NorfolkSouthern

With the FAA swinging into action against people who use FPV, my take is that it will sour the public's interest in model aviation. Sure, talk about enforcement action against "idiots" with "drones". But if enough of that population gets put off with the authorities, it will all fall back on the model airplane peanut galleries at the local clubs. An ever expanding number of Joe Sixpacks who have "bought the toy, been there, done that" will start to discourage their friends from being involved with the hobby in the first place over complaints about laws and the expense. The same happened to Cox, and control-line flying because of the mishaps and money spent.

Add, the "boring" label that will eventually catch up to the clubs and the FAA's appointed "CBO" because most young adults were brought up on video games. They just want to see what the craft sees, because that's how it's done on their gaming consoles. What if the sales and availability of ARFs and kits take a dive due to lack of interest and negative public perception? Well, there used to be a hobby shop on every street corner, and kits and C/L Cox models were all over the place. Even K-Mart had them. But not any more. Tower and Horizon are the last bastion as far as vendors are concerned, from what I see, because I can't find a local hobby shop anyplace around these parts. So, where is this hobby headed?

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

So, if I have this right....those of us here who are members of AMA are discussing rules that the FAA is making based on input from the AMA....under a mandate from Congress. These rule interpretations potentially have profound effect on AMA members.
Non AMA members, although included in the rules, probably are not, and will not be aware of same, and likely would ignore them anyway. The FAA doesn't have the staff to pursue all of the miscreants that will pop up out of the woodwork, so they're making the rules primarily to impact those who are already operating within the AMA and FAA rules.

Does this seem totally nuts to anyone else, or is my rare moment of insight simply something else for me to ignore and go on?

ira d

I agree with you that the FAA is going about this all wrong, As I said before the FAA needs leave totally alone models that are operated at a designated rc site as
long as they dont interfear with full scale operations.

cj_rumley

Bob,

Sorry, I don't think you have it right. Your characterization of non AMA member modelers is completely unfounded. Go ahead, cite stats that indicate AMA members have a better safety record than non members - and pass it to AMA because they can't. Paying $58/yr to AMA doesn't give one intelligence, good judgement, or personal responsibility.

I don't see why you are offended that the rules that have been promulgated primarily impact AMA members; FAA's Interpretation missive addresses the conditions attached to the claiming of exemption from FAA regulation by CBO 'programmed' operators. Rules that will apply to non CBO operators that presumably will be regulated by FAA were not disclosed.

brunobl

It's actually quite different. In IFR practice with a hood, the instructor has full view of the aircraft surroundings and has the same point of view as the pilot that is under the hood (i.e, from inside the airplane). An FPV spotter, OTOH, has an entirely different perspective and will see things not possible (left/right/behind) to the FPV pilot. Also, while an IFR instructor can immediately say "I got it" and divert from an impending traffic conflict, the FPV spotter would have to tell the modeler what to do (turn left, right, etc) which is not the same thing and does not have the same response time. I think the buddy box is a better case for FPV (the spotter can take control right now if needed) than trying to equate the spotter to IFR training scenario.

JohnShe

I don't fly FPV so I have little knowledge of the technology. However, I suspect that if given reasonable and well founded comments, the FAA would probably acquiesce to a buddy-box solution. However, the current spate of comments at the FAA site sound more like whining children and will not persuade the FAA to accept an alternative. Even the AMA advice is limp at best and will not serve any purpose.


People who thoroughly understand he strengths and weaknesses of FPV technology, not me, need to produce sound, reasonable well founded comments or recreational FPV will be DOA.

Sport_Pilot

If flying through navigable airspace then the FAA. If not then the local governments who have more eyes and feet on the ground.

Hossfly

In the sub-forum that RCU has for AMA EC candidates, I posted an answer to a question by BradPaul. While many of you will not like my answer to his question, it just may provide some additional thought or something to jump on me about. Try it!

jeffsend

My Feedback: (4)

I see the buddy-box solution as problematic for experienced pilots. Many fpv flyers are flying planes such as an Easy Star,or larger more advanced hand-launch,belly-landing aircraft. My spotter is also my launcher,and would not be able to do so if tethered to a cable. Also,as the fpv pilot,I am tethered to a cable attached to a tripod. Adding a cable to the spotter would restrict his movement and could create a hazard where things might get tangled up and end up knocking over the tripod,jerking off my goggles,and causing a catastrophe. Sure,this is unlikely if we are being careful,but it's an added distraction for an unnecessary purpose. The buddy-box is intended for novice pilots to get out of sudden risky situations. And of course this would be important for novice pilots learning FPV as well. But for experienced pilots,it is unnecessary. With my spotter now on a buddy-box,his attention will need to be on my plane at all times,not scanning the skies like he should be. If he's looking ahead of my aircraft,and sees an approaching hazard,but is not currently looking at my airplane.....what good is the buddy-box going to accomplish? It makes much more sense for him to give me verbal guidance,and if necessary he can easily take the radio from me. The immediacy of the buddy-box is not important in this setting. A full scale plane,or a tree,or a human,is not just going to suddenly pop into existence 50 feet in front of my aircraft. The spotter's job is to spot approaching danger,not respond to immediate danger. The latter is the pilots job.

JohnShe

Well, like i said, I don't do FPV so you know more than I do. But, the buddy box solution works quite well for training and qualifying new pilots. All the lead pilot, has to do is allow the FPV pilot to operate the aircraft until or when it gets in trouble. Then, takeover is simply release the switch and fly the plane. The lead pilot is both spotter and recovery pilot. Nothing more.

jeffsend

My Feedback: (4)

Agreed. But spotting for an experienced FPV pilot would be more akin to spotting for a competent line of sight pilot when there are multiple rc planes in the pattern. This is typically done with verbal guidance. I wonder how effective giving that type of spotter buddy-box control would be. Purely rhetorical,as I don't know the answer to that question. But I suspect it would not make that activity any safer than without the buddy box,and might actually make it less safe. And in my opinion,an FPV team of pilot and spotter would not put themselves in such close quarters with other aircraft or obstacles as this example(with some exceptions such as formation flying),so the verbal guidance should be more then adequate.

JohnShe

Well, you sound like someone who could write a good comment for the FAA. Better get crackin'.

bradpaul

The best solution IMHO to address the concern of the FAA is pilot and spotter. The spotter handles situation awareness and "see & avoid" tasks through verbal commands to the pilot. A "buddy box" with cords, etc. adds additional complexity and an additional point of failure.

JohnShe

Well, don't tell us, tell it to the FAA.

ira d

If the model is not flown BLOS then the FPV pilot could just remove the goggles and fly normally if he hears a full scale approaching. There is nothing wrong with FPV flying
when the model is in range of normal sight.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Those are the current AMA rules, so you figure the FAA could have gone with those, in light of their cozy relationship with the AMA........oh wait


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNow...e_gdata_player

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

Bob,

I believe you are correct. However we need to be careful about understanding what the FAA does and does not think is a model aircraft. And we need to be concerned about what the press things is a model aircraft and what is a drone.


Hopefully many of you will be posting THOUGHTFUL comments to the FAA site. I do believe numbers matter so be sure to chime in, but be sure you can defend your position.


Here is what I posted. Feel free to copy it, use it as is or edit. But be sure to post something. Just make it intelligent. Sorry but the formatting came up a little odd when I copied it here.

Comment:
Re: Docket number
FAA-2014-0396

As an active model aviation pilot and a member of the
Academy of Model Aeronautics, I read you recent interpretation of the Special
Rule for Model Aircraft with some concern. And while I believe much of this is
well intentioned, I am concerned that the people drafting these memos are
lawyers and administrators who have little or no contact with the hobby and
sport of Model Aviation.

Although the FAA acknowledges that manned
aviation flights that are incidental to a business are not considered commercial
under the regulations, the rule states that model aircraft flights flown
incidental to a business are not hobby or recreation related.

The rule
overlooks the law's clear intention to encompass the supporting aero modeling
industry under the provision of the Special Rule, "aircraft being developed as a
model aircraft." The rule's strict interpretation of hobby versus business puts
in question the activities of the principals and employees of the billion dollar
industry that supplies and supports the hobby.

The Public Law states
that when model aircraft are, "flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator
of the aircraft (must) provide(s) the airport operator and the airport air
traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)
with prior notice of the operation. However the rule indicates that approval of
the airport operator is required. Although it is understood that making
notification to the airport and/or ATC will open a dialog as to whether the
planned activity is safe to proceed, there is no intent in the law that this be
a request for permission on the part of the model aircraft pilot.

The
Interpretive Rule establishes new restrictions and prohibitions to which model
aircraft have never been subject. This is counter to the Public Law which reads,
"The Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation
regarding a model aircraft or an aircraft being developed as a model
aircraft,..." if established criteria are met.

The Interpretive Rule
attempts to negate the entire Public Law by stating, "Other rules in part 91, or
other parts of the regulations, may apply to model aircraft operations,
depending on the particular circumstances of the operation. This in and of
itself makes model aircraft enthusiasts accountable to the entire litany of
regulations found in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, something that
was never intended by Congress and until now never required by the FAA.


I think the best thing the FAA can do at this point is to recognize the
Academy of Model Aeronautics as the national "Community Based Organization" for
model aviation and work with the AMA around model aircraft understanding and
ideas. Collaborate with the AMA and release such memos after consultation with
the AMA. I am not suggesting that the AMA be elevated to a national regulatory
body but that the FAA take greater advantage of their outstanding track record
for promoting the safe operation of model aircraft in the national airspace.


In addition I would recommend that the FAA issue a recommendation to
communities and municipalities to establish model aviation flying fields where
safe and appropriate flying of model aircraft can occur. Promote model aviation,
don't crush it. Help it grow in a safe fashion. Work with the AMA to help model
aviation flourish in a safe fashion.

Instead, what is happening as a
result of these types of memos, communities and government agencies are enacting
regulations to shut down such organized activities. This works against the hobby
and the clear intent of Congress. And it does not promote the FAA's goal of
maintaining the safety of the national air space.

As a model aviation
enthusiast and a proud member of the AMA, I ask you to not destroy a hobby/sport
that has a very solid safety record when operated under Academy of Model
Aeronautics Safety code. Model aviation supports interests in science and
technology among the young and is a healthy community activity for adults and
children alike.

Best regards,
Ed Anderson
AMA # 771415
AMA
Leader Member
AMA Contest Director
AMA club, The Long Island Silent
Flyers

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

In relation to FPV, I would like to see the FAA adopt the original AMA approach of FPV only on a buddy box where the airplane is within visual range of the "instructor" pilot. This enables full see and avoid capabilities and insures that things that are beyond the visual range of the FPV pilot can be accounted for.

If there were a failure of the FPV system the master/instructor pilot can take over and bring the plane back safely.

edokarlb

I wonder if the reason for these restrictions is a result of concerns by Dept of Homeland Security? People on FB are showing off how planes, using FPV, can be flown out of LOS, between and under trees, along RR tracks etc. helicopters can be purchased easily that fly to a number of programmed waypoints using GPS. DHS has got to be worried about the ease of launching attacks from far away.

JohnShe

Don't make me laugh! The current batch of toys are unable to carry a sufficient payload for any real distance. They are only a threat to individuals under their path if they fall on them. Which is more likely to happen and already has in a few reported instances.

ira d

There are quad copters large enough to carry payloads to do significant damage at a sport venue or any large gathering of people however the FAA
restrictions do nothing to stop that from happening.

N410DC

If the model is BLOS, then the pilot many not be able to hear the full-scale aircraft in the first place. We need to remember that both the FAA and the AMA agree that no model aircraft, drone, UAV, or whatever should ever be flown BLOS, at any time, for any reason.

The FAA may not be able to do anything, but if United States Department of Homeland Security decides that a model aircraft, drone, UAV, or whatever may have been used in an act of terrorism (e.g. a possible intentional attack on a large group of people), then there is a lot they can do, especially in the post-9/11 world. Answering to the FAA is probably a lot less painless than answering to Homeland Security.

ira d

If you notice in my post I said if a model is NOT flown BLOS.

ira d

Obviously something can be done after the fact by a whole lot of authorities not just Homeland Security. The point I was making was in response to another post that stated the reason the FAA is
against FPV is because of terrorism. My point is that banning a modeler from using FPV will do nothing to stop someone from using FPV to commit terrorism.

Sport_Pilot

Then they probably should be more concerned about rented trucks, because that is much more of a threat. Besides a terrorist is not going to pay attention to rules, regulations, or laws.