AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

Reply
Old 11-09-2012, 11:14 AM
  #51
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV


Quote:
ORIGINAL: DadsToysBG

And as far as the old FF planes, they had a timer or limited fuel to keep them from flying off. In most cases they didn't last that long. Dennis
Funny Dennis but one of the wildest videos I've ever seen were free flight guys almost knocking each other's heads off... I guess timers are foolproof and thermals could never carry a model beyond it's intended area.

Look you guys can keep trying to convince me that FPV isn't a worthy modeling activity but you really should focus your efforts on AMA, as they are very much on record as accepting it...Not sure why you guys wish to argue with me as I can't change anything.
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 11:28 AM
  #52
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

BTW not the one I was refering to as it was much more intense but a quick search turned up this very fitting example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyVXA491AmY

enjoy!
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 12:17 PM
  #53
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

Oh, found this. Maybe you guys need to form an action committee to head this off too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87lal...eature=related


Look, we need to get back to making model aviation fun...loosen up some guys!
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 08:01 AM
  #54
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

FPV haters here something else to get on the band wagon about


http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blo...pycraft-video/
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 09:07 AM
  #55
phlpsfrnk
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV


Quote:
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf

FPV haters here something else to get on the band wagon about


http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blo...pycraft-video/
Don't know about haters or FPVs but I loved this one. Note warning about language;

http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blo...aves-rc-plane/

Regard
Frank
phlpsfrnk is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 09:39 AM
  #56
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

Quote:
ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk


Quote:
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf

FPV haters here something else to get on the band wagon about


http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blo...pycraft-video/
Don't know about haters or FPVs but I loved this one. Note warning about language;

http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blo...aves-rc-plane/

Regard
Frank
I thought the spirit of those guys in the heli was simply awesome... I hope we can get back to more of that in the future. Hats off to those guys!!!


This video does give some insight not often considered... Anti FPVers often cite how the relatively few FPV models are of some great issue, all the while forgetting small full scale aircraft such as this R22 and the many ultralights that have essentially the same evasive and observation capabilities but are many times larger and therefore many times more destructive in the event of collision involving a passenger carrying aircraft.

It seems a real double standard to accept ultralight pilots somehow have superior privilege to pursue their interest, all the while bemoaning the much smaller segment of FPVers that present a much smaller threat.

Now, I'm sure someone will rationalize the double standard without even realizing it but what else is new?
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 11:17 AM
  #57
phlpsfrnk
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV


Quote:
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf

Quote:
ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk


Quote:
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf

FPV haters here something else to get on the band wagon about


http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blo...pycraft-video/
Don't know about haters or FPVs but I loved this one. Note warning about language;

http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blo...aves-rc-plane/

Regard
Frank
I thought the spirit of those guys in the heli was simply awesome... I hope we can get back to more of that in the future. Hats off to those guys!!!


This video does give some insight not often considered... Anti FPVers often cite how the relatively few FPV models are of some great issue, all the while forgetting small full scale aircraft such as this R22 and the many ultralights that have essentially the same evasive and observation capabilities but are many times larger and therefore many times more destructive in the event of collision involving a passenger carrying aircraft.

It seems a real double standard to accept ultralight pilots somehow have superior privilege to pursue their interest, all the while bemoaning the much smaller segment of FPVers that present a much smaller threat.

Now, I'm sure someone will rationalize the double standard without even realizing it but what else is new?
crank,
Here you go again, trying to make something out of nothing. Your so called double standard is like comparing apples and bananas again. I do not care if it is an ultra light, R22, 747 or a hang glider, I do not believe that any full scale pilot believes that an FPV equipped aircraft is better than or equivalent to real eyeballs in the cockpit. There is no double standard.

Regards
Frank
phlpsfrnk is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 06:36 PM
  #58
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

LCS
you are forgetting who you are dealing with.
Its the AMA: Bigger equates to safer.
Small metal heli blades are far too dangerous to even waiver,
HUGE metal blades of that same manufacturer dont even even require a waiver.

Why would you assume any difference with the ultralights you mention
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2012, 05:25 AM
  #59
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

Quote:
ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk




Quote:
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf




Now, I'm sure someone will rationalize the double standard without even realizing it but what else is new?
Thanks Frank. I knew someone would step up and do some splainin...

Even though you have an arguable point about visibility awareness that I do not care to debate here... you conveniently forgot to include much more important factors such as size, mass, speed and the more important factor about the 'numbers of' in your lopsided equation bemoaning FPV... but like I said... what's new???
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2012, 09:16 PM
  #60
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

LCS
Quote:
This video does give some insight not often considered... Anti FPVers often cite how the relatively few FPV models are of some great issue, all the while forgetting small full scale aircraft such as this R22 and the many ultralights that have essentially the same evasive and observation capabilities but are many times larger and therefore many times more destructive in the event of collision involving a passenger carrying aircraft.
You are forgetting that this is the AMA,
with a history of saying stuff is safer just by being bigger.
Sorry I cant cite particular other times they did it lest I face a Ban,
but if you think about when AMA has said about Bigger=Safer in the past you will see Bigger=Safer is just a recurring theme for AMA
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 06:05 AM
  #61
jester_s1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 6,208
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

The issue of FPV has nothing to do with size of aircraft, free flight, or full scale. It has to do with the actual documented practices that seem to be more and more prevalent among the FPV crowd. I have absolutely no problem with FPV flying, but I don't want it to be any less safe than traditional flying. If the FPV community can do their hobby without being any less safe or any less appearing to be safe (a different but still important concern since PR is always a part of what we do) then I welcome it.

To respond to a couple of points that barely merit comment...

Free flight pilots expect their planes to fly for a while in a given direction, and they know that thermals can take them farther than expected. Therefore, free flighters don't point their planes at people's houses or fly over people. If they have a flyaway the worst thing that will happen is they lose their plane.

Ultralight pilots have this little extra concern called death that tends to motivate them to act right. They don't buzz rooftops or fly in weather that they can't handle, and they do go through sufficient training to be able to handle their aircraft in any situation that may be able to come up. Comparing what they do to a guy doing what we traditional RC pilots are complaining about simply doesn't work.

There are actually very few RC pilots who are on a witch hunt for FPV pilots. I'm sure there are a few old heads that don't like it because it's not the tradition, but from what I can tell most of us think it's neat as long as it's done safely. The reason it is being singled out is the fact that FPV makes it possible to do some very unsafe things that we weren't able to do before. If FPV pilots will follow the AMA safety code 99% of us will have no problem with it.
jester_s1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 06:36 AM
  #62
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

Kid,

One thing I am certain, is that if someone wishes to make a case against something they can and will overlook many variables that completely negate their weak arguments.

It could be said that model aviation is building and flying models that are scaled down flying miniature renditions/copy of the full scale aircraft...the better the copy the greater the modeling achievement. Taking that purist perspective would leave most of us so-called model aviators out...


Now, when some fellow that routinely flies a siz wizzy (read non-scale model of some type) makes a case against some other aspect of model aviation and FPV in particular it truly makes me wonder how it is they can take such a line of reasoning while accepting their own relevance to model aviation, all the while flying their siz wizzy... Simply blows my mind people can be so closed minded...but they are.

Frank has been very clear that he doesn't feel FPVs are an extension of model aviation...not sure if he flies siz wizzys or not but it wouldn't be surprise if he did since it seems the siz wizzy flyers make some of the biggest cases against FPV...as well as other aspects of model aviation... They forget or actually don't understand how support that stops at only what it is they do/accept will not only bring others around them down but ultimately diminish their own particular interest as well... Makes me sad when I see that close mindedness in our hobby because I understand the unintended consequences of that mindset...
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2012, 08:13 PM
  #63
Charley
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville, TX
Posts: 2,036
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

Jester, et al,

It's no use trying to reason with Crank. He exists to enter threads so that he can argue. I. E., he goes trolling. Best to ignore him.

CR
Charley is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 04:55 AM
  #64
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV






Charley,

I guess your so oblivious to reality you didn't notice Jester's reply was to KidEpoxy...not me...

BTW weren't you the very one that sent this thread on a goofy tangent by implying FPVers are blatantly ignoring FCC laws??? And aren't you the very same one when asked for factual info in regards to that erroneous assertion or the contrary info to show how wrong you are, still hasn't responded with that conclusive info??? And now you have the audacity to call me a troll??? Man...look in the mirror please...
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 05:13 AM
  #65
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV


Quote:
ORIGINAL: jester_s1

They don't buzz rooftops or fly in weather that they can't handle, and they do go through sufficient training to be able to handle their aircraft in any situation that may be able to come up. Comparing what they do to a guy doing what we traditional RC pilots are complaining about simply doesn't work.
Oh yea? What's this?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SolSLH7zKOI



Training??? Any situation??? Come on jester... you jest.

Look you guys are just trying to build a case against FPV and you don't even realize it...
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 05:42 AM
  #66
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Charley

If you get on the FPV sites you'll see that there is a fine disregard for both AMA and FCC regulations. I infer that most FPV people are neither AMA members nor are they Hams. Their emphasis seems to be on how far they can fly the model out from their launch point without losing the video downlink; forget LOS. Moreover, lots of the FPV flyers think nothing of flying over populated areas at long ranges. I see that as a reckless disregard of the possibility of a bad accident. IOW, irresponsible.

The AMA is trying to respond to AMA members' input; IOW, those who believe in flying within the guidelines. As such, they are responding to the minority of FPV pilots but what else can they do? Another reason for the guidelines is to protect AMA from the inevitable large insurance claim when one of the reckless FPV flyer's airplane causes a terrible accident while being flown outside the guidelines.

I truly believe it's just a matter of time.......

CR
Just to refresh us some of how we got here...
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 05:05 PM
  #67
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

I feel refreshed..............................
bradpaul is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 05:07 PM
  #68
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV



Feel good story of the day!

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/...-179983451.htm

Hunters 1
PITA FPV Drone 0




bradpaul is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 05:29 PM
  #69
combatpigg
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 19,891
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

Do these folks with "SHARKS" ever eat any meat..?

If so, where do they think the meat comes from..?
Do they realize that even the most learned vegetarians can not balance their protein requirements well enough to replace ALL of the ESSENTIAL amino acids that are present in meat...?
I'm really disgusted with people who do not have the gumption to be able to kill, gut, skin and butcher what they eat.
That is what is truly disgusting, the folks who eat their "Happy Meals" and who have no connection to the animals whose lives had to be taken by force to feed their fat, sheeple, faces.
combatpigg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 05:36 PM
  #70
Jim Thomerson
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,086
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

The one time I have seen FPV flight, I thought the pilot had less accurate control of the airplane than he would have had if flying without FPV. I saw the airplane flown out of sight behind buildings, flown at a considerable distance, and at fairly low altitude, over houses. We have concern that if that continues, it is inevitable that all of us will be run off the school field where we have been flying for several years.
Jim Thomerson is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 05:44 PM
  #71
combatpigg
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 19,891
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

Quote:
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf

Quote:
ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk


Quote:
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf

FPV haters here something else to get on the band wagon about


http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blo...pycraft-video/
Don't know about haters or FPVs but I loved this one. Note warning about language;

http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blo...aves-rc-plane/

Regard
Frank
I thought the spirit of those guys in the heli was simply awesome... I hope we can get back to more of that in the future. Hats off to those guys!!!


This video does give some insight not often considered... Anti FPVers often cite how the relatively few FPV models are of some great issue, all the while forgetting small full scale aircraft such as this R22 and the many ultralights that have essentially the same evasive and observation capabilities but are many times larger and therefore many times more destructive in the event of collision involving a passenger carrying aircraft.

It seems a real double standard to accept ultralight pilots somehow have superior privilege to pursue their interest, all the while bemoaning the much smaller segment of FPVers that present a much smaller threat.

Now, I'm sure someone will rationalize the double standard without even realizing it but what else is new?
It has honestly been 12 to 15 years since I saw an ultralight venture beyond the perimeter of our municipal airport. 20+ years ago, I used to see them out and about, but there was uausally a tragic event once or twice a year on the local news back then.
Regardless, they have NOTHING to do with my feelings about FPV. That's like saying, if I am against private citizens owning Tommy Guns or RPGs, how could I possibly advocate hunting rifles..?
combatpigg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 05:45 PM
  #72
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

Quote:
ORIGINAL: combatpigg

Do these folks with ''SHARKS'' ever eat any meat..?

If so, where do they think the meat comes from..?
So, are theses pigeon shooters(can't use the term hunters) eating the pigeons they shoot?

Oh, BTW, the use of that FPV isn't in any way a hobbyist type of use...that was an outright and intentional privacy invasion of a shooting club.
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 05:50 PM
  #73
combatpigg
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 19,891
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV

Quote:
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf


Quote:
ORIGINAL: combatpigg

Do these folks with ''SHARKS'' ever eat any meat..?

If so, where do they think the meat comes from..?
So, are theses pigeon shooters(can't use the term hunters) eating the pigeons they shoot?
I don't know. I certainly would...it is a sin not to.
I don't know of ANY bird hunters [shooters] who don't eat what they can retrieve.
combatpigg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 05:51 PM
  #74
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV


Quote:
ORIGINAL: combatpigg




I don't know. I certainly would...it is a sin not to.
I agree!!!!
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 05:56 PM
  #75
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Jim Thomerson

The one time I have seen FPV flight, I thought the pilot had less accurate control of the airplane than he would have had if flying without FPV. I saw the airplane flown out of sight behind buildings, flown at a considerable distance, and at fairly low altitude, over houses. We have concern that if that continues, it is inevitable that all of us will be run off the school field where we have been flying for several years.
That's a perfect example how peer pressure should be exerted to whatever extent proportional to the perceived risk. The greater the risk, the more pressure up to the point you are willing to take some real action.
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:20 PM.