Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 382

  1. #51

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Haverstraw, NY
    Posts
    112
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    We have also decided against FPV at our field. Besides having homes in close proximity, we also have an active heliport, County park, and the largest marina on the east coast right across the street. We are not against new technology, however not all flying locations can host all types of aircraft. In our case it happens to be FPV. We don't have the luxury of having an "incident" and apologizing for it. With full scale helicopters right next to us, there is no second chance.

  2. #52
    combatpigg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    arlington, WA
    Posts
    17,715
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Quote Originally Posted by 804 View Post
    With the exception of the irrelevant crack about the PP program,
    the answer to your question is in your own post.
    In the quest for bigger, faster, lighter, better, etc,, someone had to
    "push the envelope". It's in our nature, even, I'll bet, yours.
    "Had to" really isn't even part of it, "want to" is better--this is America, that's what we do, and do well.
    You may be happy to dwell in the past.
    Many are not.
    Give real examples, not more of the usual......vague.......mumbo...... jumbo.
    WHO GUNNA FEED MAW KEEEIDS..???

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,254
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Quote Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf View Post
    Well...I can envision a FPV obstacle course, where flying thru and around obsicles could be done in a very safe manner...Not allowed "within the AMA's scope of safety rules"...just to name one that is within the context of this thread.
    Color me confused. I like that idea of yours, but see no reason it cannot be done under the current AMA rules for FPV flying. I suppose your reasoning is that the model cannot ever leave the direct line of sight of the FPV spotter.

    As long as non of the obsticles are large enough to fully block the entire aircraft from view and as long as the obsticle course is visible from the where the FPV pilot and FPV spotter are standing, I think this is good to go under current rules. If you want to do it over the next hill, completely out of sight, then it is an issue...but I see no reason to do it over the hill or on the other side of the woods, etc, out of line of sight.
    Last edited by Thomas B; 12-17-2013 at 08:22 PM.
    Electric Coolhunter

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,254
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Quote Originally Posted by bruceal View Post
    We have also decided against FPV at our field. Besides having homes in close proximity, we also have an active heliport, County park, and the largest marina on the east coast right across the street. We are not against new technology, however not all flying locations can host all types of aircraft. In our case it happens to be FPV. We don't have the luxury of having an "incident" and apologizing for it. With full scale helicopters right next to us, there is no second chance.
    I guess I do not see how FPV aircraft operated under the current AMA rules for FPV would be any more dangerous than any sort of normal R/C model at your flying field. With a decent FPV spotter, it actually might be safer flying FPV at your flying site than it would be for a guy to fly a normal model with no spotter to keep an eye out for the local heli traffic.

    Flying FPV does not automatically mean that you fly away from the normal confines of your flying field.
    Last edited by Thomas B; 12-17-2013 at 08:22 PM.
    Electric Coolhunter

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    14
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas B View Post
    I guess I do not see how FPV aircraft operated under the current AMA rules for FPV would be any more dangerous than any sort of normal R/C model at your flying field. With a decent FPV spotter, it actually might be safer flying FPV at your flying site than it would be for a guy to fly a normal model with no spotter to keep an eye out for the local heli traffic.

    Flying FPV does not automatically mean that you fly away from the normal confines of your flying field.
    Safer possibly, but proximity to neighbors is a big issue as well. People outside the hobby don't want to see a large flying insect with a camera mounted underneath flying over their house. It might be safe but it might get your club shut down also.

    The pilot flying FPV only has a view to the front with limited side to side and up and down. The demos we have seen demonstrated that the primary pilot was not fully aware of his proximity to obstacles. I feel you are correct that a good spotter would help keep things clear, but remember that the spotter with LOS must be able to fly the aircraft also. This is a limiting factor at some clubs where multi-copters are not the norm. Also, if you are moving to FPV after a long time in the hobby, do you really want to have to rely on a spotter every time you go up?

    Some of the autonomous features of the multi-rotors are great in that they return to take-off point when losing a signal or on command from the pilot, so if we could get them to stay in the normal pattern and 3D maneuver area I think we could make it work much like we have with heli's. A lot depends on the actions of those pursuing FPV flight at excisting clubs.
    Last edited by ZRX631; 12-17-2013 at 08:42 PM.

  6. #56
    littlecrankshaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    here
    Posts
    4,808
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas B View Post
    Color me confused.

    I am indeed talking about obstructions that completely obscure the sight of FPV models...Just think of flying behind a maze of banners and through large tunnels similar to the ones dogs run through for some of their competitions. Completely safe and a real FPV challenge.
    It is very important to understand that Jesus not only died for our sins but died because of our sins...even harder to understand now, exactly what were those sins???

  7. #57
    mikestang746's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    4
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    i was reading the thread to get an idea, hmmm i need to visit the link they post, by the way thanks for the info shared.

  8. #58
    littlecrankshaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    here
    Posts
    4,808
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    I'll give you an example...Based on much of what you've said recently, I can't help but think you must fly only 2 channel slow stiks with .049 engines...on second thought, maybe not...as that would be pushing the envelope of flying with foam...Matter of fact, I can't think of a single thing man does that isn't a result of pushing the "envelope". As pointed out earlier it really is "how" we push the envelope that is the issue.

    Nothing inherently dangerous about FPV. Nothing inherently safer about conventional "modeling" either. Both require common sense and an eye to safety. Look, when I see a guy put that Big ole 30# P-51 on the flight line after only 2 weeks previous Alpha 40 trainer experience...those little FPV models seem very innocuous to me...

    People spend way to much time making cases against FPV while completely ignoring much worse scenarios...It's just redickulious. Get over yourself already!

    Your perspective might change when some old guy almost takes your head off... flying his turbine powered creation...or his overpowered Piper Cub.
    It is very important to understand that Jesus not only died for our sins but died because of our sins...even harder to understand now, exactly what were those sins???

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    sheridan, IN
    Posts
    1,117
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Quote Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf View Post
    I'll give you an example...Based on much of what you've said recently, I can't help but think you must fly only 2 channel slow stiks with .049 engines...on second thought, maybe not...as that would be pushing the envelope of flying with foam...Matter of fact, I can't think of a single thing man does that isn't a result of pushing the "envelope". As pointed out earlier it really is "how" we push the envelope that is the issue.

    Nothing inherently dangerous about FPV. Nothing inherently safer about conventional "modeling" either. Both require common sense and an eye to safety. Look, when I see a guy put that Big ole 30# P-51 on the flight line after only 2 weeks previous Alpha 40 trainer experience...those little FPV models seem very innocuous to me...

    People spend way to much time making cases against FPV while completely ignoring much worse scenarios...It's just redickulious. Get over yourself already!

    Your perspective might change when some old guy almost takes your head off... flying his turbine powered creation...or his overpowered Piper Cub.
    LCS,
    trying to explain to some here the philosophy of technical advancement is like
    going back in time and trying to explain women's rights to the Neanderthal.
    They ain't ever likely to get it.

  10. #60
    bradpaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Apopka, FL
    Posts
    970
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Interesting that in a thread about emerging technology that many posters do not even get the termonology right. FPV is flying a airframe from a the perspective of the arframe. The airframe could be any airpllane, or any helicopter (for AMA there are weight/speed limits). Multirotors are just ONE KIND or airframe that can optionally use FPV.

    Autonomous flight may be used on a FPV airframe but it has nothing to do with the FPV system.
    Multirotors may use FPV and autonomous flight but they are not required to fly multirotors.

    On one of my giant scale planes I use a EagleTree Guardian unit (three axis gyro stabilization and a artificial horizon) is that a "emerging technology" to ban because simular systems can be used by multirotors? If I wanted to, I could add GPS waypoint flight to it and nobody here would without examining the electronics even know it was there. You would just see a giant scale plane flying some very precise patterns uneffected by any wind.

    I get the impression that much of the angst is "they are not nitro powered CUB (kits) that fly the pattern"

    Of course the AMA is correct to embrace FPV and autonomous flight as well as they were correct to embrace Lipo batteries and 2.4G radios over many of the same objections seen in this thread. There were actually ignorant AMA clubs that banned Lipos and 2.4G when they first came out.

    This is actually a subject that LCS and I are in agreement on.

    Brad

  11. #61

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,254
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Quote Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf View Post
    I am indeed talking about obstructions that completely obscure the sight of FPV models...Just think of flying behind a maze of banners and through large tunnels similar to the ones dogs run through for some of their competitions. Completely safe and a real FPV challenge.
    I think that the AMA could be convinced to allow that as an event with some reasonable restrictions, even if the models do go out of sight behind banners and fabric tunnels. Note that the AMA is showing some flexibility concerning FPV and as they gain more experience, things could open up even more.

    An FPV obsticle course would certainly be much safer than than R/C combat as allowed now.
    Last edited by Thomas B; 12-18-2013 at 07:40 AM.
    Electric Coolhunter

  12. #62

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,254
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Quote Originally Posted by ZRX631 View Post
    Safer possibly, but proximity to neighbors is a big issue as well. People outside the hobby don't want to see a large flying insect with a camera mounted underneath flying over their house. It might be safe but it might get your club shut down also.
    Flying any type of RC model, FPV or not FPV, close enough to a neighbors house for them to see if it has a camera or not could get your club shut down. Not really a valid argument against FPV.

    The pilot flying FPV only has a view to the front with limited side to side and up and down. The demos we have seen demonstrated that the primary pilot was not fully aware of his proximity to obstacles. I feel you are correct that a good spotter would help keep things clear, but remember that the spotter with LOS must be able to fly the aircraft also. This is a limiting factor at some clubs where multi-copters are not the norm. Also, if you are moving to FPV after a long time in the hobby, do you really want to have to rely on a spotter every time you go up?
    Spotters cover the limited field of view issue. If you want to fly FPV in an AMA club environment, you are going to need qualifed spotters as the AMA prescribes. Seems reasonable to me at this stage of development. Again, not a valid argument against allowing FPV ops at an AMA club field.

    Some of the autonomous features of the multi-rotors are great in that they return to take-off point when losing a signal or on command from the pilot, so if we could get them to stay in the normal pattern and 3D maneuver area I think we could make it work much like we have with heli's. A lot depends on the actions of those pursuing FPV flight at excisting clubs.
    Simply a matter of selecting a suitable pre programmed RTB spot to use that does not park the model in the way of normal RC activity. Perhaps outside the pattern bring flown. I have yet to see an RC field where the occasional excursion across the flight pattern does not occur and a rare LOS on a model with autonomous RTB capability is not going to cause any more of an issue than we already have with human error or exuberance at the RC fiield....

    No need to invent problems that are actually less of a problem than situations we already peacefully co-exist with in the RC hobby.
    Last edited by Thomas B; 12-18-2013 at 07:45 AM.
    Electric Coolhunter

  13. #63
    rmh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    , UT
    Posts
    12,605
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    This is all getting to be a wildfire --
    The idea of AMA was to provide a body for those who -as a hobby use models which are controlled by direct visual input.
    In a few isolated cases some cross country models were permitted to set examples of what was possible.
    Today - the advent of models which can launch - fly - collect info (photos ) and safely return to launch point with NO operator flying corrections required, has happened - seen it -
    for 400bucks on a four rotor copter - No RPV used.
    It also has auto distance recognition which prevents operator flying it into oneself.
    The rules MUST change
    These same copters could easily range for miles using satellite controls and programmed courses..
    Last edited by rmh; 12-18-2013 at 09:40 AM.
    Libby is still watching you

  14. #64

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    14
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas B View Post
    Flying any type of RC model, FPV or not FPV, close enough to a neighbors house for them to see if it has a camera or not could get your club shut down. Not really a valid argument against FPV



    Spotters cover the limited field of view issue. If you want to fly FPV in an AMA club environment, you are going to need qualifed spotters as the AMA prescribes. Seems reasonable to me at this stage of development. Again, not a valid argument against allowing FPV ops at an AMA club field.


    Simply a matter of selecting a suitable pre programmed RTB spot to use that does not park the model in the way of normal RC activity. Perhaps outside the pattern bring flown. I have yet to see an RC field where the occasional excursion across the flight pattern does not occur and a rare LOS on a model with autonomous RTB capability is not going to cause any more of an issue than we already have with human error or exuberance at the RC fiield....

    No need to invent problems that are actually less of a problem than situations we already peacefully co-exist with in the RC hobby.


    I agree with your first sentence but Since the FPV flights were the only ones that flew to close to the houses, My club voted to not allow it at this time. It may work just fine at some clubs depending on the layout and the safety committee rules.

    None of the one liners in the post are enough to make a decision one way or the other on FPV ops. BTW, my statements are from actual events not what I think might happen if FPV ops are allowed at our field.

    I don't disagree with the requirement but it is not the club's responsibility to provide the spotters. If the FPV pilot is flying something the spotter is competent at flying the FPV flight will be much like training on a bubby box. If the FPV pilot is flying something that is not usually flown at the club it would up to them to ensure the spotter is capable of fulfilling their duties. In our case, the FPV pilot felt he was to experienced to need a spotter and that $100 a year was to much to pay to have to fly in the pattern. (Which I understand, as I would want to be able to fly my FPV out of LOS if I had one)

    My reference to the RTB capability was a complement to the multi-copters not a reason for disallowing FPV. If the multi-copter pilot announced dead stick, for lack of a better term, it would be a benefit to all on the flight line to know that it would return to it's take off point and other pilot's should stay clear until it has arrived.


    I don't believe I have invented any problems, only described the problems I've witnessed. We have a leased flying site with 50 active members but only one prospect that was seeking to fly FPV, It's not likely that the club was going to change a whole lot for one possible member. If in the future our members obtain enough equipment and people to try it again all it takes is a motion and vote to give it a shot.
    We lost a flying site in our area recently because of noise complaints from a newly built sub-division.


    My perspective on FPV is that it may work better at flying sites that are on public land away from homes and private property. I hope FPV takes off and eventually the cost comes down so that more can afford to do it with whatever they like to fly but at this point risk versus reward has to be a factor. Same reason we have to get special permission if we want turbines at our fly-in events.

  15. #65
    edh13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    406
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Quote Originally Posted by rmh View Post
    This is all getting to be a wildfire --
    The idea of AMA was to provide a body for those who -as a hobby use models which are controlled by direct visual input.
    In a few isolated cases some cross country models were permitted to set examples of what was possible.
    Today - the advent of models which can launch - fly - collect info (photos ) and safely return to launch point with NO operator flying corrections required, has happened - seen it -
    for 400bucks on a four rotor copter - No RPV used.
    It also has auto distance recognition which prevents operator flying it into oneself.
    The rules MUST change
    These same copters could easily range for miles using satellite controls and programmed courses..
    No, the rules must NOT change.

    AMA Mission -
    The Academy of Model Aeronautics is a world-class association of modelers organized for the purpose of promotion, development, education, advancement, and safeguarding of modeling activities.
    The Academy provides leadership, organization, competition, communication, protection, representation, recognition, education, and scientific/technical development to modelers.

    Merriam-Webster - Model - 2: being a usually miniature representation of something [a model airplane]

    The AMA should not open their doors to any activity that does not fit their mission. Especially an activity that is just trying to hide from the FAA under the AMA skirt.
    Eric




  16. #66
    bradpaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Apopka, FL
    Posts
    970
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    But you see they are models after all......... models of drones currently used by the police and military units of countries worlwide ......... they could actually be classified as warbird models....

  17. #67

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Haverstraw, NY
    Posts
    112
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas B View Post
    I guess I do not see how FPV aircraft operated under the current AMA rules for FPV would be any more dangerous than any sort of normal R/C model at your flying field. With a decent FPV spotter, it actually might be safer flying FPV at your flying site than it would be for a guy to fly a normal model with no spotter to keep an eye out for the local heli traffic.

    Flying FPV does not automatically mean that you fly away from the normal confines of your flying field.

    If the FPV aircraft is flown within the boundaries of the flying site, that would be one thing. However, who is going to police people to make sure that they are within bounds when no one else is there. The temptation to fly over a park or golf course is a big one. It's just human nature to push limits. I also don't know many people who want to invest in FPV to just fly in the pattern. In one case, another area club had a member flying 2 1/2 miles away over a golf course. He was being spotted by his father who was using binoculars. I'm not saying that all FPV users would do this, but again in our case one time would be the last time. My stance is that not all flying sites can accommodate all types of aircraft.

  18. #68
    edh13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    406
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Quote Originally Posted by bradpaul View Post
    But you see they are models after all......... models of drones currently used by the police and military units of countries worlwide ......... they could actually be classified as warbird models....
    OK Brad, way too much logic goin' on here...
    Eric
    Last edited by edh13; 12-18-2013 at 01:48 PM.

  19. #69
    bradpaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Apopka, FL
    Posts
    970
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Quote Originally Posted by bruceal View Post
    If the FPV aircraft is flown within the boundaries of the flying site, that would be one thing. However, who is going to police people to make sure that they are within bounds when no one else is there. The temptation to fly over a park or golf course is a big one. It's just human nature to push limits. I also don't know many people who want to invest in FPV to just fly in the pattern. In one case, another area club had a member flying 2 1/2 miles away over a golf course. He was being spotted by his father who was using binoculars. I'm not saying that all FPV users would do this, but again in our case one time would be the last time. My stance is that not all flying sites can accommodate all types of aircraft.
    Who is going to police ANY OF THE AMA SAFETY CODE RULES when no one else is there?
    Last edited by bradpaul; 12-18-2013 at 02:21 PM.

  20. #70

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    avenel, NJ
    Posts
    1
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    My 2 cents.......this used to be a hobby. Build something, sweat a little, worry a little, learn some skills, hang out with your friends, improve your skills, pass them along to another generation. Now it's who can afford the most high tech toy. And there are a lot of toys, you can buy a pretty fancy toy helicopter at the mall that a 8 year old can learn to fly in 5 minutes. That's a hobby? No. It's a toy.

  21. #71

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Haverstraw, NY
    Posts
    112
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    You are entitled to your opinion, but like I said before we will not allow FPV at our field. I will not sacrifice a flying site that hosts 75 members for the sake of 2 or 3.

  22. #72

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Aguanga, CA
    Posts
    1,022
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Quote Originally Posted by bruceal View Post
    You are entitled to your opinion, but like I said before we will not allow FPV at our field. I will not sacrifice a flying site that hosts 75 members for the sake of 2 or 3.
    FWIW, you may have received an Email entitled "Drones, FPV, Multirotor, sUAS your opinion please!" from AMA. It may, or may not, be more productive to direct your (collective 'your,' not just bruceal) opinion to those that make AMA policy via answering the poll questions. There is an incentive for offering your opinion in a chance to win a DJI Phantom Quadcopter. If you are anti-FPV, maybe we can deal if you win it.

    cj

  23. #73

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    1,460
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Quote Originally Posted by edh13 View Post
    No, the rules must NOT change.

    AMA Mission -
    The Academy of Model Aeronautics is a world-class association of modelers organized for the purpose of promotion, development, education, advancement, and safeguarding of modeling activities.
    The Academy provides leadership, organization, competition, communication, protection, representation, recognition, education, and scientific/technical development to modelers.

    Merriam-Webster - Model - 2: being a usually miniature representation of something [a model airplane]

    The AMA should not open their doors to any activity that does not fit their mission. Especially an activity that is just trying to hide from the FAA under the AMA skirt.
    Eric




    None of us are trying to hide from the FAA behind the AMA's "skirt". A full-scale aircraft is a bulky, and expensive piece of metal. It is TOO expensive for the simple purpose of taking a couple photos of a friend's cow pasture. People get paid all the time to do odds and ends for others, paltry sums that can help pay a few bills and maybe even save a mortgage. That's what friends do. Good people, helping each other manage in difficult times. And for some, employment may not always be an option. So there has to be another way to add a few coins here and there. And if the activity does no harm, then I'm all good with it.

    As for the drones: I would definitely accept someone flying their RQ-11 Raven with some non-essential features taken out, as a model warbird as bradpaul suggests. Think of a school bus, used for the transportation of students. Black out the word "School Bus" and then you have a personal vehicle that can haul a lot of stuff, without the need for a Class-B CDL. While a retired drone can't be converted to a camper, it can still be enjoyed by us common folks. Enjoy it responsibly. Take some photos, with NO need for a license. No need to pursue that medical certificate that's usually reserved for the immortal. You have a model airplane, that may even have a little history. Perhaps, it could have saved someone's life at one point. And it's there, for others to see at the local club. I'd love to have something like that added to my collection.

  24. #74

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,254
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Quote Originally Posted by edh13 View Post
    No, the rules must NOT change.

    AMA Mission -
    The Academy of Model Aeronautics is a world-class association of modelers organized for the purpose of promotion, development, education, advancement, and safeguarding of modeling activities.
    The Academy provides leadership, organization, competition, communication, protection, representation, recognition, education, and scientific/technical development to modelers.

    Merriam-Webster - Model - 2: being a usually miniature representation of something [a model airplane]

    The AMA should not open their doors to any activity that does not fit their mission. Especially an activity that is just trying to hide from the FAA under the AMA skirt.
    Eric

    Sorry, but I see FPV activity as described in the AMA guidelines a completely valid aero modeling activity. Nothing you are posting above about the AMA and its missions and guidelines ad definitions affects using new technologies in a model aircraft of any type.
    Electric Coolhunter

  25. #75

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,254
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback
    Quote Originally Posted by bruceal View Post
    If the FPV aircraft is flown within the boundaries of the flying site, that would be one thing. However, who is going to police people to make sure that they are within bounds when no one else is there. The temptation to fly over a park or golf course is a big one. It's just human nature to push limits. I also don't know many people who want to invest in FPV to just fly in the pattern. In one case, another area club had a member flying 2 1/2 miles away over a golf course. He was being spotted by his father who was using binoculars. I'm not saying that all FPV users would do this, but again in our case one time would be the last time. My stance is that not all flying sites can accommodate all types of aircraft.
    Some good points there. I also agree with the poster than stated "how to you ensure any safety rules are followed?

    The point I am making is that flying FPV responsibily, within the AMA guidelines and within the normal confines of your flying site, simply does not seem to be something that needs to be outlawed. I see another posters point that most people will likely not invest in FPV and want to fly in the confines of a normal field. However, ay my club field, we have a couple of people that do just that. Not causing a problem at all.

    My club operates three club owned trainers and gives free flight instruction one day a week to the public. This winter, we are upgrading one of them and adding an FPV system and some flight stabilization equipment and will offer training in FPV as well, in a responsible way within the AMA guidelines.

    I do respect the right of any club to set safety rules as they see fit and I can complete agree that many club fields cannot accomodate unlimited FPV. I would hope a club that I was a member of would outlaw only the part of the activity that would create an issue and not outlaw the entire activity in one fell swoop. We all must exercise a little self discipline at the club field and FPV operations are no different.

    I know of a club or two that decided that 2.4 radios were not safe when they were introduced and they outlawed them. Seems foolish now. Other clubs outlawed lipo batteries as they were simply too dangerous to be allowed at the flying field.....
    Last edited by Thomas B; 12-18-2013 at 10:29 PM.
    Electric Coolhunter


Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:00 AM.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.