chuckk2

After recent full size helicopter crashes in heavily populated areas, I have to wonder about the relative importance of regulating quad and hex copters.

bradpaul

AMA #550

2. GENERAL:
FPV flying of radio control model aircraft by AMA members is allowed only for
noncommercial purposes as a hobby/recreational and/or competition activity and must
be conducted in accordance with AMA’s current National Model Aircraft Safety Code and any
additional rules specific to a flying site/location


Again the AMA supports FPV within the guidelines of AMA #550,560,570. As the FAA is regulating "commercial use" and the AMA prohibits "commercial use", the risk of seeing FAA inspectors decending on AMA club fields is only for the paranoid conspiracy crowd. Well as that is also the regular AMA bashing crowd I guess it is to be expected.

cj_rumley

Most modelers have gotten along quite nicely for many decades without such hard laws regarding their operation, and prefer strongly to have it remain that way. There will always be those that feel unsettled by not having somebody constantly telling them what to do. They have options too, e.g., enlist in the Army and become a lifer, join a cult, or just get married.

JohnShe

Well, there is a law: PUBLIC LAW 112–95—FEB. 14, 2012.. It assigns the FAA the responsibility of integrating UAS into the NAS. The FAA has been, as typically bureaucracy would, slow in developing the necessary regulations to complete the task. I think that you are a little bit out there when you ascribe malicious intent into the FAA's effort in meeting a law written by our elected congress. To me the definitions and directions in 112-95 are pretty clear and hard to misinterpret without serious misguided effort.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Something worth listening to Drones Over America by 60 min. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/drones-over-america-60-minutes/ Dennis

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

That is like ignoring the facts! I guess some prefer to do that, but I did not think you were part of that crowd. He needs to get married.

QUOTE=JohnShe;11763635]Well, there is a law: PUBLIC LAW 112–95—FEB. 14, 2012.. It assigns the FAA the responsibility of integrating UAS into the NAS. The FAA has been, as typically bureaucracy would, slow in developing the necessary regulations to complete the task. I think that you are a little bit out there when you ascribe malicious intent into the FAA's effort in meeting a law written by our elected congress. To me the definitions and directions in 112-95 are pretty clear and hard to misinterpret without serious misguided effort.[/QUOTE]

This has been under discussion by FAA mandated groups since 2006 or earlier in their attempt at looking forward and finding reasonable solutions. As far as I can tell, the government does not wish to regulate modeling, just that which endangers the public.

Really? That is awful white of you!

You seem to have a basic comprehension problem with the scale of the issue. According to YOUR congress, the FAA owns all the airspace and rather than regulating the hobbyist, they are/have/and intend to take the position of regulating commercial activities. You and Sport seem to want the FAA or Europeans to control our actions rather than separate the hobby from commercial activities.

Consider that an 8 ounce drone is not really going to fly fast enough, far enough, or carry enough of a payload to do much in the way of earning cash so the miscreants will move on to something large enough to earn a living or at least help pay for their new toys. Try getting hit in the face by a pitched soft ball and report to us how great it feels while understanding that it is moving at a slower speed than the differential between any and all capable drones within the average modelers financial reach and most GA aircraft cruising speeds. Oh, to make sure you understand all of the issues try to remember that most of the more capable stuff (like was shown climbing above the clouds) also weighs a heck of a lot more than that baseball. Rather than reserve special airspace (which some ALREADY VIOLATE according to the AMA and FAA agreement - see that video over the cloud deck again to verify that), the approach is to regulate commerce, which is covered under several different acts in the last several decades.

It is only a matter of time before someone downs a rider scale bird with one of their 'model drones' because of the growing numbers of unwilling to be restricted by common sense, law, or social pressures (that should cover the anti crowd).

Your bogus commitment to safety is false because you are ignoring the "thundering herd" syndrome that rules the less mentally capable (mostly by choice) and insist they don't exist.

cj_rumley

............

Sport_Pilot

There may come a time when you have to allow commercial drones or lose your AMA charter, or it seems headed that direction at least.

Sport_Pilot

Show me where they gave the FAA all airspace. I have researched this and the 1958 FAA act gave them only the navigable airspace above their minimum altitudes. They later gave them airspace below this to be used for helicopter routes. But I have not been able to find where they gave them all airspace, though I don't discount that in one or more bills they have done so. Not saying they didn't, I just have not been able to find the specific bill.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

You sure are still lazy, or blind, or a troll! I suspect that your goals have nothing to do with modeling and the fact that you make multiple posts to stir the pot labels you as a troll, especially when the exact answer to your question is right in front of you but your mind is so closed mind that your eyes refuse to see it.

A smart man might consider finding out what the exact definition of NAS is. It USED to be 401+ feet AGL, but now is from ground up. I don't know everything like you do, but it seems to me that "from the ground up" means all the airspace.

NorfolkSouthern

Neither me, Sport_Pilot, nor Crankshaft wish to have small drones regulated. No American citizen wants a foreign country to tell us what to do, although I'm sure our current President would be delighted to have a foreign country make our decisions for us.

We are only trying to reason to people that separating commercial activities from recreation will be an extremely difficult task, probably too difficult to form regulations for small drones.

On airspace: Please remember, that originally the AMA only required 400' within 3 miles of an airport. But now the FAA wants to limit the altitude to 400' in ALL airspace. It is not me who claims that the FAA controls all the airspace above the level of a blade of grass. The FAA makes that claim, as posted on their website, along with their 400' limit for model airplanes. This obviously will make things a little difficult for gliders, pattern flyers, and most turbines. Those are items that modelers don't want to label as drones, even though they are, technically.

Commercial drones or model airplanes, quad copter or fixed wing. It makes no difference. The FAA wins the appeal, or it doesn't. What if they lose? What if they win? Time waits for no one, and technology advances rapidly. Eventually, one in 5 people will own a drone. Then what? What will builders, turbine flyers, glider pilots, 3D people and circle flyers do when they are out-numbered by the masses who fly FPV out of a local playground?

bradpaul

hey lets all have fun making up silly speculations on "there may come a time"..........

blhollo2

My Feedback: (278)

Wow, All this knee jerking and arguing over one persons bad judgment. This thread was over when it was posted.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

While that may be true philosophically speaking. I concede some regulations will be necessary...just not along the lines that some of the witch hunters want.

The problem here is that technology is moving faster than the blotted bureaucracy of FAA or the government can possibly keep up with. Most regulations that seem reasonable at the moment will be antiquated tomorrow...and that's where I see the problem with many perspectives on what regulations should be. "Knee jerk" regulations are nothing new but once implemented are very hard to reverse.


Bottom line; We've got to step back and take a better look at what is really going on here...compare the risks of "FPV" with all the other risks we accept and be very realistic and not just let our emotions rule.

Back on subject. The FPVer, that this thread is about, probably presented less threat to people and property than many other things we accept as routine every day. The FAA's reaction was biased/based on the outpouring of call's to "burn the witch"...and thankfully, for now, someone stopped the madness.

Sport_Pilot

YYou said you knew they controlled airspace to the ground, but apparently you are accepting the FAA's assertion. You cannot qoote a law, and too lazy to loo look it up. I ask a resonable question which I had wished you could answer, yet I am the troll.

Sport_Pilot

No one used bad judgment. There may be a differant idea of what is safe perhaps, but not bad judgement.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

In Texas we understand it as "adverse possession"...It may even be too late now but if we don't actively maintain our rights to air...we will be paying for it... At what point do we reject government and maintain our freedom... our current form of government isn't about fighting for our freedoms any longer. its about taking it and metering it back to us as "privilege".

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Next time you board a "rider scale" think about this and all the ranting you do about FPVers...

JohnShe

Are you on drugs? Your statement makes no sense. How did you derive this cockamamie belief?

JohnShe

For once in your life, you are correct. Congress never gave the Airspace to the FAA. Instead, they charged the FAA with protecting our national airspace, that we, as citizens of this great country, own.

Sport_Pilot

Read the latest issues of MA. They are embracing drones, and possibly commercial ones as well.

Sport_Pilot

If you are talking about obstructions then you should know that the law and regulations say that they are protecting only the navigable airspace from obstructions. As for as protection other than that, then that would be the Air Force. The FAA does no protection of airspace other than from obstructions, both stationary and moving.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Funny, you say there is no law that gives them the authority over airspace but you accept that they do have authority over ALL NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE. Tell us how low a helicopter can fly in your world.

In the world most of us live in a helicopter represents a very significant moving obstruction and can be hovered at altitudes of less than 20 feet, which makes that NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE. I guess you would rather try to hit it with your 4 pound FPV "model" to prove that it cannot be hurt by hobby stuff...


The issue is NOT your right to fly FPV as a hobbyist, but the amount of risk your commercial venture is allowed to present to the public. Did you happen to notice the fine Toyota got for their management of public safety with their products? Why don't you explain why you believe the government should NOT have the authority to insure that commercial entities do not harm the public. That fits with your posts better than anything else and would move you out of the troll column and moves you to the position of trying to dissolve the FAA and make it FAA disappear from our lives. That may or may not be a laudable goal, but you should defend your position by dealing with the "thundering herd" of all aviation rather than the single case you have selected to rail on and on about.

Do you have what it takes to continue the argument about the FAA, or are you going to remain the troll? The choice is yours.

psuguru

A couple of things:
A R/C model aircraft is not a "drone" in the usually accepted sense, especially if a FPV system isn't being used.
The issue of "compensation" hangs on the intended purpose of the flight. If you fly a model for the purpose of taking photo's for your own interest, then that's not a commercial activity. If someone then says, "Hey, I like your photo's, I'll buy them", this doesn't then cause the flight to have been for gain or reward ie the purpose of a flight can only be determined a priori.

Sport_Pilot

Navigable airspace is all airspace above the minimum allowed altitudes. A helicopter is the only aircraft allowed to fly below those altitudes, but only with owners permision and a few other restricitons, its presense does not make it navigable airspace. I know this because I have to work with obstructions at an Air Force base. If the FAA really had conrol I think they would have had restrictions on your baseball long ago. They really had no real interest before 2001.