Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

FAA intentionaly hyping up Drone News. AMA needs to go to WAR!

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

FAA intentionaly hyping up Drone News. AMA needs to go to WAR!

Old 07-21-2014, 07:36 AM
  #51  
dionysusbacchus
My Feedback: (25)
 
dionysusbacchus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: McQueeney, TX
Posts: 2,490
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by AlW
Yes - All this is why my response to the FAA said that I agree with their decision to get rid of this dangerous activity. VIDEO: FAA Ban On FPV by FliteTestVIDEO: FAA Ban On FPV by FliteTest
General Aviation kills on average 7 innocent people on the ground a year and that is acceptable and I take it you agree with this. So you are saying that it's OK if a GA guy getting a $150 hamburger kills your family that it's fine but just the chance that a quad copter may kill a pilot sometime in the future that it's unacceptable? Throw others under the bus to save yourself, don't worry they will come for your jets soon.
Old 07-21-2014, 07:53 AM
  #52  
TimJ
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

here is the proof you need to show that the FAA is bending the truth. http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...6674&cid=TW234

In that article the FAA is claiming a victory, when in fact that is NOT the truth. IN FACT THIS IS THE TRUTH! http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the...ls-court-rules

LISTEN AND LISTEN WELL. WE DO NOT NEED TO BE INFIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER RIGHT NOW. WHAT SHOULD BE DOING IS FOCUSING OUR ENERGY ON WAYS AND ACTIONS OF FIGHTING THE GOVERNMENT SO THAT WE MAY KEEP OUR WONDERFUL FAMILY FRIENDLY HOBBY OF MODEL AVIATION. As well as not allow it to be over regulated.
Old 07-21-2014, 08:18 AM
  #53  
Charley
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville, TX
Posts: 2,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cloudancer03
dont know about what gobbly gok air rights are .he was on nprivate properyty and with a cam attached taking pics of patients in examination rooms.as a retired hospital ceo if that cam was taking video of my hospital and patients are in the rooms and that go pro exposes them that person is going to be arrested.i realize if that damn thing flies over my house and takes a pic of me not a heck of alot i can do except try to knock it out.i really think privacy rights will be infringed.as for ama step away from this stuff protect our flying fields and our rc hobby flying planes etc. let this movement create its own association its not what purists in rc ever wanted .
You might be interested in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

Makes for interesting reading. I gather from it that the property owner is the only one with a basis for complaint, leaving out the privacy issues.

CR
Old 07-21-2014, 09:49 AM
  #54  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul
I never thought that we would in this country fall to such a low level of servitude that Americans would advocate that a homeowner would need to apply to the Federal government for a permit to fly a toy airplane in the backyard.
I think as long as your toy stays in or over your back yard you should not need permission.
Old 07-21-2014, 10:02 AM
  #55  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
For a large model, but most are too small to be any worse than say a football. Besides he managed to stay away from people, he did overfly a highway or road but not when a vehicle was under his drone.
I watched the video and overall thought he was a good pilot and safe as there was not a lot people or cars that he overflew. That being said different people will operate
differently and different places will have more risks and that IMO is why we need rules. Also in spite of the best of intentions things can go wrong and that is why we
need insurance. As far as the size yes some of the quad copters are small but I would not want to be hit in the face with one with it spinning blades.
Old 07-21-2014, 10:05 AM
  #56  
Sport_Pilot
Thread Starter
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

I don't think a bunch of lies are the same thing as hype though.
Old 07-21-2014, 11:19 AM
  #57  
warningshot
 
warningshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: OU-OSU OK
Posts: 548
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
I enjoyed the video and there is a place for this type of flying in the hobby, However since this is being done at a place other than a RC site I think the FAA
should come up with some with some rules for FPV operations not performed at RC sites and require permits and insurance.
Why do you think I should need a permit and insurance to fly over my farm?
Old 07-21-2014, 12:31 PM
  #58  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,498
Received 80 Likes on 70 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul
I never thought that we would in this country fall to such a low level of servitude that Americans would advocate that a homeowner would need to apply to the Federal government for a permit to fly a toy airplane in the backyard.
folks probably do not care what someone does within the confines of their own property, and below 400 ft.
exceed those limitations, and all bets are off.
Old 07-21-2014, 02:23 PM
  #59  
FuzzyDice
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sulphur Springs, TX
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Dick T.
Okay, here is one. While this FPV video is well done with an exceptional view the pilot violated AMA rules by not having a spotter. If he had a spotter, I think it probably would have met all the guidelines. Watch it to the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8N1Sj5Qshk&sns=fb

This flying is exactly what the media and FAA are criticizing . It is a very amazing video but you could argue the guy sitting on the deck has a right not to be 'stalked by a DRONE' ..........the media started the drone (scares sheeple)
Old 07-21-2014, 02:40 PM
  #60  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by warningshot
Why do you think I should need a permit and insurance to fly over my farm?
As long as you don't endanger anyone or their property I don't think you should need a permit, I was talking about flying on public property
other than a RC site that would be where the permit and insurance would come into play. Someone a few post ago asked the same
question only they referred to their back yard and I said as long as only over fly your backyard you should not need a permit but as
for insurance I think it would be a good idea.
Old 07-21-2014, 02:59 PM
  #61  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I still can't fathom why some here advocate that the FAA should start issuing permits to fly toy airplanes.?????

The choice offered is you should get a permit to fly on "public property" or join the AMA and fly at a club field? Gezzz don't let the AMA EC hear about that!
Old 07-21-2014, 03:12 PM
  #62  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

I think having permits which would offer some control over who is flying what, Where and how is better than the outright bans the FAA would like. Also I think
we all know that if the FAA wins this first round there will be more restrictions coming.
Old 07-21-2014, 03:55 PM
  #63  
Charley
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville, TX
Posts: 2,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Ira d;

The problem to me is that there is a potential for endangerment if something goes wrong: either through equipment failure or pilot error. To me, the further out of LOS, the greater the potential danger.

CR
Old 07-21-2014, 04:43 PM
  #64  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Charley
Ira d;

The problem to me is that there is a potential for endangerment if something goes wrong: either through equipment failure or pilot error. To me, the further out of LOS, the greater the potential danger.

CR
I agree with you 100% that why I said the FAA needs to come up with some rules for FPV and require insurance, Also I don't think people should fly past the line of sight
like flying across town and such. But I also don't see anything wrong with FPV operations at all but there should be some operation standards that should be enforced.

In the video that we all have been talking about it does not appear that craft was BLOS although he should IMO have had a spotter.

Last edited by ira d; 07-21-2014 at 04:47 PM.
Old 07-21-2014, 04:47 PM
  #65  
Dick T.
My Feedback: (243)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
I really don't think the FAA is spot on I think if you are flying at a RC site they should leave you alone if you are not conflicting with full scale aircraft.
I completely agree and that is why I said the FAA is spot on in their interpretation. While this fellow is competent in FPV flying I believe he is riding a fine line between recreation (AMA's definition) and what the FAA wants to regulate (BLOS). Had a spotter been in the picture one could argue he is following AMA guidelines although he is pushing the VLOS edge. I personally know the location of the video and from where he is sitting the distance out to Morro Rock would make the average large hobby quad a speck and possibly not visible at all.

Some of the more sophisticated hobby quads have controllers that can keep the quad under 400 feet and limit distance via GPS. If people would use those tools they easily stay out of FAA's proposal with the exception of commercial use and can fly FPV all they want.

Of course many do what they want and as long as nothing happens FAA doesn't know. But if something goes sour the FAA can and will find you.
Old 07-21-2014, 04:59 PM
  #66  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Dick T.
I completely agree and that is why I said the FAA is spot on in their interpretation. While this fellow is competent in FPV flying I believe he is riding a fine line between recreation (AMA's definition) and what the FAA wants to regulate (BLOS). Had a spotter been in the picture one could argue he is following AMA guidelines although he is pushing the VLOS edge. I personally know the location of the video and from where he is sitting the distance out to Morro Rock would make the average large hobby quad a speck and possibly not visible at all.

Some of the more sophisticated hobby quads have controllers that can keep the quad under 400 feet and limit distance via GPS. If people would use those tools they easily stay out of FAA's proposal with the exception of commercial use and can fly FPV all they want.

Of course many do what they want and as long as nothing happens FAA doesn't know. But if something goes sour the FAA can and will find you.
From my understanding the FAA wants to stop all FPV not just BLOS .
Old 07-21-2014, 05:16 PM
  #67  
Charley
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville, TX
Posts: 2,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
From my understanding the FAA wants to stop all FPV not just BLOS .
Not true. FAA wants the operator to see the bird at all times.

CR
Old 07-21-2014, 05:51 PM
  #68  
Dick T.
My Feedback: (243)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
From my understanding the FAA wants to stop all FPV not just BLOS .
You are correct on this. Just reread the interpretation and it is clear no vision enhancement devices ( other than corrective lenses ) can be used. A spotter can be used to enhance safety but cannot be in lieu of the operator. If the AMA approaches it with the 400 foot and line of sight rule plus a spotter they may get some wiggle room there.
Old 07-22-2014, 03:25 AM
  #69  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

That may be the way to go if they are even going to go that far. At this point who knows, they may not want to push it. I was at a club last week where the pilot was flying LOS, his friend had the goggles, and they both had a screen/monitor in front of them as well. I don't know that this would work overall with the hard core FPV'ers, it would be like getting a Ferrari and being limited to 60 mph.
Old 07-22-2014, 04:03 AM
  #70  
airega1
My Feedback: (204)
 
airega1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Va Beach, VA
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
That may be the way to go if they are even going to go that far. At this point who knows, they may not want to push it. I was at a club last week where the pilot was flying LOS, his friend had the goggles, and they both had a screen/monitor in front of them as well. I don't know that this would work overall with the hard core FPV'ers, it would be like getting a Ferrari and being limited to 60 mph.
Bottom line is (IMO) technology is great but has gone too far and some users of this technology don't care about consequences. Google for whatever reason is producing a driverless vehicle and because it's new technology people will run with this ball, abuse the living crap out of it. Personally I don't want to be in a vehicle where no one has control over it. I don't see how a driverless vehicle can avoid some drunk driver out of control that you may be able to steer clear of, and that's just one subject.
Old 07-22-2014, 08:02 AM
  #71  
Charley
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville, TX
Posts: 2,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Dick T.
You are correct on this. Just reread the interpretation and it is clear no vision enhancement devices ( other than corrective lenses ) can be used. A spotter can be used to enhance safety but cannot be in lieu of the operator.
I disagree with your interpretation. IMO, the FAA wants the pilot to see the model LOS at all times. IOW, no flying the model beyond LOS of the operator (pilot), who must have the model in view at all times.

CR
Old 07-22-2014, 08:24 AM
  #72  
littlecrankshaf
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Charley
I disagree with your interpretation. IMO, the FAA wants the pilot to see the model LOS at all times. IOW, no flying the model beyond LOS of the operator (pilot), who must have the model in view at all times.

CR
You guys are making my head hurt LOL
Old 07-22-2014, 09:34 AM
  #73  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Yes, a strict reading of the FAA "Interpretation" bans "FPV" flying in that the person wearing the goggles cannot be the pilot controlling the aircraft. The pilot must have VLOS (unaided) control on the model and the person wearing the goggles is simply a "virtual passenger". As the pilot no longer has "First Person View" the flight is no different then any other visual line of sight RC flight.

If the reason you want to fly video carrying models is "FPV" flying then this is terrible. But if the reason you fly video carrying models is to post "Hey look at me" videos on youtube then just fly VLOS and obey all other FAA requirements for "recreational or hobby" use.

tcraftk
Old 07-22-2014, 10:12 AM
  #74  
Dick T.
My Feedback: (243)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Charley
I disagree with your interpretation. IMO, the FAA wants the pilot to see the model LOS at all times. IOW, no flying the model beyond LOS of the operator (pilot), who must have the model in view at all times.

CR
I should have been more clear by saying "...no vision enhancement devices ( other than corrective lenses ) can be used by the pilot." Pilot is to maintain VLOS.
Old 07-22-2014, 10:18 AM
  #75  
raptureboy
 
raptureboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kempton PA
Posts: 2,621
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

The correct link http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...m?newsId=16674 I have received emails now from Tower and Hobbyking urging me to contact the FAA, and let them know why they should not lump the true model airplane hobbyist in the same boat with the few who choose to operate outside the reasonable rules already in place. If you contact them then I would suggest you do so in a calm and respectable manner and not use the kind of language I often see in these forums. If we want to be taken seriously we need to seem like rational people, with a reasonable argument about how restricting our hobby could prevent future generations of young people from becoming involved in aviation, or damage the economy.
Originally Posted by Rob2160
I had to visit the FAA website today to download some airport charts...

Guess what is on the home page…

http://www.faa.gov

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.