMA guidelines is not much different than normal line of sight flying. No flying out of visual sight of the aiplane. Another pilot with a buddy box connected. I don't see why this wouldn't continue. While I don't have any desire for the FAA to come in and regulate us, I would not expect that one will legally be able to fly FPV beyond line of sight.

Teachu2

My Feedback: (133)

The FAA wants models regulated - they just don't want to write the regulations. They want the largest model aviation organization in the country to write them. Trying to have NO REGULATIONS for model activities makes no sense in the real world.

Some of these posts remind me of a sign I saw once. "If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law. If both are against you, call the other lawyer names!"

phlpsfrnk

The AMA is not restricting autonomous flight, the insurance carrier just won't cover it. If you want to fly FPV beyond line of sight without a spotter, have fun. If you injure someone or damage someone's property don't expect your AMA insurance to cover it. Just curious but what is 80% of LOS, either it's in sight or it's not.

Regards
Frank

cj_rumley

Jailhouse lawyer RecArg, Frank. You can do better than that.
AMA restricts autonomous flight by the threat of voiding insurance coverage if you do it. That threat is the only stick AMA has to enforce its rules, and btw it was AMA prexy Dave Brown that asked the insurance company to remove coverage for autonomous flight, not something to be passed off by inference it was initiated by the insurer. If FAA accepts AMA standards, then the restriction is most certainly not just a matter of an AMA member losing insurance coverage, but every modeler in the country losing a freedom.

Cletus

on_your_six

My Feedback: (11)

No, it is not just in sight or out of sight... the radio equipment has a range... 80% loss of signal might be 5 miles for some equipment and 10 for others... two transmitters so the lesser of the more powerful would determine LOS. The actual bird does not have to be huge and might be a foamy or a glider. It surely would not cause more damage than some fly-a-way that is allowed at an AMA field...

If I injure someone???... I will be doing a better job with my equipment than likely 80-95% of the guys that show up at an AMA field... have you really looked at some of the stuff flying around you? Again, it is not for everybody and everywhere, but a guy should be able to experiment and fly without having to pay thousands to rent a desert proving ground like the UAS companies. If my foamy, or larger plane goes down it will likely have pretty much the same effect as you loosing one of your planes at the field in a non urban area.

Nothing being accomplished here, so I move on...

AMA please just give the small uas/autonomous vehicle people a chance with some reasonable rules. Not all are crackpots trying to fly down the Hudson.

Sport_Pilot

The license had absolutely no restrictions, other than not modifying the transmitter, which is still the law anyway.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

Coming from a medical background, I see what is going on, and in my opinion it has just about nothing to do with true safety. The FAA sees that autonomous flight/drones/RPV is a future technology which they essentially have little to no control over, therefore they cannot regulate it, therefore they cannot collect the fees associated with it. They want the AMA develop a set of guidelines. They could ask others, but the AMA is currently the only game in town. When it is complete, and the rules are in place, you will conform to a set of rules. You may not belong to the AMA, but I bet you will belong to some organization which provides oversight and liability coverage. If you wanna fly FPV (non-cmmerical or otherwise) I bet you will pay for a license to do so, or belong to an organization to oversee it. This is all about the nejamins.
In medicine we saw this thirty years ago. They wrote these laws that no one understood, nor thought could be enforced. Now suddenly we are taking yearly, and biannual assessments, realted to rules that were written in 1988. These "assessments" can cost us between $200 to $500 per event, and if you make below a 90 score, you take it again (pay for it of course) or lose your right to bill the governmnet for your services. Though the rule was never intended to be this way, a mere 20 years later it is interpreted to be a method to make it safe for the population. What a joke.
At least the AMA has a say in the rules, but for the life of me I fear that when this is all said and done we will be paying more for the priviledge of flying. I hope I am wrong.

phlpsfrnk

OK you're talking Loss of Signal (LOS) and I'm talking Line of Sight (LOS). How do you accomplish See and Avoid standards if you are not in VISUAL Line of Sight?

Regards
Frank

Sport_Pilot

Teachu2

My Feedback: (133)

Anarchy is never as good as it sounds. NO regulations on model activities - let me know when you plan on boarding an airliner, so I can fly my model (with complete armament, of course) at the end of the runway. I also have access to an old Aeronca Champ that I'd really like to convert to FPV R/C, and that silly 200 mph rule will be gone, too - along with weight limits, turbine waivers, and all such oppression of the hobby.

If common sense were truly common, we wouldn't need regulations - but after four decades of R/C involvement, I would not be surprised by anything folks attempt if unregulated.

cj_rumley

Trent-

Turns out we have been unregulated for the four decades you speak of, and lots of folks are insisting that what FAA/AMA are doing now is not regulation. We've had a pretty darn good safety record from what I have seen, and that applies to the entire population of modelers, not just the small fraction that have been subject to (non-) regulation by AMA. Gotta go with Sport on this.

warks62

My Feedback: (140)

I never said that I was quoting per verbatim of the Grant Text........it is a fact though, it may be called aeronautical what ever it is doesn't really matter in the long run it means us the RC community or any other bussiness that is using airport property. Another example of the use of this rule is a city had always held there 4th of July fireworks at night at the airport. This also is no longer because it is not an aeronautical event (or what ever it is called in the rules) that closed the airport which the city owns but is against Grant rules. Call it what ever you like but it was not the FAA that stopped this but Caltrans who then tried quoting some FAA rules. I am not stating rules out of the book only what has been told to me by one official or another. Everything that I stated here was confirmed again when I talked to AMA in Ontario this last weekend. Unbelievable once again

Teachu2

My Feedback: (133)

Interesting reading:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/ae...ly2009.Tag.pdf

See page 5.