Sport_Pilot

Keep in mind if you so equip your model, and especially if you fly it outside of visual range, then the FAA may rule that the plane is an RVP and must be flown under their rules. If not now then in the near future.

ira d

I dont fly my models out of visual and have no desire to do so, As to how my model
is equipped the FAA has no way to know that. Also if I was going to fly a model to
somewhere beyond visual range it would be out in the desert where there would be
a very low risk and I would have the proper safeguards in place along with a way
to track my model, That of course could get rather expensive.

e-sailpilot86

(A little late in the thread to go back this far.... but, I'm confused who you're referring to.. Sport Pilot? Goliath Man? Couldn't be me. I just found the thread you started at RCGroups. I haven't gone too far into this thread yet (page 2), so I don't know if this thread has become brutally argumentative yet.... has it? (closing eyes and clicking OK) )

e-sailpilot86

HEY. What are you talking about?! I did not characterize all of FPV pilots the way that fool was flying in the video. I want to make sure that wreckless video does not characterize FPV pilots. And I agree with the statement of real cars vs. models. Re-read the thread, we're doing well in this thread right now and I don't know how this thread is behaving after page 2... I will in a few minutes. Maybe you and I should work on how honestly we characterize eachother before we break out the flame suits. Who knows what someone will think about this thread if they failed to read from the start and through the end.

4:08

Yeah. Thanks for that cheap comment. Perhaps you missed the part about my saying the best thing for R/C to stop these bad things from happening is by having people at the flying fields? No, you didn't even read it. Otherwise, this mischaracterization would not have happened. PLEASE, read through the posts in the order they are posted.

4:12

It seems we already had our AMA related discussion, things are becoming uncivl after this point I see... Thank you for the comment on relevancy RCKen. 4:15

4:16
No, it was not the intent. And it did not get dramatic until you made this post I am quoting.

4:22

Yes! Now we're talking! Looking back at the thread at RCGroups, it seems they have interest in forming a group or association that is more than just the forums. They're talking about making presentations to cub scouts, organizing meetings and events so they have good representation. I know that this type of flying can be spread safely, it will just take the kind of competence that most AMA flight training events carry, and the organization similar to what the HAM's have. They are self regulating, well organized, self patroling. I don't think anyone wants this to go the way of the citizens' band... we want the HAM band. Clean airwaves, well behaved people... everyone wants this all to be a positive experience, not ignorance.

4:32

as per 804's post, I have every confidence that the FAA will allow us to self-patrol... we just have to express interest in doing so. Imagine what would have happened if noone cooperated with guidelines for operating the ham bands. It would be an absolute mess, and there would be noone to represent the well-intentioned operators.

I apologize to anyone else reading this who takes offense for not being entirely on topic, but I will defend my character when it is challenged. If it's a cheap-shot attack, I might call it as it is so you will know you made a cheap attack. Otherwise, I will exercise standard decency in my posts. It seems this thread is getting back on track.

e-sailpilot86

wrong click... delete this please. (clicked quote not edit)

Liberator

I didnt read the whole 4 pages, but the bottomline is this.
I was involved in model rocketry for a time and everyone at the BATF was up in arms that these (rockets) could be used for a terrorist device.
The same could be said for ANY type of radio controlled airplane. But if a terrorist really wanted to do serious damage to a city, they could do MORE damage by riding a bicycle around a big city with a box full of "name your lethal poison here" sitting on the back of the bike and dispersing it as the rider drove along.
So there is no reason to freak out over this type of flying, and there sure as hell is no reason to bring it up to try and get it approved or renounced by the AMA. When they start with one type of flying the rest is sure to follow.

The government will do what its going to do but at the end of the day, if somone truly wants to do harm to another, they will. There is no way to stop it.

Look at that poor American couple attacked in China this week. That one attack was able to undermine literally billions of dollars of security measures and give a black eye to all of China.

You gonna outlaw knives?

abel_pranger

Generally in agreement with you, Liberator, but the government has not done anything to ban autonomous operation or FPV for model airplanes. AMA has, and at that it results from former prexy Dave Brown's personal war on terrorism. It was not prompted by any action, order, request or suggestion by any government agency, just one man's paranoia and scheming behind the backs of the rest of the EC and the Safety Committee to impose his will on the AMA membership. The ban on FPV seems to have come about in an effort to temper and define limits on Brown's draconian and ill-defined ban on anything that would give a model airplane some measure of autonomous control, e.g. autopilot. Unfortunately, it goes beyond the reasonable purpose of keeping models within visual range which I believe was the intent, and got contorted into another ban on progress in model aviation via applied technology.

FWIW, the liability insurance terms do not exclude autonomous control capability (as the SC does), but rather state coverage does not apply during periods of autonomous operation (which in itself infers the capability is not a cause for exclusion). I think that could easily be interpreted by the insurance company ambulance chasers and backed by a court, in a case where the stakes are high enough, to let them off the hook if a model caused injury to somebody while in fail-safe operating mode after loss of the control link.

Also FWIW, the ban on autonomy and FPV is #10 in the rules pertaining to RC in the Safety Code. Wanna fly with autonomous control without violating AMA SC provisions? Remove the receiver from the model so it cannot be in the RC category. Pretty stupid to disable the means for operator override, but roolze is roolze, you know. If you like, use the FPV hardware to watch from the pilot's seat while the autopilot flys the model to whatever destination you have programmed it for.

Abel

Liberator

We are on the same page. The only caveat I would add is that the government WILL do something if 1. Someone does something stupid with an RC plane that brings a lot of attention to the situation or 2. Someone brings a lot of attention to a potential situation that piques the interest of some bureaucrat that makes it his mission to mess with the status quo.

Other than that spot on old chap...

goliathman

My Feedback: (3)

What would it take to get RC rule 10 modified to permit FPV flight? Would a waiver for the activity help?

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

You're kidding right ... the FAA has done plenty to ban autonomous and FPV flight, there are pages and pages of documents in the UAS which set guidelines for use of and most especially autonomous flight. Every restriction is a ban in some kind of shape or form to someone or somewhere.

rob10000

FWIW, AMA just released guidance for permitting flying by video. It's here to stay.
[link]http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/550.pdf[/link]

abel_pranger

Rob-

You're right about it being here to stay, and good that AMA members can now do it at sites under control of a chartered club. First 3 items are well reasoned, fourth is completely arbitrary and unneeded - but not bad enough to resist a change that is basically much for the betterment of the hobby as enjoyed by those that obligated themselves to fly within constraints imposed by AMA.

Abel

Hossfly

That's a start. Foot is in the door.

KidEpoxy

550.pdf
3. The flight path of model operations shall be limited to the designated
flying site and approved overfly area.


Abel
control of a whated what?
Perhaps muncie should put out a 550.pdf revision that says "chartered club designated flying site"
cause what I read says Me & Jimmy just need to keep in to the area we designated for flying.... and today we designate his South40.

Rules should be clear.
If it means chartered club site then it should say that,
and we should tell Muncie 550 needs to have those couple words added.
Simple fix.

abel_pranger

KE-

Do you want You and Jimmy (the local club) to make the rules re what the designated flying site and approved overflight area is is, or do you need to have somebody in Munchie that has never and will never see your flying site dictate to you what it is?

Abel

hairy46

My Feedback: (1)

We are not the terrist! we are just a bunch a folks that love the hobby! But I am afraid they will come after our hobby the same way they go after the little old ladys at the airport instead of after the real threats! Most of us pride ourselfs in safe practice! I would love to fly the plane looking through the glass and I do hope to do that someday! Just for fun! Bob

KidEpoxy

Abel
I'm just saying 2 guys is 3 guys short of a Charter.
So for "Me & Jimmy" (2 ama cardholders) to fly FPV, charters dont seem to be involved,
just a buddybox and designating 'Today we fly here but not past the treeline'


To directly answer your question:
I do want Me & Jimmy to designate the area, but that dont involve charters.
Anytime some landowner decides to fly on his land, even informally in his head he gives himself bounderies as to where he cant fly.... usually along the lines of "keep it away from the house" or "stay away from the car".

If Muncie only wants it only at Chartered Clubs,
then they should change 550.pdf cause it dont say only at chartered clubs.

Robotech

My Feedback: (9)

Who said they (Muncie) only wanted it at chartered club sites?

As I read it you and Jimmy can have at it at your designated flying site. The only restrictions on the "designated flying site" is what is stated in the general safety code. It's a common sense restriction meant to keep you and Jimmy from buzzing Bob Mitchell's house from a mile away.

abel_pranger

Ahh, I see what you are saying now. I guess my perspective as to limits on the extent of AMA control got in the way. The only time AMA rules count for beans in my view is when I am flying at an AMA chartered club site.
If AMA rules are of concern to you at venues other than flying sites controlled by AMA clubs, I presume it is because of the personal liability insurance. If so, better to read the insurance contract rather than to rely on the AMA SC.
Anyhow, my intent was not to promote having this rule change apply only at chartered club sites. I might better have referred to "sites within the perceived sphere of AMA influence."

Abel

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

This is such a typical AMA discussion. Yes I can. No you can't. Yes I can. No you can't. Yes I can, No you can't...

I wonder what would happen if the discussion evolved .

KidEpoxy

PF
What? What thread are you reading?
Cause it looks like Abel said something, I pointed out his fauxpass,
and then he said Oh Right, and we had a group hug and milkshakes.

KidEpoxy

Abel
so the Autonomous control, or autopilot,
is just an extention and modern version of the DethermFuse or MultifunctionTimer for FF.
You program your FF, you send it off to do its thing on its own, digital control now instead of mechanical.
Just under your proposition the pilot gets to be a FPV spectator

Interesting how far FF has come.