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

Another "Drone" incident in the news... , mostlikely non AMA member

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

Another "Drone" incident in the news... , mostlikely non AMA member

Old 09-15-2014, 10:33 AM
  #276  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
Not sure why the hang-up with "line of sight" however the statement "operator of a radio-controlled model aircraft shall control it during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact..." seems pretty clear to me. At the time this was written the 550 buddy box rule had the PIC/spotter on the primary control which would be in compliance with the current FAA interpretation.

Frank
Oh, sorry, guess I didn't make myself clear. I was curious about the source for the use of VLOS in section 336 of the modernization act. Poor SP was really distraught about it, because it apparently is synonymous with an engineering term. So I wanted to see what congress used as a source. Seems to still be a mystery to me.
Old 09-15-2014, 10:33 AM
  #277  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul
However the FAA "Interpretation" specifically states in footnote 1:



So as soon as the "visual" PIC turned control over to the pilot wearing FPV goggles then the FPV pilot would be in violation of the VLOS Interpretation.
I disagree. If using a buddy box the PIC is still PIC by virtue of having control of the training button or switch. In full scale you can let your passenger take control but that does not make them the PIC. However it does do away with using a spotter.

Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 09-15-2014 at 10:41 AM.
Old 09-15-2014, 10:47 AM
  #278  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Poor SP was really distraught about it, because it apparently is synonymous with an engineering term.
I was not distraught, you and others went ape when I pointed out that in engineering and per dictionaries, and per english language rules and syntax the word simply means an imaginary line sighted visually. As such it does not mean you actually see anything, or that you have any limit on distance, such as say a star. The AMA defines if for their use, Congress did not.
Old 09-15-2014, 11:10 AM
  #279  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
I was not distraught, you and others went ape when I pointed out that in engineering and per dictionaries, and per english language rules and syntax the word simply means an imaginary line sighted visually. As such it does not mean you actually see anything, or that you have any limit on distance, such as say a star. The AMA defines if for their use, Congress did not.
Right, it is obvious that congress got the definition from the AMA but I can't figure out the source. I was curious since the only source I have found was in the AMA FPV doc 550 which would imply congressional awareness and approval. Thus, negating the FAA stance on VLOS. And you still seem awfully distraught to me.
Old 09-15-2014, 11:22 AM
  #280  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
I disagree. If using a buddy box the PIC is still PIC by virtue of having control of the training button or switch. In full scale you can let your passenger take control but that does not make them the PIC. However it does do away with using a spotter.
Except the FAA does not use the criteria of PIC................... they specifically say "1 For purposes of the visual line of sight requirement, “operator” means the person manipulating the model aircraft’s controls."
Old 09-15-2014, 11:29 AM
  #281  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul
Except the FAA does not use the criteria of PIC................... they specifically say "1 For purposes of the visual line of sight requirement, “operator” means the person manipulating the model aircraft’s controls."

Which is what the instructor is doing when he switch's the trainer switch and takes over, the same with full scale when you take over the controls. I don't see the word continously in that discription, so you can hand off control and still be manipulating the models controls.
Old 09-15-2014, 11:55 AM
  #282  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Which is what the instructor is doing when he switch's the trainer switch and takes over, the same with full scale when you take over the controls. I don't see the word continously in that discription, so you can hand off control and still be manipulating the models controls.

LOL ..... where do you come up with these rationalzations that might be true in your fantasy world?
Old 09-15-2014, 11:59 AM
  #283  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

LOL ..... where do you come up with these rationalzations that might be true in your fantasy world?
Working with contractors and the tricks they do to get out of work by their interpretation of the specifications. Believe me if you do not use the word continously or otherwise quantify how often he should do work, then the contractor can do something one time and claim they did it.
Old 09-15-2014, 12:18 PM
  #284  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Working with contractors and the tricks they do to get out of work by their interpretation of the specifications. Believe me if you do not use the word continously or otherwise quantify how often he should do work, then the contractor can do something one time and claim they did it.
I guess you did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Old 09-15-2014, 08:13 PM
  #285  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul
I guess you did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I'm afraid I do not understand. The FAA did not quantify if the pilot was manipulating the controls continuously, so he can hand over the controls for a time. Did you understand that?
Old 09-16-2014, 02:35 AM
  #286  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
Oh, sorry, guess I didn't make myself clear. I was curious about the source for the use of VLOS in section 336 of the modernization act. Poor SP was really distraught about it, because it apparently is synonymous with an engineering term. So I wanted to see what congress used as a source. Seems to still be a mystery to me.
I guess I’m confused as to what the issue is here. What is so different between the two statements below that is causing all this debate?

The operator of a radio-controlled model aircraft shall control it during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact …

In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.

In the context of what this is all about it seems pretty clear to me where congress got the idea. Discussing the definition of words used out of context is a useless exercise.

Frank
Old 09-16-2014, 03:43 AM
  #287  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Well without defining VLOS it means you can fly the plane to the next galaxy if you keep an unbroken visual line of sight. The AMA defined what they meant by VLOS but Congress did not. But then they said to follow CBO rules, but the FAA says that this means that a spotter can not be used for FPV. So if they are not using CBO rules you go by what Congress said and then you can fly as far as you want as long as that imaginary line is not broken.
Old 09-16-2014, 04:00 AM
  #288  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Well without defining VLOS it means you can fly the plane to the next galaxy if you keep an unbroken visual line of sight.
Really! Do you seriously believe that to be the case? Does this sufficiently define within VLOS "The flight path of model operations shall be limited to the designated flying site and approved overfly area." I think that pretty much keeps it within our planetary influence.

Frank

Last edited by phlpsfrnk; 09-16-2014 at 04:03 AM.
Old 09-16-2014, 04:48 AM
  #289  
joebahl
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
 
joebahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: joliet, IL
Posts: 1,574
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Well without defining VLOS it means you can fly the plane to the next galaxy if you keep an unbroken visual line of sight. The AMA defined what they meant by VLOS but Congress did not. But then they said to follow CBO rules, but the FAA says that this means that a spotter can not be used for FPV. So if they are not using CBO rules you go by what Congress said and then you can fly as far as you want as long as that imaginary line is not broken.
My guess is you fly one of these things and dont like the rules comming your way or the AMA rules your trying to bend. I would hope that the fpvs and drone flyers would start their own non for proffit soon ! Please ! It would be nice to see them bend their own rules and argue about making them also. joe
Old 09-16-2014, 07:20 AM
  #290  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Well without defining VLOS it means you can fly the plane to the next galaxy if you keep an unbroken visual line of sight. The AMA defined what they meant by VLOS but Congress did not. But then they said to follow CBO rules, but the FAA says that this means that a spotter can not be used for FPV. So if they are not using CBO rules you go by what Congress said and then you can fly as far as you want as long as that imaginary line is not broken.

Hi Sport ,

Courts are full of Lawyers arguing "the intent of the law" every day . With this law , were it to be broken on a level requiring court involvement , you can bet that the first thing to be laid out would be that "Visual line of sight" is intended to mean that you can actually SEE the model your supposedly controlling , hence the redundant use of "visual" and "sight" . There is no jury in the US , even in light of the OJ verdict , that would believe in your "next galaxy" definition of VLOS .
Old 09-16-2014, 08:29 AM
  #291  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
Hi Sport ,

Courts are full of Lawyers arguing "the intent of the law" every day . With this law , were it to be broken on a level requiring court involvement , you can bet that the first thing to be laid out would be that "Visual line of sight" is intended to mean that you can actually SEE the model your supposedly controlling , hence the redundant use of "visual" and "sight" . There is no jury in the US , even in light of the OJ verdict , that would believe in your "next galaxy" definition of VLOS .
Here, from AMA blog, is how AMA defines it, or interprets the intention of Congress in PL 112-95:
[AMA's Viewpoint:]
The FAA’s interpretation suggests that hobbyists who fly their models by “first person view” (FPV) might be doing something wrong if they are using video glasses or “goggles.” For the past decade, FPV has been inspiring students, engineers, robotics enthusiasts, and many others to take up the hobby or to expand their hobby activities. FPV control adds no danger to the hobby, especially when a spotter is present to monitor the airspace. The language of the 2012 statute concerning “within visual line of sight” indicates how far away a person should fly the model aircraft, not what method of control may be used for the recreational experience. [This part of the FAA's interpretation impacts me because I enjoy flying FPV or plan to explore FPV in the near future.]
AMA's legal quarrel with FAA centers on the assertion that the intent of Congress was unambiguous, and so FAA had no right to interpret it. The discussion here blows a big hole in that argument. Ironic that folks most opposed to the FAA interpretation have provided ample evidence demonstrating that the terminology used by Congress is ambiguous as to their intent as FAA will respond, isn't it?

cj
Old 09-16-2014, 11:39 AM
  #292  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
Really! Do you seriously believe that to be the case? Does this sufficiently define within VLOS "The flight path of model operations shall be limited to the designated flying site and approved overfly area." I think that pretty much keeps it within our planetary influence.

Frank
Sure does, but that was not in the law, that is from the AMA rules.
Old 09-16-2014, 11:41 AM
  #293  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by joebahl
My guess is you fly one of these things and dont like the rules comming your way or the AMA rules your trying to bend. I would hope that the fpvs and drone flyers would start their own non for proffit soon ! Please ! It would be nice to see them bend their own rules and argue about making them also. joe
No such case I am simply saying it is the intent of Congress to follow the CBO rules since they did not even bother to define VLOS and the literal defination is simply an imaganary line determined visually.
Old 09-16-2014, 11:41 AM
  #294  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
I guess I’m confused as to what the issue is here. What is so different between the two statements below that is causing all this debate?

The operator of a radio-controlled model aircraft shall control it during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact …

In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.

In the context of what this is all about it seems pretty clear to me where congress got the idea. Discussing the definition of words used out of context is a useless exercise.

Frank
Yes, it is obvious that the congress and FAA are using a definition created by the AMA and not civil engineers. But, my thought, which may be flawed, was that if congress read doc 550, the only place where VLOS is used and defined, then congress must have approved of the AMA's safety guidelines for FPV (at least tacitly). And therefore (maybe this is too bit a leap) the FAA has misunderstood the whole VLOS thing by insisting that the pilot operating the aircraft must have unobstructed VLOS. I think!
Old 09-16-2014, 11:44 AM
  #295  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
Hi Sport ,

Courts are full of Lawyers arguing "the intent of the law" every day . With this law , were it to be broken on a level requiring court involvement , you can bet that the first thing to be laid out would be that "Visual line of sight" is intended to mean that you can actually SEE the model your supposedly controlling , hence the redundant use of "visual" and "sight" . There is no jury in the US , even in light of the OJ verdict , that would believe in your "next galaxy" definition of VLOS .
Yes, but the law does not define it and for techical people a visual line of sight is an imaginary line determined visually, possibly with optics. The AMA rules redifine this and the law does not. My point is that Congress did not bother because they expect model airplanes to be flown per AMA rules not FAA regulations.
Old 09-16-2014, 11:47 AM
  #296  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by JohnShe
Yes, it is obvious that the congress and FAA are using a definition created by the AMA and not civil engineers. But, my thought, which may be flawed, was that if congress read doc 550, the only place where VLOS is used and defined, then congress must have approved of the AMA's safety guidelines for FPV (at least tacitly). And therefore (maybe this is too bit a leap) the FAA has misunderstood the whole VLOS thing by insisting that the pilot operating the aircraft must have unobstructed VLOS. I think!
I think we are seeing eye to eye on this now. I can't believe this. Something is wrong!
Old 09-16-2014, 11:52 AM
  #297  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
Here, from AMA blog, is how AMA defines it, or interprets the intention of Congress in PL 112-95:


AMA's legal quarrel with FAA centers on the assertion that the intent of Congress was unambiguous, and so FAA had no right to interpret it. The discussion here blows a big hole in that argument. Ironic that folks most opposed to the FAA interpretation have provided ample evidence demonstrating that the terminology used by Congress is ambiguous as to their intent as FAA will respond, isn't it?

cj
I see no harm in playing devils advocate. Especially when the FAA likely has better lawyers. Best not to be suprised by any arguements they may make.
Old 09-16-2014, 05:37 PM
  #298  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
I think we are seeing eye to eye on this now. I can't believe this. Something is wrong!
I said it was a big leap, did I fall flat on my face or not? I am composing a comment for the FAA based on my reasoning. It will be interesting to see how they respond to it, if at all. The AMA court case could really screw up everything.
Old 09-18-2014, 03:29 AM
  #299  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default Yet another instance.......

http://nypost.com/2014/09/17/nypd-he...over-brooklyn/

Says the guy who was arrested and arraigned last night;

“I am very disappointed that they are trying to make an example out of me,” Rosa said. “At the end of the day, this is not an illegal activity.”

Ya, stick with that approach and see how it works out.
Old 09-18-2014, 05:47 AM
  #300  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
http://nypost.com/2014/09/17/nypd-he...over-brooklyn/

Says the guy who was arrested and arraigned last night;

“I am very disappointed that they are trying to make an example out of me,” Rosa said. “At the end of the day, this is not an illegal activity.”

Ya, stick with that approach and see how it works out.
Endangering a full size aircraft with a pilot on board is not illegal? This guy is not very bright is he?

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.