mongo

My Feedback: (15)

sooner or later, yes, the FPV stuff should be reviewed and possibly re vamped. don't think that now is the right time. with all the FAA stuff still in flux and no real concrete ideas where it will fall out, well, sure would be rough for us to set a new policy and find out a time later that it is in direct contradiction to the new FAA policy.
the above also applies to most everything we could be looking to change. best to wait until after our controlling authority gets their ducks in line before we start changing our duck formation.

acerc

I personally seed no point in FPV period in our hobby. We have enough problem's while looking directly at our aircraft as is.

cj_rumley

Good points, but only address one of at least two objectives; there are probably more and doubtless some are conflicting. It appears AMA wants to back off from the hardline Ludditism re FPVtaken by a prior administration to an extent that it doesn't drive off existing members engaged in that aspect of the hobby and may even bring in new members. FPV is rapidly growing and maturing, and the window of opportunity for AMA to act so as to keep/bring its enthusiasts into the fold isn't going to be open forever. I think the dismal reception of the Park Pilot Program illustrates the result of a too-little-too-late approach.
Status quo of AMA's outreach to the FPV community (if my perception that there is one isn't completely out to lunch) is that it seems to be going over like a turd in the punchbowl.

Do something in pursuit of member interest and membership goals or avoid rocking Uncle's boat? I won't chose sides, but admit that doing nothing (not rocking the boat) is the path of lesser gradient.

JohnShe

The AMA has posted a discussion of the member survey on FPV that was discussed in another thread.

The AMA posting is here:
amablog.modelaircraft.org/blog/2012/06/07/the-growing-world-of-first-person-view-model-aviation/

Simply put, the membership that responded said to take a look at the policy but, be careful.

cj_rumley

John,

Simply put, that segment of the membership with special interest in FPV that responded said loud and clear that Rule 1. is beyond absurd and they cannot/will not abide by it. They are right. It mandates a break from tradition/protocol/ basic tenet of navigation of a craft of any sort/whatever else one choses to call it that has been firmly established in our culture for centuries: The captain of the ship (PIC) is always the captain. If AMAacks that, what remains of the rift is at noise level. How hard is that?

CJ

JohnShe

Maybe so. I have little interest in FPV beyond the personal safety issue (planes crashing into me or my property), so I don't much care if the protocol is changed or not changed.

However, it is interesting that the the poll numbers from this thread seem to contradict you.

1. An FPV-equipped model must be flown by two AMA members... Change.	13% (7)
2. The operational range of the model is limited to... Change.	11% (6)
3. The flight path of model operations shall be limited to... Change.	7% (4)
4. The model weight and speed shall be limited to... Change.	19% (10)
No changes necessary.	48% (25)

cj_rumley

Note that I referred to the consensus of "that segment of the membership with special interest in FPV that responded...." That is a different population from respondents to the poll here. Maybe my usage of the descriptor 'special interest' wasn't specific enough. To clarify I meant it in the sense associated with a SIG, as in "AMASIG" e.g., not in the sense of folks like you that have "little interest in FPV beyond.......<insert however one perceives FPV as potentially affecting them adversely> "

CJ

bradpaul

Still waiting for someone to explain how a person operating the aircraft can have visual line of sight while wearing FPV goggles........................................... ..... ?

Brad

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Hmmm... Just fly the model toward himself and if the model's camera can detect the pilot then there a visual line of sight of the pilot... so, it then its close enough. Wearing bright orange will help....

Your welcome...sorry for the wait.

JohnShe

Like I said before, I have very little interest to me, but I wish you and your SIG the best of luck in getting a protocol that is satisfactory to you. Don't forget trhat this is a risk reduction issue for unproven airframes and technology so compromise may be necessary.

JohnShe

I thought that "line of sight" applied to the pilot operating the trainer box. He is the pilot in charge who allows the dude with the buddy-box to operate the plane safely as the porotolcl requires.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

You know, all this arguing could be eliminated by accepting one rule "operate (fill in the bank) in a safe manner"... Ultimately it is the choice of the operator and the decision/judgement of his peers in the event of some accident. Morons will always do morainic things regardless of whatever rules... Case point; AMA has rules about not touching models while in flight, but there are endless examples of that everywhere...they range from catching small pusher electrics to holding the rudder of giant gassers while hovering...

bradpaul

Somebody has figured it out !!!!!!!!!!, and that is why the AMA cannot eliminate the 2 pilot buddy box requirement............................ they do not have the authority to do so and still keep the exemption under the bill passed by Congress.

Brad

cj_rumley

Wow! That's awsome!

Another topically related Qhas been nagging at me..................

Referring back to OP, what motivated AMAto publicize the petition to the AMA to reconsider the First Person View (FPV) Operations 550.pdf, conduct a member poll, focus the ED's Blog on it, and whatall? I'm sure they receive such appeals frequently, but it is very rare for them to actively seek member opinions on policy matters a priori, and so this issue amongst many must be special in some way. I wonder if the question would have surfaced if they didn't anticipate the result would be what they wanted it to be.

paulsf86

My Feedback: (52)

No problem with FPV, just put control where it belongs, under the new FAA sUAS rule. As stated earlier, our new operating charter from Congress is that models shall be operated with direct visual contact by the pilot, no more no less. It is pretty clear that FPV does not meet this requirement.

Paul S

Sport_Pilot

Actually I think there is a loop hole in this.The definition does not make using video cameras that transmit back to the ground illegal for models. As such they can be used for control. The AMA rule as it is presently written brings FPV back to the definitionbecause the spotter has direct control.

Hossfly

Just a shotgun blast, however this is so interesting, that I throw it in because who knows what tomorrow will bring. Hope it works for you, it did for me. Absolutely mind boggling for a dum-dum like me. Hopefully sport-pilot will explain it all in a layman's terms.

http://www.ted.com/talks/vijay_kumar...cooperate.html

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Thanks Hoss. Very interesting stuff.

I remeber back when people thought that Star Trek was just some wild imagination with stuff like hand held communicators and computers that could be interface by voice interaction. Hard to believe even now, but this technology is still in it's infancy. We have some serious choices to make at the most fundamental level right now...

phlpsfrnk

I saw some of the earlier research Kumar was doing. Quite amazing stuff. I wonder if any of this swarm technology would be useful in the sense and avoid problem that sUAS community is facing?

Regards
Frank