Another "Drone" incident in the news... , mostlikely non AMA member
09-02-2014, 02:12 PM
#151
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Ok, so it is the FPV guys creating all the bad press. I thought it was the drones everyone was up in arms about. I'm still confused about the drones. Those are the quadcopters, right? So if I put a camera on my Super Cub it's not a drone but if fly it using that camera to navigate, then it's FPV. Then I should be put to death for endangering the true and traditional hobby of RC. Then if I fly it anywhere close to another person, I'm a sociopath and should just be put to death. What is the acceptable method of execution in this case? Is it beheading with a metal prop? Or is it being run over by a quadcopter? I'm not an AMA member so is it ok if I like the little quadcopters or should I hate them and shun those who own them and or fly them? Man I'm confused.
James
James
Going forward, the guilty party will be rammed, repeatedly!
Love the second hit...then the panic in his voice when he realizes he's being followed. Make sure to watch from the start, video starts after the hit for some reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfLCb4ewDDc#t=47
09-02-2014, 02:14 PM
#152
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but it does not meet the definition of model aircraft per FAA when the 'view' is via any device that obstructs pilot's eyes being directly on the aircraft, and it is currently in fed statute that FAA is charged with enforcing.
If 'AMA rules trump the fed rules' works for you, then pardon my quibbling........
cj
If 'AMA rules trump the fed rules' works for you, then pardon my quibbling........
cj
And thank God that the AMA did not roll over and lick the feet of the FAA and instead appealed the FAA Interpretation in Federal Court. But that might be called quibbling by some here.
09-02-2014, 03:00 PM
#153
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"charged with enforcing". ?????? I missed the part in the "interpretation" where the FAA gave the AMA enforcement powers.
And thank God that the AMA did not roll over and lick the feet of the FAA and instead appealed the FAA Interpretation in Federal Court. But that might be called quibbling by some here.
And thank God that the AMA did not roll over and lick the feet of the FAA and instead appealed the FAA Interpretation in Federal Court. But that might be called quibbling by some here.
edit: another quibble....AMA has not appealed the FAA interpretation.
Last edited by cj_rumley; 09-02-2014 at 03:18 PM. Reason: more info
09-02-2014, 03:21 PM
#154
There is definitely some confusion. I do not care what people fly. And I do not want to see quads and FPV banned. But I do not want them at my RC field, as they do not need my RC field. They can fly anywhere. I do not want the AMA to underwrite this activity as it lumps us all together. That is the last I will say about this.
09-02-2014, 04:45 PM
#155
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: El Monte,
CA
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most people who fly those multi-rotor don't understand that when set to GPS mode, they cannot fly reliably 100% of the time. For example, if you have ever use a GPS in your vehicle, you know the accuracy of those GPS. Often time, when you're in the middle of nowhere where you need your GPS the most, that's when they don't work right. If there is not at least 3 GPS satellites in sight, you don't get accurate GPS reading. Like this guy who crashed his drone in Yellow Stone, many drone owners, including myself, dreaming of taking breath taking movies of nature. But they forget that making video far in nature using those drones means we're operating in area with the least GPS signal! I had soon abandoned the idea of purchase an expensive drone because of unreliable GPS signal in national parks (middle of nowhere). Plus, now that drones are banned from all national parks. Thank goodness.
09-02-2014, 04:50 PM
#156
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
There is definitely some confusion. I do not care what people fly. And I do not want to see quads and FPV banned. But I do not want them at my RC field, as they do not need my RC field. They can fly anywhere. I do not want the AMA to underwrite this activity as it lumps us all together. That is the last I will say about this.
If there is any confusion here though, it's due to your conflicting and contradictory comments. Like this:
"....By rogue, I mean not following any of the rules layed out by the AMA. Our club welcomes all facets of RC....."
But then you say:
"....But I do not want them at my RC field, as they do not need my RC field. They can fly anywhere...."
So quads of course are a perfectly acceptable aircraft according to the AMA (rotary aircraft), and your club welcomes all facets of RC. But not really.
And a hearty LOL on the AMA "underwriting this activity".....another generalization that's just not the case.
09-02-2014, 05:13 PM
#157
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The good news is no matter how much griping and complaining from the just fly a warbird in the pattern crowd, the AMA has come down firmly on the side of embracing FPV and new technology.
They are fighting the FAA in the courts over the gross over reach in the interpretation of 339, and I am pleased that they are. So keep on moaning and groaning about "new fangled technology", the AMA fully supports FPV.
They are fighting the FAA in the courts over the gross over reach in the interpretation of 339, and I am pleased that they are. So keep on moaning and groaning about "new fangled technology", the AMA fully supports FPV.
09-02-2014, 06:49 PM
#158
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The good news is no matter how much griping and complaining from the just fly a warbird in the pattern crowd, the AMA has come down firmly on the side of embracing FPV and new technology.
They are fighting the FAA in the courts over the gross over reach in the interpretation of 339, and I am pleased that they are. So keep on moaning and groaning about "new fangled technology", the AMA fully supports FPV.
They are fighting the FAA in the courts over the gross over reach in the interpretation of 339, and I am pleased that they are. So keep on moaning and groaning about "new fangled technology", the AMA fully supports FPV.
Just thought it hilarious to say it to the roundy-rounder lock step type for once...
09-03-2014, 09:06 AM
#160
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The good news is no matter how much griping and complaining from the just fly a warbird in the pattern crowd, the AMA has come down firmly on the side of embracing FPV and new technology.
They are fighting the FAA in the courts over the gross over reach in the interpretation of 339, and I am pleased that they are. So keep on moaning and groaning about "new fangled technology", the AMA fully supports FPV.
They are fighting the FAA in the courts over the gross over reach in the interpretation of 339, and I am pleased that they are. So keep on moaning and groaning about "new fangled technology", the AMA fully supports FPV.
Well Stated.
09-03-2014, 01:25 PM
#162
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The good news is no matter how much griping and complaining from the just fly a warbird in the pattern crowd, the AMA has come down firmly on the side of embracing FPV and new technology.
They are fighting the FAA in the courts over the gross over reach in the interpretation of 339, and I am pleased that they are. So keep on moaning and groaning about "new fangled technology", the AMA fully supports FPV.
They are fighting the FAA in the courts over the gross over reach in the interpretation of 339, and I am pleased that they are. So keep on moaning and groaning about "new fangled technology", the AMA fully supports FPV.
Para B.9. of AMA SC, "The pilot of an RC model aircraft shall:
(a) Maintain control during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact without enhancement other than by corrective lenses prescribed for the pilot.
(b)Fly using the assistance of a camera or First-Person View (FPV) only in accordance with the procedures outlined in AMA Document #550.
(c)Fly using the assistance of autopilot or stabilization system only in accordance with the procedures outlined in AMA Document #560.
Sec 336 of PL 112-95 states in para (c)
"Model Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term ``model aircraft'' means an unmanned
aircraft that is--
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes
Nothing in either the House or Senate Conference Committee Reports indicates that this definition was added to the bill by them, so I presume it is as originally submitted by AMA's lobbyist in concert with their sponsor in the House.
Highlighted items in both AMA SC B.9.(a) and Sec 336(c)(3) say essentially the same thing, with the SC adding detail "....without enhancement other than by corrective lenses prescribed for the pilot."
Congress of course only saw Sec 336 in the bill they enacted into PL 112-95. FAA's interpretation of what Congress intended is consistent with that language, which is a general ban on operation of model aircraft by FPV, same as item B.9.(a). FAA may have been aware of exceptions/conditions made by AMA to allow it for their followers (AMA SC B.9.(b)), but their responsibility is interpreting what Congress meant in the statute they passed, unbiased by consideration of what they might know/think some third party wanted.
Demonizing FAA for creating this infringement on rights of modelers by first-of-a-kind federal statute/regulation, and a witch hunt for modelers "from the just fly a warbird in the pattern crowd" is misdirected and just plain silly.
AMA didn't get what they wanted because what they asked for was something quite different.
I frankly can't fathom any sensible rationale to explain why this item was included as one of the 5 conditions for exemption from FAA regulation, along with the 55 lb weight limit and 5-mile from airport thing. That ceded any control AMA might have had over these rules, once in AMA SC guidelines, now in federal statute where even FAA can't modify them until another federal law is passed to supersede them.
cj
Last edited by cj_rumley; 09-03-2014 at 05:32 PM. Reason: correction in line one, AMA substituted for FAA
09-03-2014, 11:55 PM
#163
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice that AMA 'fully supports FPV' but I'm a pragmatist and want to see results rather than be impressed by the words and/or effort expended. The results so far are anything but encouraging.
Para B.9. of AMA SC, "The pilot of an RC model aircraft shall:
(a) Maintain control during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact without enhancement other than by corrective lenses prescribed for the pilot.
(b)Fly using the assistance of a camera or First-Person View (FPV) only in accordance with the procedures outlined in AMA Document #550.
(c)Fly using the assistance of autopilot or stabilization system only in accordance with the procedures outlined in AMA Document #560.
Sec 336 of PL 112-95 states in para (c)
"Model Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term ``model aircraft'' means an unmanned
aircraft that is--
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes
Nothing in either the House or Senate Conference Committee Reports indicates that this definition was added to the bill by them, so I presume it is as originally submitted by AMA's lobbyist in concert with their sponsor in the House.
Highlighted items in both AMA SC B.9.(a) and Sec 336(c)(3) say essentially the same thing, with the SC adding detail "....without enhancement other than by corrective lenses prescribed for the pilot."
Congress of course only saw Sec 336 in the bill they enacted into PL 112-95. FAA's interpretation of what Congress intended is consistent with that language, which is a general ban on operation of model aircraft by FPV, same as item B.9.(a). FAA may have been aware of exceptions/conditions made by AMA to allow it for their followers (AMA SC B.9.(b)), but their responsibility is interpreting what Congress meant in the statute they passed, unbiased by consideration of what they might know/think some third party wanted.
Demonizing FAA for creating this infringement on rights of modelers by first-of-a-kind federal statute/regulation, and a witch hunt for modelers "from the just fly a warbird in the pattern crowd" is misdirected and just plain silly.
AMA didn't get what they wanted because what they asked for was something quite different.
I frankly can't fathom any sensible rationale to explain why this item was included as one of the 5 conditions for exemption from FAA regulation, along with the 55 lb weight limit and 5-mile from airport thing. That ceded any control AMA might have had over these rules, once in AMA SC guidelines, now in federal statute where even FAA can't modify them until another federal law is passed to supersede them.
cj
Para B.9. of AMA SC, "The pilot of an RC model aircraft shall:
(a) Maintain control during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact without enhancement other than by corrective lenses prescribed for the pilot.
(b)Fly using the assistance of a camera or First-Person View (FPV) only in accordance with the procedures outlined in AMA Document #550.
(c)Fly using the assistance of autopilot or stabilization system only in accordance with the procedures outlined in AMA Document #560.
Sec 336 of PL 112-95 states in para (c)
"Model Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term ``model aircraft'' means an unmanned
aircraft that is--
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes
Nothing in either the House or Senate Conference Committee Reports indicates that this definition was added to the bill by them, so I presume it is as originally submitted by AMA's lobbyist in concert with their sponsor in the House.
Highlighted items in both AMA SC B.9.(a) and Sec 336(c)(3) say essentially the same thing, with the SC adding detail "....without enhancement other than by corrective lenses prescribed for the pilot."
Congress of course only saw Sec 336 in the bill they enacted into PL 112-95. FAA's interpretation of what Congress intended is consistent with that language, which is a general ban on operation of model aircraft by FPV, same as item B.9.(a). FAA may have been aware of exceptions/conditions made by AMA to allow it for their followers (AMA SC B.9.(b)), but their responsibility is interpreting what Congress meant in the statute they passed, unbiased by consideration of what they might know/think some third party wanted.
Demonizing FAA for creating this infringement on rights of modelers by first-of-a-kind federal statute/regulation, and a witch hunt for modelers "from the just fly a warbird in the pattern crowd" is misdirected and just plain silly.
AMA didn't get what they wanted because what they asked for was something quite different.
I frankly can't fathom any sensible rationale to explain why this item was included as one of the 5 conditions for exemption from FAA regulation, along with the 55 lb weight limit and 5-mile from airport thing. That ceded any control AMA might have had over these rules, once in AMA SC guidelines, now in federal statute where even FAA can't modify them until another federal law is passed to supersede them.
cj
09-04-2014, 07:24 AM
#164
Congress of course only saw Sec 336 in the bill they enacted into PL 112-95. FAA's interpretation of what Congress intended is consistent with that language, which is a general ban on operation of model aircraft by FPV, same as item B.9.(a).
09-04-2014, 10:01 AM
#165
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B 9 (a) does not include FPV, FPV is referenced in B- 9(b) which was convieniently ignored. The law uses the term "visual line of sight", that is an imaginarry line from you eye to the object. It does not mean that you can see or even have your eyes open. It is not even a legal term, in fact it is an engineering term others want to redifine.
cj
09-04-2014, 07:51 PM
#166
The FAA is thumbing their nose at congress, not the AMA. You were the one to conveniently ignore B-9 (b) and redefine "visual line of sight".
09-04-2014, 08:55 PM
#167
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA may have been aware of exceptions/conditions made by AMA to allow it for their followers (AMA SC B.9.(b)), but their responsibility is interpreting what Congress meant in the statute they passed, unbiased by consideration of what they might know/think some third party wanted.
09-05-2014, 08:37 PM
#168
09-06-2014, 04:40 AM
#169
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is impossible to prove lack of bias, but you could demonstrate bias by citing a few examples from their interpretation of section 336. I would be quite interested because I have not seen any bias in their interpretation.
09-06-2014, 06:34 AM
#170
I would be quite interested because I have not seen any bias in their interpretation.
09-06-2014, 10:17 AM
#171
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best do some research on that, Brad. FAA didn't give any enforcement power to AMA, never will, and I never said they did. Enforcement is what Fed agencies do. The lawmakers task them to do it, and give them the power to do it.
edit: another quibble....AMA has not appealed the FAA interpretation.
edit: another quibble....AMA has not appealed the FAA interpretation.
And there is no way today to meet the exemption requirements of section 336.
09-06-2014, 12:17 PM
#172
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another quibble, (a big quibble) PL-112-95 section 336 did not create any regulations for model aircraft operation. It did create a path to be exempt from FAA regulations and did define "Model Aircraft".
And there is no way today to meet the exemption requirements of section 336.
And there is no way today to meet the exemption requirements of section 336.
cj
09-06-2014, 01:16 PM
#173
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, I'll buy that. PL 112-95 is federal law, not FAA regulation. It did create a path, but I expect to be grown over before it ever becomes trodden. Most assuredly it did define model aircraft. There is no way today to meet the exemption requirements of 336, unless FAA accepts that any CBO an individual declares to abide by the standards of (as I did, naming RCU as my preferred CBO). If FAA can't recognize a CBO as qualified, it follows they can't reject any CBO as not qualified.
cj
cj
09-06-2014, 02:39 PM
#174
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-07-2014, 08:22 AM
#175
another quibble, (a big quibble) PL-112-95 section 336 did not create any regulations for model aircraft operation. It did create a path to be exempt from FAA regulations and did define "Model Aircraft".
And there is no way today to meet the exemption requirements of section 336.
And there is no way today to meet the exemption requirements of section 336.
But for today the AMA rules are what we follow there are no regulations covering model aircraft.