JimDrew

My Feedback: (16)

Unfortunately, that is not true. You could make a model of a P-51 Mustang with a FPV and/or GPS, and it is classified as a UAV under federal law. "Drones" are also called UAVs, long before quadcopters became "drones".

JimDrew

My Feedback: (16)

Gyros are not a concern. GPS waypoint programming is a concern, as is video transmission. Both of these systems allow you to fly an aircraft beyond unaided line of sight - which is the crux of the issue with "drones". Personally, I think having a GPS for the purpose of an auto-pilot (return to home) can benefit safety, however, not at the expense of being misused for deliberate coordinate programming. If we simply banned FPV and GPS from "models", the AMA would be in a good position to keep our hobby alive. We lived for decades without these two systems, so we clearly don't need them. Let another sanctioning body form and allow those items to be used, and let those people deal with the feds.

joancmigneault

I have several "DRONES" First, this term is or should be for military drones. My aircraft are called "QUADCOPTERS"!!!!!!!! The person (init4fun) is dead wrong. I have an AMA membership (number 1079744) & I fly my quadcopters only for fun.

init4fun

And if you fly your quadcopter beyond your spotter's line of sight you ARE now flying a DRONE that is NOT covered under the auspices of AMA document # 550.......... DEAD RIGHT !!!!!

So tell me , DO you follow ALL facets of # 550 to the letter ? Do you have a spotter for each flight and keep that flight within your spotter's view the entire flight ? If so , Great , your flying AMA condoned FPV . But if your the average quadcopter pilot piloting your flying camera out of sight , then you ARE "the problem" here and the AMA will abandon you if you crash and need insurance coverage , for flying outside of the conditions set out in # 550 .

cj_rumley

Most recreational drones are used for aerial photography. I don't see why it's so hard for some folks to see the difference between a flying camera and an airplane. There are organizations extant for the special interest of aerial photography. I don't see why AMA must compete with them. AP enthusiasts have little need for imaging barren model fields, so the notion they would follow rules of AMA and/or the AC that pertains to model airplanes is plain silly. So much for AMA 'educating' them; AMA does not have relevant risk assessment/safety/liability experience required to competently educate them. AMA does not have experience to determine their liability risk and so sell them insurance. The AMA pubs have had very little content related to photography. Why would folks whose hobby interest is photography buy into AMA? They can buy cameras,lenses and mounts.... and drones from B&H Photo et al, so they don't even need a hobby shop. And we don't need the negative publicity and ensuing regulatory actions drones are a magnet for foisted on us.

init4fun

Hey CJ ,

For certain the average AP hobbyist has no need of a model airplane field cause they are flying outside of the rules set out for model aircraft camera use set out in # 550 to begin with . Once they can no longer see the aircraft , they are now no longer the AMA's responsibility since they are breaking the AMA established rules . They are on their own , with their drone . I would not want a FPV flyer who flys beyond LOS taking off from a model airplane field because once out of sight they are flying a drone and that's not covered by AMA insurance . As CP has so rightly stated , the AMA should be doing more to educate the public that multicopters with cameras flown BLOS are not what we're about . It's funny to see the low post posters who jump on my posts just because the truth hurts ;

If you fly your FPV beyond your spotter's line of sight , you are now flying a DRONE , and most certainly ARE "The Problem" , NO MATTER WHAT CONFIGURATION THE AIRCRAFT"S LIFTING SURFACES HAPPEN TO BE !

I hope that's clear enough for "Joan" , and anyone else who seems to need this defined further ?????????

init4fun

PS , I asked a valid question here , Joan , and since you went out of your way to single ME out in your post , I believe both the board and myself deserve an answer . It's not that difficult , do you fly beyond your spotter's sight or not ? Personally , reading all 10 of your posts to RCU , I believe you DO fly beyond line of sight and that's the reason you don't like my definition ... Sound about right here ?

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Yes you could rig a P-51 with drone capabilities for FPV flight...so I fail to see your point.

cj_rumley

Init, it matters not to me whether the AP drone is within or beyond LOS. It is likely being operated outside the bounds of a suitable model flying field (i.e., outside what AMA 550 was intended to accommodate) in any case. I still think the essential discipline behind the safety record of model flying is where they (and aren't) flown, in which regard the AMA SC merely echos FAA's AC 91-57. Remove that requirement to accommodate drones and 90% or better of the SC's value goes down the toilet.

JimDrew

My Feedback: (16)

My point is that the FPV and GPS systems are the problem because they are what constitutes an aircraft as being a "model" or a UAV. Quadcopters that do not have FPV or GPS are no different than regulator model aircraft. Unfortunately, the manufacturers of quad/hex/oct copters push FPV and GPS as features, and it is these devices that have been coined "drones" by the media. There are federal laws pertaining to UAVs, and any aircraft that can fly outside the limits of line of sight control must follow the federal rules. I am not sure why there is even a discussion about this since there are rules already in place. I guess some people don't think that a toy could be a UAV. If an aircraft has the capability (whether it is used or not) of being flown autonomously in any fashion, it is a UAV/UAS/drone. The AMA members should want separation from these activities. Those members who don't should start their own sanctioning body like the AMA and continue with their hobby, and deal with the feds.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

That's a great thought, and one that folks who don't like what's going on with the AMA can/should do as well. Or work to change what they don't like. And from what I hear, there is a group already seeking to start their own sanctioning body for MR/Drone use and advocacy, it will be interesting to see how this works out. Like the group of 14 that penned the letter to the AMA, they are also "working behind the scenes" although I would think they would want to get as much exposure as possible. We'll see I guess.

init4fun

Hi CJ ,

Yes sir , the where figures just as prominently as the why and how in the distinction between model aircraft VS drone . In order to be beyond line of sight in any metropolitan area I know of , the drone pilot will invariably be flying over folk's heads long before the craft is out of sight . Now since even non FPV operations require no overflys of folks as per the AMA safety code , there is no "wiggle room" for the drone flyers to claim model aircraft status once they're beyond the field , over folks heads , and in the way of general (manned) aviation .

So we got the where , the why , and the how . Someone with better writing skills than mine ought to use the best posts of this thread to write up a well worded , airtight definition of the two types of missions , Drone VS Model Aircraft , that both happen to employ similar technology ......

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Even though many of us do not need to be told what the difference is between flying Traditional RC and flying planes that are equipped with Drone Ops capabilities...it is a challenge to come up with universally accepted terminology.
The most critical test for what makes a flying toy of ANY sort a DRONE is the capability to be flown Beyond Line Of Sight [BLOS].
If your pride and joy lacks that capability, you have a flying toy that is not a drone no matter what it looks like.
[Actually, the same reasoning would apply to non-flying toys like RC cars as well].

init4fun

Guess my question was too tough , eh ?

Really , it ain't all that difficult , either you follow # 550 or you don't , and by your lack of response , I'M taking that as you DON'T follow # 550 , meaning , of course , that you are "the problem"

Thanks for stopping by , , , NOT !

JimDrew

My Feedback: (16)

If #550 was abolished, we wouldn't need this conversation and we would not be looked at by the FAA at all. Its the very fact that #550 exists is why there is a problem. There needs to be a #550a that says, "hey, we were just kidding - flying with a FPV system on board your aircraft is not allowed by AMA club members"... and a #550b that says, "hey, while you're at it, make sure you don't have a GPS guidance system on board either".

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

This is what many of us have been saying. This is the line that was never drawn because the AMA was too busy playing the "Enlightened Progressive" role as autonomous flight advocates.

mike31

My Feedback: (67)

I have to differ. AMA only required if at a sanctioned flying site. If one has several acres of his own property... Correct me if I am wrong.

init4fun

Let me guess , yet another who thinks they own all the airspace above their property , and that full scale never flies there or should reroute around certain properties just cause the owner thinks he has a some God given right to prevent full scale from flying over ?

Posts like this make me more & more convinced that CP and Jim D are correct , since some folks are just too damn selfish for their or anyone elses' own good , maybe the AMA really SHOULD abolish # 550 and go back to protecting us who made the AMA what it is with our Dues all these years .....

init4fun

You , my friend , give the EC more credit than I do on this matter , while you say they wanted to advance autonomous flight , I say they were blinded by all the nice shiny Dollar $ign$ they thought they saw in drone operations

garlandk

My Feedback: (4)

I put FPV equipment in my tradional planes all of the time and I still feel like I am flying a tradional RC airplane.

init4fun

Yea ? And , if your flying those "traditional" planes out of your spotter's sight , well then , your flying a traditional "Drone" and not a model aircraft as far as most of this board is concerned .......

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Well..of course there is that, too..!
Careful that we be labeled "Tin Foil Hats"..though...!

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Your "rationale" pretty much says it all right here.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Hind site is as we all know is 20-20. but as I've said before I really believe that the preemptive strike by the AMA, getting the congress to add the #336 amendment to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act (P.L. 112-095), just made the FAA go on the offencive and Interpret Amendment #336 completely opposite to what congress intended.

That being said it's not the fact that the AMA has endorsed some form of FPV. The real problem is the DRONER that either thru ignorance or just plain disregard flys their Quads (Drones) where they should not fly. But then I'm Preaching to the choir here. I realize nothing anyone on either side of the debate is going to change their minds any time soon. All we can hope for is 1. the FAA procrastinates on any legislation concerning Registration 2. the only requirement the in act is that pilots must register and place that number in/on their R/C craft & nothing else.

cj_rumley

Well, somebody is bound to nit-pick about the term 'sanctioned' vs 'chartered' but dissing that you are right. Nothing wrong with flying over your property sans AMA, whether flying a model airplane or a drone. It is a good idea to go along with FAA's advice in AC 91-57 (current rev), but it is simple and sensible.