mkranitz

My Feedback: (60)

Guys, the most recent incident is precisely why, in my view, we need to FIRST preserve the core part of the hobby: flying your aircraft at the field, permitting demonstrations and testing, permitting giant scale, turbines, and soaring. THEN, the industry needs to work on technology to handle IDIOTS who do stuff like the two morons who followed a police chopper.

DJI has technology that can prevent a quad from entering restricted airspace. It won't be long before these and FPV aircraft have mini transponders (likely a necessary upgrade for air traffic safety once commercial enterprises get in the game in a big way). Our hobby is fun and it's been my lifelong passion, but that doesn't mean Congress or the FAA will risk public safety to preserve it. My approach has been to secure the core part of our hobby and get the FAA to concede on those areas while deferring the more complex issues. We can't have it all. We don't have a "2nd Amendment" to fall back on. Drones don't cause issues, stupid people do, but in this case, there's little to stop a knee-jerk prohibition on multi-rotors, etc. if things get out of hand.

As members of the hobby, all we can do is fly safely and intelligently and not expect that the nation's policy-makers will bow to accommodate what we love.

N410DC

He also continued to fly with other pilots who did have a valid medical, and who could thus act as Pilot in Commend. Remember, with small aircraft, there is no law that states that the PIC has to be the one flying the airplane (or at least there was no cuh law when this indicdnt happened back in the 1990's.)

I am sure they would have posted it 5 minutes after landing, if the cops had not intervened.

N410DC

IIRC, He also continued to fly with other pilots who did have a valid medical, and who could thus act as Pilot in Commend. Remember, with small aircraft, there is no law that states that the PIC has to be the one flying the airplane (or at least there was no cuh law when this incident happened back in the 1990's.)

I am sure they would have posted it 5 minutes after landing, if the cops had not intervened.

NorfolkSouthern

I don't see any part of the hobby being preserved, because there will always be a way to improvise if DJI stops cranking out their Phantoms. There is always a hack for an undesired feature or upgrade. Licensing for drones (including model airplanes) and their operators is a taboo issue, so that's off the table I assume. However, I am sure that could keep the hobby going instead of banning RC completely. It's looking to me, however, like Congress could amend the removal of part 336 if they were placed under enough pressure from the public. Time will tell.

DrYankum

My Feedback: (11)

I agree wholeheartedly with Michael. This hobby has been a life long venture for me. I go back to learning to fly using a Kraft goldbox with no servo reversing. I'm lucky enough to fly at one of the best flying sites in the NE. We own 14 acres of sod in open farm land. We couldn't hit a tree if we tried. i fly giant scale IMAC, and turbines. I would hate to lose this because the genie is out of the bottle. Many of the fpv people are not AMA, do not belong to clubs and have no intention of flying at club fields.
I have no idea why the AMA is risking it all by lumping fpv with the rest of the legitimate complaints we have.
If it's not LOS (line of sight), then the AMA should LOSE it

cj_rumley

Agreed. They got out ahead of this with a sneak attack on FAA to engage them in a turf war. No other group is doing anything like that.

So far we have had the FPV guys grounded, along with all the modelers that have been labeled as outlaws by AMA acolytes are now outlawed in the literal sense by statute. They sure as 'ell are doing something about it, and the best is yet to come.

If you mean FAA in your Q "Did I write them...." the answer is yes.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

AMA can't do squat about FPV users, now. They provided guidelines, encouraged use, blah, blah, and now the FAA has "killed" FPV VLOS, and BLOS. The leftover members of AMA who continue to FPV VLOS are outside the "rules" as stated by the FAA (because the use of the spotter is "killed" in the Interpretive Rule), which thereby means THEIR (AMA Members') liability insurance coverage is null and void. I'm guessing there, but every other insurance policy I have ever read, seen, or had REQUIRES that the activity being covered is conducted in compliance with laws and statutes. I may be wrong.

But if I'm NOT, AMA-supported FPV VLOS just flew out the window.
I don't think the AMA EC thought about VLOS operations...being on the FAA agenda. My own thought is that the idiots posting true BLOS flights on videos successfully blurred the two into one "Concept" - "drones".

Of course for those who weren't involved with the AMA, it's business as usual, until they get ratted out to the FAA.

Sport_Pilot

No need the drone following the chopper was using FPV that was definately not line of site so it could not have been considered a model airplane by either FAA or AMA's definition. It would fall under sUAV rules. However, all should know that even for model airplanes it is against FAA regulations to be within 500 feet of a helicopter.

Sport_Pilot

You have it backward, it was the FAA who engaged the AMA when they told them they were going to regulate model airplanes.

Sport_Pilot

The AMA has not killed FPV BLOS yet. IMO there is nothing more needed except for more awareness. The fact that many post their video's on the web indicates that a lot of them are not even aware they are doing anything wrong. Then there are the ones who are flying below FAA miniumus that I think should be legal, but that is another issue. Flying close to a helicopter is not, nor should it ever be legal.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I think the story noted that the quad was flying by the bridge and the chopper spotted it, then began to follow the quad back to where it ultimately came from. If anything, they were the "aggressors". At some point the pilot said the quad made a move that required evasive/sudden move, hence the additional charges to the quad guys. Not sure why the heli had to get that close, or even if there was a situation that required a sudden move on their part. Wonder if they filed the "chase". I'm also wondering why the quad pilots didn't put one and one together and realize a chopper was following their quad and at some point go...uh oh. More lack of common sense.

FuzzyDice

My Feedback: (6)

What will the outcome of this ?http://www.myfoxny.com/story/2596073...almost-collide

cj_rumley

Have it your way, if that works in your separate reality. Apparently FAA lied about that, as they have not proposed/produced any rules to regulate model airplanes, nor publicly stated any intention to do that. Congress has, as a direct result of AMA lobbying them to do so. FAA didn't make the rules but are tasked as the agency responsible for enforcing them.
Whether or not the Q of who started it can be resolved, AMA's response to block FAA from regulating model aircraft is....ummm... novel, and seems to be working. When model aircraft operations are prohibited by statute, no regulation of them is needed. Problem solved.
Like a Captain scuttling ownship to protect it from being attacked and sunk.

Sport_Pilot

[QUOTE]When model aircraft operations are prohibited by statute, no regulation of them is needed. Problem solved.
[/QUOTE

Talk about alternate reality! There is no statute to prohibit model aircraft operations, nor any proposed.

cj_rumley

[QUOTE=Sport_Pilot;11837871]Sigh.......

Did you not read the document under discussion, or is there a comprehension problem, or are you just oblivious as to what the discussion in this thread is about?

bye

Sport_Pilot

[QUOTE=cj_rumley;11837889]That is a proposed interpretation of a statute. Not the statute. It is not even a regulation, and you are refering to a law that has never been passed.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Not sure what you mean by "ama hasn't killed FPV BLOS"

They surely dont support BLOS operations. Though they don't take as tough a line as the FAA interpretation, which is, the person flying the model must be able to see it. The AMA requires a spotter, but the craft must be maintained with VLOS of the spotter.

cj_rumley

That's my understanding too, Andy. Bob Pasterello had it right in his post #332 above, except for typing BLOS where I am quite sure he meant VLOS. Bob?

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

cj - I revised that post, hopefully to clarify my meaning. I think in the general media and John Q Public view, there is no difference perceived between VLOS and BLOS, just the overall conceptual thing of "drones". I think the preponderance of idiot video postings of both forced the FAA, whether AMA intended or not.

For us, as modelers, it's probably very difficult to get a true "outsiders" view on these technologies, their capabilities, and risks. God help us.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Actually it's quite easy, and disturbing.

Just read the comments that folks post on these news stories.

Neverlost1

My Feedback: (1)

Well, here's another nail in our coffin (i will admit, it is an awesome video).
I do believe manufacturers must take some responsibility for not spelling out the rules.
http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-plac...MzYwNDY5NTM3S0

cj_rumley

I had seen the video before, but without the commentary of the journalist: "While the stunt surely runs afoul of all kinds of FAA regulations, there doesn’t appear to be anything particularly dangerous about the flight itself." I agree with him. Was there some risk? I don't doubt that, but think it was exceedingly small for the spectators (much moreso for the camera platform), orders of magnitude less than the the risk people took driving there to watch the show or the possibility of a wayward mortar shell. For those spectators that saw it, they were likely much more interested in it than intimidated by it. And I agree with you that it is an awesome vid. I doubt that our hobby took much PR flak over this one.

N410DC

Although many might consider this flight to be somewhat reckless, I not 100% convinced that he violated any Federal Aviation Regulations, unless the FAA had a temporary flight restriction (TFR) in that area at that time. If the quad was within line of sight of the pilot, and was not flying within 5 miles of an airport, (or below 400', if he was within 5 miles of an airport,) I don't see how he can be in violation of any Federal Aviation Regulations. Even the FAA's recent interpretation would not apply, unless he was using FPV gear. It's even hard for me to see how he might have violated the AMA safety code. I think we can assume that there were no people or vehicles below him (just water, as far as I can tell.) As a poster said in a thread on another site, the only think that was in danger was the quad itself. Of course, if he was using FPV equipment, a spotter would be needed, in order to comply with the AMA safety code. As the news report said, "there doesn't appear to be anything particularly dangerous about the flight itself..."

That said, did he violate any City, County, or State laws? That's a tougher question.

Does anyone know if the FAA or any law enforcement agency is investigating this flight?

Sport_Pilot

That should have been the FAA hasn't killed FPV VLOS", at least not yet.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Ahh, well that makes sense then