MajorTomski

Since you guys are going round and round please allow me to suggest why we got what we got:\

The FAA wrote what they wrote because they were using old AMA information
In the FAA document there are two items that directly affect FPV; the operational item 2 and definition item 2:
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
I’ll bet my morning coffee break that sitting in a folder on some FAA legal staffer’s desk is a file that probably reads ‘AMA Guidelines’ or the generic; ‘Existing Community-Based Organization Guidelines’.
And in that package will be a two to four year-old copy of what was the AMA’s guidance on FPV in 2010 to 2012.
What has been the history of the AMA’s position on FPV:

1. Absolutely no way guys, don’t even try it
2. Ok, well you can try it if the operator keeps his eyes on the model and the FPV’er must fly through a buddy box.
3. Well, ok you can fly FPV but the safety pilot has to be on a buddy box.
4. OK we give up, you can fly FPV but you still have to keep it within sight of the field and you have to have a safety pilot.

My hypothesis is the FAA gave the AMA exactly what it wanted back in 2011 or earlier. The AMA moved the target on how we fly FPV in the intervening years and the slow moving, things never change FAA just assumed that following AMA guidelines from back then would make all the AMA’ers happy.
Kind of like getting that action figure you wanted on your 12[SUP]th[/SUP] birthday on your 16[SUP]th[/SUP] birthday when you really wanted a car. You did get what you asked for, a lot late, but it was what we asked for.
Just a hypothesis, I’m just giving you something to think about.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

http://gawker.com/teen-turns-dead-pe...ter-1633038513

cj_rumley

Good summary of your hypothesis and the events leading to what AMA got for modelers members and not, Major T. Minor diff from what I see is in the highlighted part. FAA's purpose was to give their boss Congress what they wanted, not AMA. As terms of AMA's Doc 550 that provides conditions for exception from 1., whether by item 2, 3, or 4, in your sequence never made it into sec 336 or got lost along the way, Congress didn't see it and of course could not make it statute and so task FAA to interpret/enforce it.

JohnShe

That is correct, congress inserted the VLOS term into the modernization act. The FAA is just interpreting it exactly as they read it. Interesting thought is, how did the definition get to congress without the rest of doc 550?

Sport_Pilot

I made no predictions, only what the term means outside of documents which redefine the term. And the power the courts have. It would be to unpredictable to say what the FAA or courts will do.

MajorTomski

Back when this feces hit the rotating oscillator I asked the AMA for the previous versions of 550. They could only provide me with the one just prior to the current one, which basically said the same as we have to day; just that an observer must keep eyes on the UAV.

We'll never be able to answer your question with out a compete copy of the 550 document prior to 2012.

phlpsfrnk

It just so happens; see attached. The date I have on the file is 11 Nov 2010.


In my opinion they got it right the first time.

Frank

JohnShe

Interesting, the old 550 refers to the safety code for a VLOS definition. But VLOS is not defined or used in the safety code, at least the 2014 version. However R/C Item #9a says "Maintain control during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact without enhancement other than by corrective lenses prescribed for the pilot".

The newer version, on the AMA website defines VLOS more precisely as: "Visual Line Of Sight (VLOS) is the distance at which the pilot is able to maintain visual contact with the aircraft and determine its orientation without enhancements other than corrective lenses."

However, congress uses VLOS in section 336 without a definition, it just says: "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft".

Strange!

phlpsfrnk

I currently hold copies of three 550.pdf documents. The first one that I provided above with the four simple rules on one half page was authored by Ilona Maine with the Properties description title of Academy of Model Aeronautics creation date 5/10/2010. The second two page document was authored by LIZH with the Properties description title of Microsoft Word - thelastfinalwehope.doc creation date 10/30/2012. The third and current three page 550.pdf was again authored by LIZH with the Properties description title of Microsoft Word - thelastfinalwehope.doc creation date 1/21/2014.

As a technical writer by profession I think it is appalling what this document has turned in to. My guess is that LIZH kissed the KISS principle good-bye


Frank

phlpsfrnk

Because the original 550 was writen in 2010 you would need to see the 2009-2010 safety code to see it all in the proper context.

Frank

ira d

I also think they got it right the first time.

MajorTomski

Thanks Frank for confirming my suspicion, the FAA and Congress were working from what we had then, and didn't expect our position to change so radically.

MajorTomski

Now the question is why do current FPV'ers believe/feel the original AMA document is too restrictive? Why was the buddy box system so un-acceptable?

JohnShe

Right. I don't suppose you have that one, do you?

Sport_Pilot

The cost of the extra transmitter and cable?

cj_rumley

Many reasons have been cited. One that would bug me most if I owned the FPV is that the rule made the spotter PIC and so he controlled the trainer switch. Would require me to always have another pilot with me that is completely familiar with and proficient in flying my model, and has enough of my trust to override my control if he thinks I've lost it. Can't think of another flying (or sailing, etc) command protocol since dirt where the PIC is required to cede control of the craft to anyone else under ordinary circumstances. Mutiny codified.

cj

warningshot

Because it is my airplane, not yours. It is my radio, not yours. I like to fly on my ranch, not yours.

JohnShe

That's good as long as you and your airplane stay on your ranch. But what about us poor souls that don't own a ranch?

joebahl

My Feedback: (2)

Haw anyone figured out who was the crazy ars who let the fpv flyers in the AMA to begin with ? lmao

cj_rumley

I think you are making a funny, but it's also a legit question (and an opening for me to sound off).

I doubt that FPV fliers came to to AMA, at least not in significant numbers. FPV interest came to some modelers that were already AMA/club members. The Doc 550 conditions even in their latest iteration are clearly designed to accommodate FPV flying at AMA club sites, in a limited way. A typical AMA club flying site isn't long going to hold interest for FPV modelers. How many times does one need to go sightseeing within the limits of such venues? Folks that I come into contact with bring them out to the club site to gain some proficiency in flying them or try out new equipment, but mostly seem to fly their FPV stuff somewhere off-site, and continue to fly more traditional models when I see them. From my earthbound POV, impact of disallowing FPV at chartered club sites would be small in comparison to what all the wailing about FAA killing it infers about the mass of humanity impacted. It would affect only those unfortunate enough to have only AMA club flying sites as an option. Hobby FPV will continue under the radar, as most of it is happening now. I'm in SoCal - the AMA club venues to accommodate the flying blowtorches are far fewer than what is available for flying FPV, and the FPV craft don't need runways. Most of their activity I have seen is from the beach bluffs out over the ocean or to the E over BLM land (aka "out in BFE").

joebahl

My Feedback: (2)

Well alot of our due money will be spent on FPV training and in courts defending them now so i was trying to figure out if the AMA was that needy for fpv due money and never realy never thought what it was going to cost the rest of us long term members. . Dont want them at my club field either ! I was just getting use to heli"s now these flying tables will be hovering in my face on the flight line. joe

MajorTomski

They've been called flying meat cleavers at my club.

Sport_Pilot

The first FPV flyers were AMA members who stuck a camera with transmitter in their model. Most would not like to fly outside of visual range because of possible radio interference. It seems to be mostly newcomers with cheap throwaway drones who tend to go past visual range. Or more expensive ones with autonomous flight capability.

Sport_Pilot

I thought the FPV training was a money making venture?

JohnShe

Who said that the AMA was going to charge a fee? What will the AMA do with the money, if any? And who said they were doing FPV training? The meeting minutes only speak of drones, and says nothing about FPV.