JettPilot

My Feedback: (6)

Yes, doing something like that with model airplane most definately is, steering a 767 down the hudson river is like steering a truck, anyone could learn it in a couple hours. It takes a huge amount of technical skill, building, and flying skill to do it remotely, and it only works a couple miles distance...

As far as comparing the destructive power of a 767 to a model airplane, that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. That is like comparing firecrackers to a nuclear bomb. Again, most of the people here that promote this kind of fear and paranoia are not smart or even honest, they just twist facts in whatever way the can to scare people.

JettPilot

Sport_Pilot

Well not having done so, I thought they lost control when blocked by the horizon. However, they could still cause glitch's which can bring a plane down. I could be wrong here.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

You're kidding right. I think he also meant acquiring the 767 and then flying it into a specific target. Took a group of men several years and millions of dollars to acheive that goal. If you think that's going to be easier to do than fly a bomb strapped RC airplane into building, ummmm I don't think so.

Bob Mitchell

That's a stretch, I think.

Actually it doesn't allow you to "fly" beyond visual range. Once you are beyond visual range you are no longer controlling the aircraft from the standpoint of directing it to a "selected" location. You can give the aircraft commands which it will obey, but since you have no visual reference it will very soon end up in pieces on the ground.

Bob Mitchell

>> Yes, doing something like that with model airplane most definately is, steering a 767 down the hudson river is like steering a truck, anyone could learn it in a couple hours. It takes a huge amount of technical skill, building, and flying skill to do it remotely, and it only works a couple miles distance... <<

I agree with you about the 767, and had that discussion with a number of people in the days following 9/11. I don't know about a couple of hours, but any competent low time private pilot, having only a minimum introduction to the cockpit controls could return an airliner to the NYC area and steer it into a large building. It's really not that difficult.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

Since you are not the original poster you have know way of knowing what his "INTENTION" was. You can speculate what that may have been, but that's not going to change anything. Since this is an issue that the AMA has ruled on we are going to allow this discussion to continue here in this forum as such. If you feel that this is something that you think isn't worth discussing then I would suggest that you simply unsubscribe from this thread and then you won't have to read any more on the subject. But as far as RCU is concerned this discussion is going to be allowed to continue.

Ken

Sport_Pilot

Come on they only had to pay for flight school for several men for a couple of years, no way did that take millions of dollars, the plane was free!

If you want a more even comparison, compare the RC model to a duffle bag. You can carry the duffle bag onto a bus full of bombs and kill most if not all of the people on the bus, the model plane can only carry several sticks of dynomite (yes its heavy because of the clay). The duffle bag only costs $40 and needs no training, the RC model costs at least ten times as much but has maybe less than a tenth of the power. Lets not forget rental trucks which only cost $30 for a days rental and can hold enough bombs to bring down huge buildings.

Sport_Pilot

Well as someone else pointed out a GPS guided system doesn't either. It will just sit there on the table without a plane with wings and an engine. Picking apart in this manner is rather pointless.

bkdavy

My Feedback: (1)

I would also point out that there are a number of other devices on the market, such a hold heading gyros, automatic flight stabilization systems, and electronic copilots currently being marketed and sold to beginners as training aids. These devices would allow a person to "select a location" by simply pointing the plane in a given direction with a preset timer to cut off fuel or a predetermined amount of fuel. Now if I'm 2 miles from my target, its pretty reasonable I won't be able to see the location, but there's a very good chance the plane will arrive in the vicinity of that location.

Brad

Bob Mitchell

Did you see the message to which I was replying?

He was trying to indicate that a 2.4Ghz transmitter (or any transmitter, I believe) fell outside of AMA guidelines because it had a range that could take the plane out of visual range. He was trying to compare that to the FPV setup that would allow you to take a plane out of visual range. IOW, any transmitter with an effective range farther than typical visual range then becomes a device that allows one to fly "beyond visual range".

I wasn't part of the exchange that I think you are referring to, and my comments to him were merely to point out the foolishness of his "logic".

typicalaimster

And the FPV'ers can point out the foolishness of your 'logic'. The fact is we can go around and around about this. When we wake up tomorrow the technology will still be here. I think everyone here should ask themselves this.. How can we safely promote the use of this technology? Saying "Nothing this is dangerous" is not getting us anywhere but further into a argument. Being a member of the AMA what rules would you suggest for FPV pilots? What guidelines would you like to see in place? Saying ban it all together isn't going to work. Your ban will force 'rogue' FPV pilots out in places where they shouldn't be flying.

804

My Feedback: (1)

The first video I saw of this was an electric trainer type aircraft, flying along a highway, out to a populated cluster of buildings and back. I felt it was a risky thing to do. OTOH, the same activity out in the desert or over a large ranch, or similar would be perfectly ok, IMO.

Beyond the radio range question, we know all the things that can go wrong with an RC plane. Whether the plane is in radio, or visual range, is a moot point if the aircraft malfunctions over a populated area.

Seems to me, the easy answer for AMA is to keep it to club fields, only within visual range. But, this would, for me at least, get boring in a hurry.

So, how does AMA tell a guy in Utah it's okay to fly FPV, but not for those in, say, Indiana.

I would think that anyplace safe to fly free-flight, would be safe for FPV also. Who makes this decision? We do, of course. Can we be trusted to make the right decision? Hope the Feds think so, but wouldn't bet on it.

I think this issue is a hot potato AMA wishes it didn't have to deal with. When it does, I bet the restrictions are pretty harsh.

goliathman

My Feedback: (3)

Its already harsh, AMA wont cover FPV under rule 10.

abel_pranger

What AMA liability insurance (I presume that is what you refer to) covers and not is what is stated in the insurance policy, which can be found on-line in the PDF Docs at the AMA web site.
Where does it say therein that FPV is excluded from coverage? Exclusions only range from A. - W., shouldn't be hard to find...........or maybe it is.........anybody ever count the instances of usage of the term 'exclusion' in the liability policy(ies)?

Abel

goliathman

My Feedback: (3)

The safety code that disallows FPV:
10. The operator of a radio-controlled model aircraft shall control it during the entire flight,
maintaining visual contact without enhancement other than by corrective lenses that are prescribed for the pilot.
No model aircraft shall be equipped with devices which allow it to be flown to a selected location which is
beyond the visual range of the pilot.

from the insurance summary:
• Applies to accidents arising from the operation of model aircraft, rockets, cars and boats, in accordance with the AMA NATIONAL Safety Code(s).

• Failure to comply with the AMA Safety Code may endanger insurance coverage.

Neener neener neener.

abel_pranger

So "Failure to comply with the AMA Safety Code" overrides what the insurance contract says it covers?

Abel

Bob Mitchell

Well, here's the claim that you're trying to sell as "logical":

"Someone also pointed out that the new 2.4ghz systems allow me to fly a model beyond my visual range. Does this mean we should ban 2.4ghz all together? It is a device that allows me to fly beyond visual range! "

Have I got that right? You want us to believe that the current AMA regulations in fact should be considered to indicate that flying with any commonly available brand transmitter, either 72Mhz or 2.4Ghz is in violation because the effective range of these transmitters is more than a typical person's natural visual range?

If I'm misquoting you here please clarify.

What do you mean by "my ban"? Nowhere, on this board or any other have I made such a statement. To the contrary I've actually solicited anyone within a reasonable distance of Lexington to show me how it works and let me try it (at the suggestion of one of the more logical individuals on that other board where you and I have exchanged a couple of messages.)

Do not put words in my mouth that I haven't spoken.

804

My Feedback: (1)

I think you're right...for now. But this particular genie is out of the bottle. AMA will have to re-visit this sometime. Rules can and do change. I really see nothing wrong with FPV done at the club level, or done non-AMA in safe locations.

In an earlier post, you said something about techno-freaks, or similar. To outsiders, aren't all modelers seen that way? I'd be surprised if in the early days of RC, other modelers didn't have the same reservations you have about FPV.

I have not tried this new technology. But I find it interesting. I just don't think AMA, or anyone else, can close their eyes and hope it will go away.

Bob Mitchell

I think you are exactly right here. There is a huge amount of information about FPV on RC Groups. They have an entire section dedicated to it. I'd advise anyone who is trying to form an opinion about FPV to spend some time reading through what's available there. It's certainly cause me to re-think my initial reaction.

goliathman

My Feedback: (3)

No, it may endanger coverage according to the AMA statement.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

the problem with a "may endanger" statement is that, it also may not. i guess it depends on the mood swing of the particular person investigating each claim.

ira d

I think we all know what the AMA is trying to say and that is they dont want their
members to fly models farther and higher away from themselfs than what one
consider to be normal.

Also they dont want a models overflying things outside of the normal site boundary
at least thats my take on the rules, However IMO the AMA has no right to tell me
how I can equip my model.

As far as to what a normal distance to fly a model at I know that can be open to
interpretation but IMO it would be as far as you could see the model comfortably
with normal eyesight. But if you are not at a AMA site and you can safely fly out
farther with the aid of some device then I dont see anything wrong with doing so.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

The AMA HQ might not be directly ... but the AMA club might have a word to say about it. These 2500 clubs are the trickle down effect of what they say you can and can't do at their club sites. So if your club says no metal props, pyros, FPV, air to air combat ... and so forth .... it's really Muncie telling your club to tell you not equip your device with such objects. And since we ara talking in the AMA forums, I assume you're talking about at an AMA club site????

Silent-AV8R

Sure it does. It is a voluntary organization. When you decide to join you are saying that you will abide by the rules of the organization. Therefore they do have the right to set rules, and you agree to follow them.

Nobody forces you to join the AMA. Yes, I know, you "had" to in order to fly at your field. Again, a voluntary decision. You do not "have" to fly there.

But, if you don't like this rule, then talk to your DVP, tell him. See if you can influence a change.

Personally I think it is there for just the reasons you stated and also to placate the FAA. The more we can differentiate between models and other UAVs the better.

Sport_Pilot

It also may depend on the nature of the accident. If for example the accident was due to radio failure, then it may cover it because it had nothing to do with FPV.