BV's letters to AMA and FAA
07-24-2014, 06:12 PM
#51
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Springfield,
OR
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Money is it People. Watch "amazon" get a exemption to deliver packages with multi-rotors. That would be a so called Monopoly I would say!!! I can't even deduct my gas or aircraft that I want to use for search and rescue.... Much less make money with it....Like amazon will be if they get their exemption....
07-24-2014, 08:08 PM
#52
Very well said ! Though i hate to see any modelers faction of flying enjoyment be regulated , i have to jump on board with you guys. FPV and flying miles beyond point of take off really makes me nervous . We fly at a local airport and have a very good relationship with our town board and the airport board thanks to the airport manager . We have rules that prohibits free flight and FPV flying at our location . We feel it just isn't safe .If FPV are allowed to continue , i think it needs to be separated completely from line of sight flying , period . I agree that AMA would be millions of dollars ahead to get behind FAA on the FPV ruling .
the FAA knows this.
07-25-2014, 01:21 AM
#53
My Feedback: (106)
+1 Spot on Bob http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsaWC5-eJ2E
I generally respect BVs position but disagree in this case. I believe that the issue will never be related to those that are operating underneath the rules set forth by AMA be it turbine, giant, fpv, park flyer, or whatever. The issue is with the fact that many of these newer class of machines, as we saw with park flyers, do not need the structure of a club training environment to fly. This means that they can easily be flown outside of and without knowledge of the AMA codes for the respective class. It is this issue that poses the greatest risk to us losing our current status within the FAA as we (read AMA) are at a loss to address.
I am curious, in the cases that have been presented in the media of "issues" with "drones" how many of them were actually AMA members? My suspicions would be that none of them are.
Last edited by bhouin; 07-25-2014 at 01:47 AM. Reason: added last line
07-25-2014, 02:33 AM
#54
I think there is a lot to be said for Bob's letter. What we, as R/C modelers need to remember is that what happens with one type of model will happen to all models. While I'm not a qualified pilot(yet anyway), I am a member of NAMBA, one of two boaters organizations that are similar to the AMA in what they do and am very worried that, if the FAA starts restricting when and where you can fly, what's to stop another agency from doing the same to boaters or car/buggy drivers? We boaters are already having issues on where we can run due to those that are afraid we will hurt waterfowl, pollute the water or make too much noise, resulting in calls to the local law enforcement agencies. This has happened at lakes that allow full sized power boats, even though our boats are mandated to be quieter than a lawn mower or weedeater that they use to maintain their yard and don't damage shorelines like full sized boats can. Is the LOS issue something we need to enforce? I would say yes. Do we need to allow the FPV and all the headaches they entail for the rest of us? To do so, as already pointed out, opens up a "Pandora's Box" that we may never get reclosed.
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 07-25-2014 at 02:43 AM.
07-25-2014, 02:49 AM
#55
My Feedback: (106)
In the original it said that the hobby would be governed by the CBO (read AMA). What it didn't say (at least to my knowledge) was what was governing those that were operating outside of the AMA (which many do). I firmly believe this is where most of our current issues are arising from in the FPV set. It is those that are operating outside of the AMA. I haven't seen anything that addresses this issue. Am I missing something? It almost seems like there needs to be some wording that allows model aircraft operation under the CBO's as indicated in the 2012 documents and then for the FAA to issue a set of regulations for those that are operating outside of the CBO's. Thoughts? Or am I all wet?
07-25-2014, 03:19 AM
#56
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Clifton,
NJ
Posts: 1,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just saw on Good Morning America that a drone buzzed the Seattle space needle, flying around and looking into hotel windows.
Bought at a local hobby shop for $500.
They took down the video but here's a link to some stills.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...is-hotel-door/
Jon
Bought at a local hobby shop for $500.
They took down the video but here's a link to some stills.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...is-hotel-door/
Jon
Last edited by F106A; 07-25-2014 at 04:58 AM.
07-25-2014, 04:54 AM
#57
The AMA has a tradition of embracing new technology, that is a position I fully support, even when turbines came around. In the 50's the control line guys said the RC guys would ruin the hobby. Quad copters with cameras are here to stay, those that are AMA members and fly within the AMA safety code need to be called hobbyists and those that fly in city centers over people and others property need to be dealt with by local police. I'm sure that if some nut jobs were flying BVM turbine jets over New York city center that you guys here would be calling for a ban on turbines, you would say that those that follow the rules should be protected and those that don't need to be prosecuted. No doubt the easy access and easy flying qualities of the new multi rotor copters is a major contributor to this confusion, you can buy them anywhere. I'm just not the kind of guy to push the little guy in front of me when cornered by wolves, eventually it will be our turn, it's only a matter of time.
Luke
Luke
07-25-2014, 07:17 AM
#59
Moderator
The AMA is not associating itself with FPV because of profit. The AMA is associating itself with FPV because the RC community has embraced it. We have embraced it quite enthusiastically by spending our money on it, making multi rotors the top selling RC vehicles and FPV equipment a major segment of the market in a very short time. The AMA should be embracing this technology and style of doing RC because the AMA is meant to represent the interests of RC pilots. I'm a bit disappointed in the RC community for reacting so negatively against the multi rotor crowd. Aeromodeling used to be about innovation and embracing the newest techologies, developing some of them even. When the average age of the aeromodeler was lower, we were all about the new. Now, for many, it's all about tradition. None of the various dimensions of our hobby would have advanced like they have had we not been a forward thinking bunch in the 60's through the 80's. Need me to prove my point?
1. Aerobatics: In the early 70's, the Kaos was a top of the line performer at the national level. Making a perfectly round loop that didn't deviate its course was considered a significant accomplishment. Compare that to the high end pattern ships we have now along with the schedules they fly at Nats. Along with that, compare today's IMAC planes to what was available just 20 years ago. And don't get me started on how good the 3D planes are today, which didn't even exist in the 70's.
2. Helicopters: In the 80's, they were very hard to fly, expensive, and not terribly capable. Flying inverted was the pinnacle of performance. But that segment of the hobby has enthusiastically embraced new developments, and as a result one can have a fully 3D capable machine that is also extremely easy to fly.
3. Building techniques and finishes: If the current mentality in the aeromodeling community had existed back in the early 80's, we'd still be doing stick building and finishing our models with dope. Monokote would have never caught on because it was new then. I even still see guys complain about ARFs because they aren't "true aeromodeling" (whatever that means). Sure, I appreciate the artistry of a well built model with a painted finish, but the fact that it isn't necessary makes it possible for a lot more of us to fly and have a lot more models to fly.
I could continue, but I think the point is made. We need to be a forward thinking people who embrace new technologies as they become available. Yes, FPV and GPS controlled multirotors bring up a new set of difficulties that we haven't had before. But that's ok. Giant scale planes did too, as did RC and internal combustion engines when then first came out. Let the AMA work on this and like those mature technologies, the aeromodeling community will figure it out. For now though, we need to support the AMA's efforts to protect all forms of aeromodeling from regulation so that the potential good future these could bring won't be lost before we even get to see it.
1. Aerobatics: In the early 70's, the Kaos was a top of the line performer at the national level. Making a perfectly round loop that didn't deviate its course was considered a significant accomplishment. Compare that to the high end pattern ships we have now along with the schedules they fly at Nats. Along with that, compare today's IMAC planes to what was available just 20 years ago. And don't get me started on how good the 3D planes are today, which didn't even exist in the 70's.
2. Helicopters: In the 80's, they were very hard to fly, expensive, and not terribly capable. Flying inverted was the pinnacle of performance. But that segment of the hobby has enthusiastically embraced new developments, and as a result one can have a fully 3D capable machine that is also extremely easy to fly.
3. Building techniques and finishes: If the current mentality in the aeromodeling community had existed back in the early 80's, we'd still be doing stick building and finishing our models with dope. Monokote would have never caught on because it was new then. I even still see guys complain about ARFs because they aren't "true aeromodeling" (whatever that means). Sure, I appreciate the artistry of a well built model with a painted finish, but the fact that it isn't necessary makes it possible for a lot more of us to fly and have a lot more models to fly.
I could continue, but I think the point is made. We need to be a forward thinking people who embrace new technologies as they become available. Yes, FPV and GPS controlled multirotors bring up a new set of difficulties that we haven't had before. But that's ok. Giant scale planes did too, as did RC and internal combustion engines when then first came out. Let the AMA work on this and like those mature technologies, the aeromodeling community will figure it out. For now though, we need to support the AMA's efforts to protect all forms of aeromodeling from regulation so that the potential good future these could bring won't be lost before we even get to see it.
07-25-2014, 07:41 AM
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few months ago tehy kicked me out of a FB page about architectural landmarks. These morons were flying and filing using FPVs within one mile of a very busy airport, at 500' or more, right ON a VFR departure area. You could hear the airplanes passing by.
Remind me again, how are these morons in the same boat as us?
Remind me again, how are these morons in the same boat as us?
Last edited by SushiHunter; 07-25-2014 at 07:58 AM.
07-25-2014, 07:47 AM
#61
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So sorry guys but I couldn't disagree more with many of Mr Violett's thoughts. Too many to mention but here are just a few.
1.Drone, sUAS, model aircraft, flying missile (RC jet) etc etc. The name doesn't change the nature of the thing. Using names to villainize things or people is one of the oldest tactics in the book on argument, and one of the most easily disproved logical fallacies. This tactic is used all the time by unscrupulous marketing types in an effort to induce people to open their wallets. Also used by political activists as a cheap way of promoting their position. e.g. Abortion Rights vs Pro choice advocates.
2. IMO the AMA's position on FPV has been conservative, cautious and stepped so as to ensure that safety margins are maintained compared to those of VLOS flying.
3. Blaming the AMA for the actions of the outliers who do not fly within the constraints of the organizations guidance is simply wrong. The AMA has guidance for turbines yes? When someone with a turbine goes out and flies without regard for AMA's rules we do not blame the AMA. It makes no sense. We blame and pursue the offender. Now OTOH if the AMA is aware of violations and they do not act, we have a different problem and I agree we take steps to ensure compliance.
4. IMO we the citizens should do everything in our power to fight back against over bearing intrusions on our daily lives that do nothing to ensure the public safety. The FAA's recent "interpretation" Is one such intrusion that should be rejected in the strongest possible terms. I do not believe that the losing the battle on FPV will cause us to lose the hobby we all love. Congress has already mandated the FAA stay out and IMO the FAA is treading dangerously on so many toes including the recent attempt to harass a congressperson who had his wedding filmed for hire that a serious slap down from the public at large and congress in particular is close at hand. We also have the courts involved in this ongoing process.
5. Accepting the FAA's position on FPV while rejecting the commercial flying aspects is somewhat disingenuous especially given the nature of Mr Violett's business. I don't think there are any constitutional protections preventing the FAA from regulating commercial aviation. The federal government has been doing just this since 1926. The objections to their attempts to regulate and effectively eliminate the use of commercial sUAS since there are effectively no pathways to such legal activities if we accept the FAA's opinions on the matter should arise from the fact that they have steadfastly refused to even define what a sUAS is. Neither has the FAA made it's case that any sUAS that leaves the ground anywhere in the US and at any altitude can demonstrably show a threat to other users of the NAS. Commercial use of much of our nation's airspace at low altitudes should remain the domain of local authorities. This will require the FAA to very carefully consider with an eye towards defining limits how much of the atmosphere above the surface they really need to be involved in regulating. Claiming my backyard below 100 feet is not a reasonable answer that any of us should be willing to accept. This country already has too many unenforced laws protecting citizens privacy and we don't need the FAA involved in this area at all. FAR 91.11 and 121.580 already provide adequate protection against interference with manned aviation. These are the sections that IMO should be used to prosecute individuals that pose a threat. Not some silly attempt to suggest that a rubber band powered Guillows balsa plane must adhere to all elements of part 91 because it is after all an aircraft. Really?
6. The AMA has been a huge authority and large contributor to the safety of unmanned aviation for over 75 years. The fact is that until recently there has been an extremely limited commercial case for unmanned commercial flight. That has changed and I must ask you who is in a better position to advise and potentially partake in shaping this industry? The FAA with no interest in the costs of their rulemaking to the private sector? Mega corporations with an interest in creating virtual monopoly through excess regulation? Some boneheaded foreigner who has repeatedly and unrepentantly disrespected and endangered his host countries airspace? His attorney? Huge manned aviation advocates like the Airline Pilots Association who would just as soon ban all unmanned aircraft permanently from the skies? The military who till now have used unmanned aircraft largely for their war making utility over foreign soil and have no interest in the private sector? I for one applaud the AMA for their forward thinking on this matter including their decision to attend the AUVSI convention. As the times and technology change I'm encouraged that the AMA has taken a proactive stance. Still it is fundamentally a community based democracy and as such the membership should provide guidance to the parent body on whether or not they want their organization involved on a commercial level.
Mr Violett is a long time respected member of this community. Nevertheless his arguments on this matter fall short of the mark for me.
Steve Graham who has been a full scale pilot for 35 years and is a second generation commercial airline pilot for over 20 years with "skin in the game" concerned about the threat posed by unlimited use of FPV in the NAS but also an avid hobbyist who does not want the FAA involved beyond the very bare minimum necessary. Also, an individual who is greatly interested in the coming "age of unmanned aviation" and it's potential to contribute to our society and economy and does not want it regulated out of existence before it has a chance to get airborne simply because a federal safety agency has zero interest in the nations economy especially as evidenced by many of their recent rulemaking efforts directed at MY industry. This topic is of great complexity with associated potential benefits and costs. Drawing lines in the sand with ill considered rhetoric does no one any favors.
1.Drone, sUAS, model aircraft, flying missile (RC jet) etc etc. The name doesn't change the nature of the thing. Using names to villainize things or people is one of the oldest tactics in the book on argument, and one of the most easily disproved logical fallacies. This tactic is used all the time by unscrupulous marketing types in an effort to induce people to open their wallets. Also used by political activists as a cheap way of promoting their position. e.g. Abortion Rights vs Pro choice advocates.
2. IMO the AMA's position on FPV has been conservative, cautious and stepped so as to ensure that safety margins are maintained compared to those of VLOS flying.
3. Blaming the AMA for the actions of the outliers who do not fly within the constraints of the organizations guidance is simply wrong. The AMA has guidance for turbines yes? When someone with a turbine goes out and flies without regard for AMA's rules we do not blame the AMA. It makes no sense. We blame and pursue the offender. Now OTOH if the AMA is aware of violations and they do not act, we have a different problem and I agree we take steps to ensure compliance.
4. IMO we the citizens should do everything in our power to fight back against over bearing intrusions on our daily lives that do nothing to ensure the public safety. The FAA's recent "interpretation" Is one such intrusion that should be rejected in the strongest possible terms. I do not believe that the losing the battle on FPV will cause us to lose the hobby we all love. Congress has already mandated the FAA stay out and IMO the FAA is treading dangerously on so many toes including the recent attempt to harass a congressperson who had his wedding filmed for hire that a serious slap down from the public at large and congress in particular is close at hand. We also have the courts involved in this ongoing process.
5. Accepting the FAA's position on FPV while rejecting the commercial flying aspects is somewhat disingenuous especially given the nature of Mr Violett's business. I don't think there are any constitutional protections preventing the FAA from regulating commercial aviation. The federal government has been doing just this since 1926. The objections to their attempts to regulate and effectively eliminate the use of commercial sUAS since there are effectively no pathways to such legal activities if we accept the FAA's opinions on the matter should arise from the fact that they have steadfastly refused to even define what a sUAS is. Neither has the FAA made it's case that any sUAS that leaves the ground anywhere in the US and at any altitude can demonstrably show a threat to other users of the NAS. Commercial use of much of our nation's airspace at low altitudes should remain the domain of local authorities. This will require the FAA to very carefully consider with an eye towards defining limits how much of the atmosphere above the surface they really need to be involved in regulating. Claiming my backyard below 100 feet is not a reasonable answer that any of us should be willing to accept. This country already has too many unenforced laws protecting citizens privacy and we don't need the FAA involved in this area at all. FAR 91.11 and 121.580 already provide adequate protection against interference with manned aviation. These are the sections that IMO should be used to prosecute individuals that pose a threat. Not some silly attempt to suggest that a rubber band powered Guillows balsa plane must adhere to all elements of part 91 because it is after all an aircraft. Really?
6. The AMA has been a huge authority and large contributor to the safety of unmanned aviation for over 75 years. The fact is that until recently there has been an extremely limited commercial case for unmanned commercial flight. That has changed and I must ask you who is in a better position to advise and potentially partake in shaping this industry? The FAA with no interest in the costs of their rulemaking to the private sector? Mega corporations with an interest in creating virtual monopoly through excess regulation? Some boneheaded foreigner who has repeatedly and unrepentantly disrespected and endangered his host countries airspace? His attorney? Huge manned aviation advocates like the Airline Pilots Association who would just as soon ban all unmanned aircraft permanently from the skies? The military who till now have used unmanned aircraft largely for their war making utility over foreign soil and have no interest in the private sector? I for one applaud the AMA for their forward thinking on this matter including their decision to attend the AUVSI convention. As the times and technology change I'm encouraged that the AMA has taken a proactive stance. Still it is fundamentally a community based democracy and as such the membership should provide guidance to the parent body on whether or not they want their organization involved on a commercial level.
Mr Violett is a long time respected member of this community. Nevertheless his arguments on this matter fall short of the mark for me.
Steve Graham who has been a full scale pilot for 35 years and is a second generation commercial airline pilot for over 20 years with "skin in the game" concerned about the threat posed by unlimited use of FPV in the NAS but also an avid hobbyist who does not want the FAA involved beyond the very bare minimum necessary. Also, an individual who is greatly interested in the coming "age of unmanned aviation" and it's potential to contribute to our society and economy and does not want it regulated out of existence before it has a chance to get airborne simply because a federal safety agency has zero interest in the nations economy especially as evidenced by many of their recent rulemaking efforts directed at MY industry. This topic is of great complexity with associated potential benefits and costs. Drawing lines in the sand with ill considered rhetoric does no one any favors.
Last edited by mike1974; 07-25-2014 at 07:59 AM.
07-25-2014, 08:14 AM
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm so glad to see that at least one person on here gets it!!! Thank you sir for a breath of fresh air in this "back in my day" and "save us all from the drones" debate!! And I wish people on here would stop using the term "drone" unless the thing is armed and belongs to the military! And no, I do not fly FPV or have any equipment to do so. I have also been in this hobby for 26 years and would be considered a traditional RC enthusiast. Just tired of all the regulations that will do nothing! Less laws, less regulation and more personal accountability! Oh, and can someone please send me the link that shows someone flying FPV downed a manned aircraft? Didn't think so. /end rant
07-25-2014, 08:14 AM
#64
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly both FPV and line of sight. I use the same aircraft to fly FPV that I previously used to fly line of sight(in this case a foamy glider). It did not cease to be an rc model just because I put a camera on it. It did not suddenly turn into a dangerous missile because I can fly it from the cockpit view. It is still just a model,guided by a competent pilot via radio control......an rc model. I am a responsible modeler and hobbyist,AMA member for 10yrs,and I take offense to anyone claiming what I do is not rc modeling. Thankfully, I've only encountered such attitudes online,not out in the real world! And it has mostly been right here on this forum. I will continue to do my part to support my fellow modeler whether they enjoy planes,helis,multi-rotors,sailplanes,jets,giant scale,line of sight or FPV.
07-25-2014, 08:29 AM
#65
+1 luke. We have a guys flying FPV at our field and it's not a problem, the government is the problem. I remember when skateboarders were treated like criminals and kicked out of parks and playgrounds. Now they build parks just for them and call it an extreme sport. You will always have people pushing the limits and being a rebel in general regardless of the activity. Calling for an all out ban under the thin diguise of "it's just not safe" is plain ignorant. I see guys at my local fields violate AMA rules all the time and nobody says a word to them. There is a local jet field around me that has already pissed off the local neighbors by flying over their homes despite having all kinds of room in the other directions and they could very well loose their field soon over it. We need to push back on the FAA to set resonable guidelines for safe non commercial FPV use not calling for more us vs them mentality.
07-25-2014, 08:38 AM
#67
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Clifton,
NJ
Posts: 1,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike,
If a FPV had brought down a full scale, I can assure you we would not be having this discussion.
The FAA would've issued an emergency rule and banned any FPV flights.
Come on, you know what would/will be the FAA response.
It's these idiots who do all this stuff then post it on line to show off and brag about it.
If these are the future leaders, we're in way more trouble than I thought.
Jon
If a FPV had brought down a full scale, I can assure you we would not be having this discussion.
The FAA would've issued an emergency rule and banned any FPV flights.
Come on, you know what would/will be the FAA response.
It's these idiots who do all this stuff then post it on line to show off and brag about it.
If these are the future leaders, we're in way more trouble than I thought.
Jon
07-25-2014, 08:43 AM
#68
My Feedback: (211)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sun City,
AZ
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
funny.
I generally respect BVs position but disagree in this case. I believe that the issue will never be related to those that are operating underneath the rules set forth by AMA be it turbine, giant, fpv, park flyer, or whatever. The issue is with the fact that many of these newer class of machines, as we saw with park flyers, do not need the structure of a club training environment to fly. This means that they can easily be flown outside of and without knowledge of the AMA codes for the respective class. It is this issue that poses the greatest risk to us losing our current status within the FAA as we (read AMA) are at a loss to address.
I am curious, in the cases that have been presented in the media of "issues" with "drones" how many of them were actually AMA members? My suspicions would be that none of them are.
I generally respect BVs position but disagree in this case. I believe that the issue will never be related to those that are operating underneath the rules set forth by AMA be it turbine, giant, fpv, park flyer, or whatever. The issue is with the fact that many of these newer class of machines, as we saw with park flyers, do not need the structure of a club training environment to fly. This means that they can easily be flown outside of and without knowledge of the AMA codes for the respective class. It is this issue that poses the greatest risk to us losing our current status within the FAA as we (read AMA) are at a loss to address.
I am curious, in the cases that have been presented in the media of "issues" with "drones" how many of them were actually AMA members? My suspicions would be that none of them are.
07-25-2014, 08:52 AM
#69
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike,
If a FPV had brought down a full scale, I can assure you we would not be having this discussion.
The FAA would've issued an emergency rule and banned any FPV flights.
Come on, you know what would/will be the FAA response.
It's these idiots who do all this stuff then post it on line to show off and brag about it.
If these are the future leaders, we're in way more trouble than I thought.
Jon
If a FPV had brought down a full scale, I can assure you we would not be having this discussion.
The FAA would've issued an emergency rule and banned any FPV flights.
Come on, you know what would/will be the FAA response.
It's these idiots who do all this stuff then post it on line to show off and brag about it.
If these are the future leaders, we're in way more trouble than I thought.
Jon
I also apologize to everyone on these boards if I seem rude sometimes. It is not my intention. I am just the type of person that gets worked up more than I should sometimes. Also, I frquent sports message boards and they are BRUTAL compared to a forum lik this.
I'm really a nice guy. lol
07-25-2014, 08:57 AM
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question is, how many FPV guys actually belong to the AMA and abide by the rules? How many FPV guys do ALL their flying at a designated r/c field? Problem is too many who buy drones and fly FPV do not have an AMA membership, is not a member of a designated r/c field and do not fly with safety as their first and most important priority. Why? Because all these things are not fun. It's not fun paying membership dues to the AMA and local r/c field. And it's not fun flying FPV over empty lots where there are no houses. They don't want to record video of flying a drone over dirt, rocks and weeds. That wouldn't be any fun to watch on their youtube channel. They want to fly around land marks, crowds of people, houses, buildings, swimming pools, busy highways, etc. etc.
07-25-2014, 09:06 AM
#71
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question is, how many FPV guys actually belong to the AMA and abide by the rules? How many FPV guys do ALL their flying at a designated r/c field? Problem is too many who buy drones and fly FPV do not have an AMA membership, is not a member of a designated r/c field and do not fly with safety as their first and most important priority. Why? Because all these things are not fun. It's not fun paying membership dues to the AMA and local r/c field. And it's not fun flying FPV over empty lots where there are no houses. They don't want to record video of flying a drone over dirt, rocks and weeds. That wouldn't be any fun to watch on their youtube channel. They want to fly around land marks, crowds of people, houses, buildings, swimming pools, busy highways, etc. etc.
You guys read what I think a drone is, but the way it is being used on here, any aircraft is a drone. Isn't media sensationalizm great! Even amongst ourselves in this niche hobby we are calling our own aircrafts drones. Just what they want.
If I strap an old phone to my .40 Piper Cub, hit record and take off am I now a drone? What the h3ll is a drone??? This is why I classifly a drone as an armed, unmanned military aircraft. Anything else is not a drone in my eyes.
Last edited by mike1974; 07-25-2014 at 09:12 AM.
07-25-2014, 09:21 AM
#73
My Feedback: (36)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Meridian, ID
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So While I agree with some of the points taken, as an Air Traffic Controller, I don't want the possibility of a mid-air that I "approved" to be a remote possibility. So I would not approve the flight within my jurisdiction. What the FAA, and most folks here don't know or realize is, the vast majority of airspace over the Continental US below 1200' is considered uncontrolled airspace, unless it is within 6 miles of a Tower controlled airport(depends on the airport), Uncontrolled airports, come under what ever airspace they are in. So I don't think the FAA has even looked at that. I can fly a manned ultralight aircraft at 500' and don't have to talk to a soul. Now, I have to maintain 1000' away/above any man made obstacle, home etc, as long as that airspace is uncontrolled, no one cares.
The other thing I want to know, where is the FCC in this? Most people don't realize that a vast majority of frequencies like 1.2, 1.3, 2.4 ghz are actually in the HAM bands!
Anything over 100mw requires a tech license. I have seen several folks using 200+mw transmitters they buy online. Folks..that is a $10,000 fine!! Why are they not banning the sale/importation without a HAM license? We used to police the HAM frequency RC Radios a few years ago, when you bought one, you had to fill out your HAM license info in order for the sale to proceed.
Back in the 80's the FAA required all aircraft owners to run out and buy Altitude Encoding Transponders, why can't they require drones to have AMA license to fly? Why can't they regulate the importation of the parts to require a license like a HAM?
While I am not a fan of big gov by any stretch, I do think there are some legit ways we can coral and herd the cats we have released in this matter.
The other thing I want to know, where is the FCC in this? Most people don't realize that a vast majority of frequencies like 1.2, 1.3, 2.4 ghz are actually in the HAM bands!
Anything over 100mw requires a tech license. I have seen several folks using 200+mw transmitters they buy online. Folks..that is a $10,000 fine!! Why are they not banning the sale/importation without a HAM license? We used to police the HAM frequency RC Radios a few years ago, when you bought one, you had to fill out your HAM license info in order for the sale to proceed.
Back in the 80's the FAA required all aircraft owners to run out and buy Altitude Encoding Transponders, why can't they require drones to have AMA license to fly? Why can't they regulate the importation of the parts to require a license like a HAM?
While I am not a fan of big gov by any stretch, I do think there are some legit ways we can coral and herd the cats we have released in this matter.
07-25-2014, 09:22 AM
#74
"There is a local jet field around me that has already pissed off the local neighbors by flying over their homes despite having all kinds of room in the other directions and they could very well loose their field soon over it."
Firstly, we are not a "jet field". We welcome all types of rc models, all the time, except at jet events, twice a year. Secondly, we are not about to "loose", or even lose our field at all. Please stop posting straight up lies about a topic that you clearly have no clue about. Come and see me at the jet rally next week, and I'd be glad to have a face to face with you about it, and tell you what I think of you, because I can't do that here. Truly lame and pitiful post.
Erik
Firstly, we are not a "jet field". We welcome all types of rc models, all the time, except at jet events, twice a year. Secondly, we are not about to "loose", or even lose our field at all. Please stop posting straight up lies about a topic that you clearly have no clue about. Come and see me at the jet rally next week, and I'd be glad to have a face to face with you about it, and tell you what I think of you, because I can't do that here. Truly lame and pitiful post.
Erik
07-25-2014, 09:24 AM
#75
You have to ask yourself...How did we get to this point? Not just with this issue, but with so many issues that are handled by government. As respectful citizens of our government and laws, we all lobbied our elected Congressmen to enact the special rule for model aircraft and now we have to fight the fight all over again with another layer of unelected government. The FAA interpretation, like so many interpretations, has been carefully written by FAA attorneys so that the interpretation leaves open the legal avenue for the FAA to exercise fiat power at will over our model aircraft...soon to read Drone Aircraft. The national media follows an agenda of sensationalism before nationalism and zealous bureaucrats manipulate this position to the detriment of individual rights and privileges. This is what has become institutionalized suppression of civil liberties. The divide and regulate phase currently under way...is primarily focused on FPV, flying fields close to airports, and all commercial activity as defined by the FAA. Once these issues have been codified into Federal law then the next group of items will be raised and the process will repeat itself. Potential subjects might include Jet Drones (BVM products) Heavy Lift Drones (anything over 10 pounds) ect, you get the idea. They will institute a certification program and coordinate with other government agencies (police, IRS, ect) to insure that you are properly licensed (taxed) all so you can enjoy the privilege of flying model aircraft and they can justify their employment. Is it really all needed? Really needed? I would argue no. FPV will only be enforceable in a police state. The components to make an FPV are too widely distributed and inexpensive. China is a police state, and they have the highest density of FPV and FPV operators on earth. Just because they don't post to FB (they aren't stupid) doesn't mean they aren't flying. The FAA has done a pretty good job in the past with regard to airspace. I just hope this new generation of Feds are smart enough to met the current challenge without using some generic, blanket regulation that strips law abiding citizens of use.