Another "Drone" incident in the news... , mostlikely non AMA member
#276
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Frank
#277
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.
#278
Poor SP was really distraught about it, because it apparently is synonymous with an engineering term.
#279
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#280
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."
#281
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.
#282
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?
#283
LOL ..... where do you come up with these rationalzations that might be true in your fantasy world?
#284
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.
#285
#286
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
#287
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.
#288
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank
Last edited by phlpsfrnk; 09-16-2014 at 04:03 AM.
#289
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
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.
#290
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 .
#291
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 .
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 .
[AMA's Viewpoint:]
The FAAs 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.]
The FAAs 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.]
cj
#292
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
Frank
#293
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
#294
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
#295
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 .
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 .
#296
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!
#297
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
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
#298
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#299
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
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.
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.
#300
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.