AMA to spend $250,000 on FPV
#102
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right, but fortunately you didn't need to see it explicitly.
I actually do agree with your DVP. Even though I think if would be futile, at least it wouldn't do any harm, unlike the path our AMA is on. He is not in the majority of the EC on this, obviously, and bless him for daring to hold a minority opinion about what should be done. An example of where the majority is coming from is in the response to the Pirker decision. MAAC immediately responded with an emphatic "he's not one of us." AMA released a press report that said they were studying the impact of the judgement. No subsequent word on what they determined as a result of that study. Don't want to alienate the market that is the objective of their current sell.
Correction: The outrage expressed by MAAC was over a close encounter between a UAS and a manned aircraft, not the decision in the Pirker case. Just happened the events were nearly concurrent and my immediate recollection was of the AMA vs MAAC responses better than the particular events that prompted them.
I actually do agree with your DVP. Even though I think if would be futile, at least it wouldn't do any harm, unlike the path our AMA is on. He is not in the majority of the EC on this, obviously, and bless him for daring to hold a minority opinion about what should be done. An example of where the majority is coming from is in the response to the Pirker decision. MAAC immediately responded with an emphatic "he's not one of us." AMA released a press report that said they were studying the impact of the judgement. No subsequent word on what they determined as a result of that study. Don't want to alienate the market that is the objective of their current sell.
Correction: The outrage expressed by MAAC was over a close encounter between a UAS and a manned aircraft, not the decision in the Pirker case. Just happened the events were nearly concurrent and my immediate recollection was of the AMA vs MAAC responses better than the particular events that prompted them.
Last edited by cj_rumley; 08-20-2014 at 05:19 PM.
#104
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You didn't need to see my omitted emoticon either, did you.
#105
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I heard from my AMA D-VIII VP today. He says, in part, that he would rather see the $250K spent on a vigorous ad campaign to counteract the media reports of "drone" accidents by pointing out that the perpetrators of the incidences are not responsible, safety conscious modelers, such as AMA & its club members, but are non-aligned & irresponsible individuals.
I tend to agree with him. Comments?
CR
I tend to agree with him. Comments?
CR
The simple fact is FPV is a completely valid and appropriate part of this hobby. It has the same place in this hobby that emerging technology of yesteryear had....giant scale, high altitude gliders, helis etc. Multi rotor is probably the largest growth segment that this hobby has seen in years. Thousands and thousands of people fly MR and some incorporate FPV into their operation. As long as it's done appropriately, who is anyone to say they shouldn't be involved in this hobby?
There are many useful applications of FPV, and as the technology improves, there will be even more uses for it in the future. There will be allowances made for light commercial (like say a farmer using this tech to assist in his farming operation, or a sports team shooting video of their park/games etc). Universities are already creating classes around this, and civil entities (police, fire, rescue) are looking into the technology as well. I've got to imagine some of the folks at the AMA think that spending this money will help ensure these allowances are made, the technology advances, and AMA rules and regulations are the "go to" standards on how things should be done. Could it be said that AMA areomodeling education could benefit many in operating within the NAS safely? Perhaps the money that is spent today in working with and developing these programs won't impair the future of the discipline, rather it will ensure it?
Or is it easier to just write it all off, kick "those" people out, and just go on our merry way?
#108
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good question stick. Here's the thing. First, we model aviators are always on the lookout for new technology that will add to the fun of flying our model airplanes. FPV is such a technology. Now, while I have no immediate plans or even long term plans to investigate the technology, I think it is important that it be available to us for our recreational purposes. To that end, I think we should support it and try to find a way for the FAA to allow us to use and experiment with it if we apply reasonable risk management techniques. The AMA has already expressed support for FPV be developing an official safety guideline for operating FPV safely.
#110
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[ATTACH]2024450[/IMG]
John,
I agree, and I think the AMA got it right the first time (see attached). The original 550.pdf half page with 4 simple rules would still be in compliance with the current FAA interpretation of section 336. The verbose two full page technospeak 550.pdf document that came later is not in compliance and should never have been accepted by the LOS flying community of the AMA. This was nothing more than some kind of appeasement to the FPV community. The current documentation needs to change back to the spotter being the PIC on the primary transmitter with the FPV pilot on the secondary controls so the spotter (PIC) maintains positive LOS control.
Frank
PS Attachmet is at the top of this post, don't quite have the hang of attaching docs.
Good question stick. Here's the thing. First, we model aviators are always on the lookout for new technology that will add to the fun of flying our model airplanes. FPV is such a technology. Now, while I have no immediate plans or even long term plans to investigate the technology, I think it is important that it be available to us for our recreational purposes. To that end, I think we should support it and try to find a way for the FAA to allow us to use and experiment with it if we apply reasonable risk management techniques. The AMA has already expressed support for FPV be developing an official safety guideline for operating FPV safely.
I agree, and I think the AMA got it right the first time (see attached). The original 550.pdf half page with 4 simple rules would still be in compliance with the current FAA interpretation of section 336. The verbose two full page technospeak 550.pdf document that came later is not in compliance and should never have been accepted by the LOS flying community of the AMA. This was nothing more than some kind of appeasement to the FPV community. The current documentation needs to change back to the spotter being the PIC on the primary transmitter with the FPV pilot on the secondary controls so the spotter (PIC) maintains positive LOS control.
Frank
PS Attachmet is at the top of this post, don't quite have the hang of attaching docs.
Last edited by phlpsfrnk; 08-21-2014 at 07:55 AM.
#111
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends..........currently AMA allows it but FAA, charged with enforcement of applicable federal statutes, does not - they require model aircraft to be flown line of sight, which by their definition means pilot's eyes on the aircraft. At any rate, flying model aircraft isn't at issue in this discussion thread, because the $250,000 allocation of funds is for expansion of AMA turf beyond model airplanes, whether as defined by AMA or FAA. Welcome to the Academy of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Aeronautics.
#112
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I surmise that the AMA is trying to stay relevant in a changing technological environment.
Welcome to the Academy of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Aeronautics.
#114
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Depends..........currently AMA allows it but FAA, charged with enforcement of applicable federal statutes, does not - they require model aircraft to be flown line of sight, which by their definition means pilot's eyes on the aircraft. At any rate, flying model aircraft isn't at issue in this discussion thread, because the $250,000 allocation of funds is for expansion of AMA turf beyond model airplanes, whether as defined by AMA or FAA. Welcome to the Academy of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Aeronautics.
#116
#117
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#119
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#120
#121
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no this one: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf
Frank
Last edited by phlpsfrnk; 08-22-2014 at 08:32 AM.
#122
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It gets better and better. 550 started out as four simple rules on half a page. It grew to two full pages and now it is three full pages. At least this latest version is dated although if the first sentence is any indication it was not proof read very well (page 5 of a 3 page doc?).
#123
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. An FPV-equipped model must be flown by two AMA members utilizing a buddy-box system. The pilot in command must be on the primary transmitter, maintain visual contact, and be prepared to assume control in the event of a problem.
2. The operational range of the model is limited to the pilot in command’s visual line of sight as defined in the Official AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code (see Radio Control, item 9).
3. The flight path of model operations shall be limited to the designated flying site and approved overfly area.
4. The model weight and speed shall be limited to a maximum of 10 pounds and 60 miles per hour.
Frank
#124
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a firm beliver in the KISS principle. We need to go back to the original 550.pdf.
1. An FPV-equipped model must be flown by two AMA members utilizing a buddy-box system. The pilot in command must be on the primary transmitter, maintain visual contact, and be prepared to assume control in the event of a problem.
2. The operational range of the model is limited to the pilot in command’s visual line of sight as defined in the Official AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code (see Radio Control, item 9).
3. The flight path of model operations shall be limited to the designated flying site and approved overfly area.
4. The model weight and speed shall be limited to a maximum of 10 pounds and 60 miles per hour.
Frank
1. An FPV-equipped model must be flown by two AMA members utilizing a buddy-box system. The pilot in command must be on the primary transmitter, maintain visual contact, and be prepared to assume control in the event of a problem.
2. The operational range of the model is limited to the pilot in command’s visual line of sight as defined in the Official AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code (see Radio Control, item 9).
3. The flight path of model operations shall be limited to the designated flying site and approved overfly area.
4. The model weight and speed shall be limited to a maximum of 10 pounds and 60 miles per hour.
Frank
#125
Bureaucrats, bureaucrats, bureaucrats weather from the FAA or the AMA must be compensated by the length and complexity of what they write. After all if only they can understand it then they become a necessary parasite.