ramboamt

My Feedback: (36)

Look out as the navy is already shooting down drones...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2yuHMDDA68

Sport_Pilot

I believe that recently the FAA has said they would not be doing this for systems flying in non navigable airspace. Not sure were I have seen that or how accurate that is.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Here's some good reading http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...l#.Uur2Kii0LzI

cj_rumley

That's an excellent article, and certainly germane to this discussion, as it cites AMA involvement in sUAV use outside of their construct of what a model aircraft is/isn't that has been exposed to the public.
Regarding the well known incident of a guy flying a 'drone' around the Statue of Liberty this excerpt is revealing: "...his drone manufacturing company, flew the same foam drone around the Statue of Liberty’s head, descended close to skyscrapers in midtown and zipped above passing cars on the Brooklyn Bridge. During the flight, people stared, wondering what was going on. Afterward, they got mad. The Academy of Model Aeronautics said the flight “posed significant threat to people and property.” The FAA investigated and eventually determined that Pirker broke no laws—operating a small drone is legal, even next to New York City’s skyscrapers."

Is this the same AMA that is out to cozy up with public and civil users of sUAS?

init4fun

I too am happy to see the the AMA embrace FPV , and have no problems with their document #550 detailing what has been determined by them ( US , after all , WE are the AMA , correct ? ) to be safe hobby use of such technology .

I can not see how flying even a "toy grade" fpv above the heads of people , or over the traffic on the Brooklyn bridge , fits in with the provisions detailed in #550 ...... I will not prattle on about which sections of #550 were violated , since a quick read of both #550 and even the general safety code with regards to ALL rc flying will reveal that flight to be in violation of the set fourth conditions FPV flights must meet to remain AMA compliant .

I really would like to try fpv , with the help of an experienced FPVer , and I would make certain to comply with #550 while doing so . I have no need for flying over highways or buzzing national monuments , I just one time would get a kick out of seeing what my plane sees as i'm flying it

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Your last line is a little disingenious, there.

I see no conflict at all with the AMA supporting responsible FPV operations while coming down hard against the type of flying seen in the videos taken over NYC and over the University of VA produced by that guy from Team Black Sheep.

Even if it was legal, it was unwise and reckless. If that little foam sUAS of his had dropped into traffic on the bridge in NY, it could cause a traffic accident no matter how little it weighs and what it is made of.

AMA 74894

My Feedback: (1)

EGGGGGGZACTLY and again, here's where the AMA comes in:
as pointed out in the article, this incident DOES NOT fit in with the provisions of #550... the AMA has condemned this incident for purposes of our hobby.
that being said, although not the brightest idea thing to do, it was not ILLEGAL.
Lawmakers are being pressed to create laws that would make such a stunt illegal,
but since there are many ways FPV and carrying camera's aloft can be a huge benefit to the general public
(monitoring power lines, searching for crash victims/ lost hikers / campers, the list is almost endless)
then the AMA has it's job cut out for it: embrace the people who are following the rules and condemn the 'rouge agents' out there who don't.
The AMA has at least some influence on the wording of such laws (another reason I'm glad we've got the AMA)
and the AMA saw the potential for all of RC to be publicly associated with folks who have no knowledge of the AMA, or it's safety guidelines.
and THAT would be bad for us hobby RC'ers.

cj_rumley

Call it disingenuous if you will, Thomas, but................as I see it the type of FPV operations that you condone AMA 's publicized condemnation of are exactly what is to be expected of public/civil FPV ops, activities AMA's marketeers are targeting as business opportunity. I have a disparaging word that: two-faced. I think we are in agreement about AMA supporting responsible FPV operations by hobbyists within its sphere of influence. I am very skeptical about the impact their new marketing venture may have on keeping distinguishable the blurry line between unregulated model airplane and regulated unmanned aircraft. When AMA talks to FAA and state/local agencies already popping into business of regulating 'drones,' Which AMA will do the talking?

cj

bruceal

Here is another way to look at it. I fly my plane at an AMA insured flying site. If we were to allow FPV, it would have to be flown in accordance with AMA guidelines to be insured the same as my plane. That's one thing, the flying site is a controlled area and set up within the AMA's recommendations. Now to think that the AMA can have it's hands in the safe operations of FPV outside of an approved flying site, is like the NHRA sanctioning drag racing on public streets.

AMA 74894

My Feedback: (1)

I pretty much agree (except they are AMA Sanctioned flying sites, not AMA INSURED flying sites) AND:
if the FPV'er is an AMA member, flying at OTHER than an AMA sanctioned field, (like the brooklyn bridge)
and flies into a car or hurts someone, then the AMA can revoke that person's AMA membership and throw him (or her) to the dogs as a 'rouge member'.
obviously, there would be no insurance coverage either.

as for what what cj rumley posted above,
"I am very skeptical about the impact their new marketing venture may have on keeping distinguishable the blurry line between unregulated model airplane and regulated unmanned aircraft. When AMA talks to FAA and state/local agencies already popping into business of regulating 'drones,' Which AMA will do the talking?"


the AMA has nothing to do with either "unregulated model airplanes or with regulated unmanned aircraft."

regulated unmanned aircraft is the domain of the military and the FAA. and "unregulated model airplanes" are airplanes that people bought without knowledge of such an organization as AMA.
the AMA can't do anything for non members.

smeckert

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2014/...one-769042349/


Great the anti drone people screwed up another small business ownersplans to make money in a nitch market .

bruceal

I mean flying fields that hold an insurance certificate such as AMA club fields.

cj_rumley

Jim,

We sure have a different understanding about terminology I used, which for the most part is close to if not verbatim from FAA's (and in turn, AMA's) current usage. Follows are definitions as I know them:

unregulated models - sUAS for hobby/recreational use that are currently exempt from regulation by FAA, advised to operate within guidelines of AC91-57

regulated unmanned aircraft - UAS operated for other than hobby/recreational, e.g., public use as by law enforcement and other public agencies, or civil, as in any commercial operation. Requires Certificate of Authorization, which to date has been granted to hundreds of 'public' users but only one 'civil' user. Generally does not include military UA which FAA has limited power to regulate.

unregulated model aircraft - only meaningful in context of separating UA that are regulated by FAA from those that are not. AMA does not regulate model aircraft, and so is not relevant to the terminology. If they are to be regulated in the future (I hope not) it will be done by FAA, not AMA.

cj

smeckert

I can see many great uses for fpv use in search and rescue , power transmission and farming . In some of these situations line of sight is possible , but controlable line of sight would not be possible . I think a lot depends on where the flying takes place . Growing up in farm country in Michigan , there are many areas that beyond line of sight could take place . If the aircraft is set up with the proper failsafe devices , gps home return etc. Than I don't see a problem . Is fpv beyond line of sight a good idea everywhere , no , but to ban it completely is just wrong.
My worry is that drone and fpv use will only be allowed by law enforcement and corporations , big money that us pee ons won't have access to.
And the beer delivery above , I don't agree but that should be their choice , and their legal and financial problem . America was a free country , where you could make your own choices , and people would mind their own business . Now if you don't like steak , nobody should eat steak .

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Just a little nit-pick..."sanctioned" flying sites is a misnomer..."Chartered club" flying sites with named insured is more correect. AMA sanctions events not flying sites.

cj_rumley

Right, but not 'correect.'

This nit-pick game is contagious, but more often than not backfires on the purp.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Yea, I seen that after I posted...Didn't want to have all the fun so I left it.

cj_rumley

Me too

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I caught your nitpick LOL

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I couldn't agree more.

AMA's position should be to promote model aviation in all its forms...and not just for its members.

Chanting incantations about matters outside their sphere of immediate control should be avoided at all costs unless they truly understand the black magic they invoke. For AMA to publicly make a statement in regards to certain matters that are not directly relative to AMA is a mistake. They need to fully appreciate the admonition; "everything you say can and will be used against you". Trying to project the perception of empowerment by throwing another under the bus is an errant strategy.

Uncas

My Feedback: (1)

"Also, learn the latest about AMA's plans to provide safety programming and support for the amateur, personal use and lite commercial sUAS community."

Is this now part of AMA policy? Saw this is an ad for the rcradionetwork.

Hossfly

Mr. Buzzeo, may I instill some additional corrections within the terminology and factual areas. There is no facility designated as an AMA Sanctioned FLYING SITE.
AMA sanctions EVENTS hosted by an AMA Chartered Club.. AMA's contracted Insurance Company insures Clubs, not facilities. AMA can, through an AMA Chartered Club, provide for an insurance policy for a "Site Owner" through the Chartered Club using said facility.

As for FPV, my choice is that whatever it may be called it MUST be allowed only within the boundary of the land/facility in use of an AMA Chartered Club. If any person, engaged in FPV, should go outside the boundaries of an AMA Chartered Club's owned or leased/rented facility, then that club, and the individual person, be he or her, member or guest, should be totally responsible for whatever legal action may be assigned upon said AMA Chartered Club.
Any one, group, business or whatever should not be allowed to use the Academy of Model Aeronautics, and its sport recreational members to cover said businesses' business activities.

BTW, Jim, please feel free to forward this statement, as I wrote it, right up to Bob Brown, Dave Mathewson, and Mark Johnson. In addition please feel free to read Gary Fitch's column, page 146, Feb. 2014, Model Aviation magazine, especially the bottom of second column and 3rd column.

AMA 74894

My Feedback: (1)

I completely agree with you, Hoss. and by no means am I an expert in the field of FPV or the AMA for that matter (obviously)
I've got a feeling the AMA booth at Toledo this year is going to be ummm... interesting

cj_rumley

Yes, it clearly is, for at least a couple of reasons. (1) AMA has for months been hinting at their plans to sell such services to the target market(s) you mentioned, even including feature articles and editorials about non-recreational sUAS operations. A business opportunity to increase revenue. (2) The Memorandum of Understanding signed with FAA during the Expo in Jan has been a much sought after objective AMA, as they realized getting recognition from FAA was essential to fulfilling their CBO ambitions per their successful lobbying efforts in Congress. Apparently FAA's terms for that agreement included a demand for making available to non-members the Safety information/program(s) AMA had intended to keep proprietary (its basic to justifying the CBO thing that AMA members are privy to safety info that makes their operations of model aircraft safer than the non-member hooligans). Conceding it's gotta be public anyway, why not use it to do some image building?
With both internal marketing forces and a need for some measure of stature with FAA UAS offices, there isn't much new in this news.

cj

chuckk2

*(&^+ The Camel's nose (FAA) is under the tent! In not too much longer, it'll be the whole camel!
Congress tried to do us a favor (With much to do). Recognizing and agreeing to FAA restrictions/rules
will eventually mean paying a license fees to fly a model. Is everyone aware that as far as the FAA is concerned,
a UAV (model airplane in the future?) the pilot will have to have an FAA license? And, meet medical requirements
for that license? (Money, Money, it's all about Money!)