ira d

+ 1

SushiHunter

Exactly.

The use of the word "Drone" is not restricted to describe only "armed, unmanned military aircraft". Perhaps the root cause of the issue here is some people first heard the word "Drone" when it was referenced during news reporting on military equipment and activities, thus they only associate the word with such dialog.

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What you described, to me, is an RC aircraft (read: hobby) being flown FPV. A "drone" to me is an armed, unmanned, military aircraft (read: can kill people and blow s$$t up). It's pretty simple. Not trying to argue, this is just how I view the difference.

VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

+1 to Andy on his definition.

Sluggo

AndyAndrews

The problem with your definition is that these FPV's can cause real issues with full scale aviation (which can kill people) and restricted airspace. Call it what you want. The FAA considers them drones. Plus any of these FPV units could be easily weaponized allowing the operator to virtually be un-detected. That isn't as easy with a line of sight model.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Not many. like almost zero

zero

You got it. FPV is a different hobby, basically. And it is about to be swept up with UAS regulations. To think otherwise demonstrates naivete, IMHO.

I would prefer not to be swept up with it. I fly FPV and I think by the end of the year there will be rules that will let you get a license and fly. It will be within LOS, below 400 feet, etc. Now how many of these Youtube cowboys will follow those rules? Time will tell.

The commercial and congressional clamoring for approved commercial UAS is deafening. To the casual observer (and said observers Congressional representatives), the proposed typical sUAS mission will be virtually indistinguishable from a hobby guy flying an FPV quadcopter. That guy is going to get regulated out of existence because of the commercial interests, plain and simple. Their is NO WAY the AMA will stop that, they are like a bug on the windshield.


Of course this is just my opinion. I hope I am wrong but I don't think I am

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

I believe that the AMA's heart is in the right place. They feel they need to court FPV/Mulitrotor flyers as it is a very large and rapidly growing market. Dave Mathewson has made his position clear. To paraphrase him: “If the AMA fails to embrace this new technology it will be at the AMA’s peril”

IMHO this is much like the big jump we saw in foamy park flyer numbers starting a few years ago. The AMA’s (perceived) challenge was the same, we just HAD to get these guys into the AMA. The AMA came up with the Park Flyer program, a dismal (and costly) failure. Again, their heart was in the right place, but still an abject failure. Most park flyers had no intention of joining AMA or flying at a club field. They could fly most anywhere, and their stuff posed little risk. For them, there was little perceived benefit to joining the AMA. In the end, as much as the AMA hates to admit it, the only value they offered Park Flyers was the insurance. Park Flyer types do not place as much value on that insurance as a lot of us do. Nothing wrong with that, it is just a fact. Look at my 1.5 ounce Ultra Micro Radian foamy (enormous fun BTW) vs my 22 pound P-180 powered Super Bandit. They are both radio control and fly in the atmosphere, but the similarity ends there.

Now we come to today. AMA thinks they can bring FPV flyers into the fold. I fly FPV, I own the equipment and I know the people and technology. No one joined the AMA before this FAA announcement. Not one. They see no value (same as the Park Flyers did not see any value). To the FPV'er, the $58 dollars for AMA membership is quickly converted to equivalent gear. "Let’s see how many motor/ESC is that? I can by a 600 mw5.8 GHz transmitter for that.. " etc etc.

They can fly anywhere and they don't care about the risk/insurance (or they would not be doing what they are doing in the first place). They are in a completely different hobby.

I believe the AMA will effectively "go broke" chasing this FPV dream. I said this before (during the Park Flyer Program debacle) and I will say it again. They need to cut costs in Muncie, not drive them up. Our demographics are working against us and we need to have a sustainable AMA insurance program into the future, even with reduced enrollment (with our aging membership). IMHO this whole FPV thing had been a fool’s errand. When the AMA started “negotiating” with the FAA back in 2005, the AMA position was “Model Aircraft = Line of Sight”….period. Look where we are now. FAA is a juggernaut on UAS (and FPV by extension) and the only issue is how much time, effort and money the AMA wastes before figuring this out.

I agree with BV, I was in the AUVSI (professional UAV organization) and I have gone to that show he mentions (we even shared a booth with him one year). I am sure the AMA spent 5 grand sending 2 people to that (MINIMUM). For what? Blowing our AMA treasure on this fantasy of grabbing the UAV/FPV tiger by the tail is delusional and a waste of resources.

The dream of the AMA "leveraging" the sUAS process and getting another ½ million AMA members, or “licensing” our CBO rules is dead.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

I don't blame you. And thanks for posting. I guess everyone has their hot button on this FAA interpretation/ruling and this is mine.

If you have to get agreement from a airport to fly, why would they ever agree?

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

OK guys, I am really not trying to argue. Call it whatever you want, define it however you want. The bottom line is that none of these laws/regulations are going to mean anything to most people. The only people who will suffer will be the people who would or are flying responsibly to begin with. I really have no stake in this game; at least not at the moment. As I stated earlier, I live in the middle of nowhere, with plenty of private land to fly on, a club field in the middle of nowhere, no airports around and no cities of any size close by. I just hate all the laws/regulations that poeple think will "fix" this problem when the problem is rogue, stupid pilots.

Let's ban guns, cause that will keep them away from all the criminals, right? Same argument to me.

TimJ

Lets get this strait, because the "jet god" Bob Violet says UAV's are the problem in our hobby, is just another "Old Guy" hating on an aspect of our hobby. Much like people at many fields across the nation hate on "Jet Guys".

Listen, the FPV mode is NOT the issue here guys. The ISSUE here is the general public that are not educated about safe model aircraft operation or they just don't care. And frankly Multi-rotor aircraft is what is keeping your local hobby shops alive right now............

Bob is right is some aspects of his letter, but I don't agree on turning your back on FPV flight because of a very select few people that have decided to fly their equipment unsafely.

SushiHunter

Just so I understand, when was AMA trying to go after the foam park flyers to join?

I think a few of the big reasons AMA is starting to get interested in FPV operators and their a/c is 1) Most very sophisticated drones are over the two pounds limit, 2) instances have arose where FPV drones have been spotted by commercial pilots operating close to or within airport approach patterns, 3) technology growth has provided a wide range of usage of such drones. FAA could place pressure on AMA because when considering 1, 2, and 3, there has to be accountability. When someone bypasses AMA membership and the rules, they have removed themselves from the liability aspect of it, not technically however. But if they are not an active AMA member, they don't have a AMA number. AMA members need to put there number on the aircraft inside or outside the a/c. Flying a drone weighing over two pounds, if it crashes and causes damage or injury/death, the AMA won't cover the insurance claim because the person flying wasn't doing so within a designated r/c space/airfield. I personally know a guy who's a friend of mine and a number of months back a drone crashed on his property. He brought the drone to me since I'm into r/c to have a look see and there was absolutely no personal identification anywhere on the drone, both internally or externally. Had this thing started a fire, damaged his property, hurt or even killed someone, the owner would have been like Kramer when the rickshaw went down the hill out of control with Newman onboard.

Times have changed and the world has changed over the past several years now. Foam park flyers are completely different from what we've got going on today in the r/c world.. Not only is the technology out there, but if someone really wanted to utilize such technologies for use outside the scope of being an AMA member and joining their local r/c flying club to have fun flying these things, they very easily could. But this is the way it is with everything. Forth of July used to be fun also, until too many morons came along and ruined it for everyone by utilizing fireworks outside the scope of simply celebrating the holiday in a designated area that was safe. Same goes with r/c.

And below are just a few issues that have arose from drone misusage, which I'm sure the FAA is becoming more interested and in turn putting pressure on AMA about it. My guess is if the AMA fails to control this issue, the FAA will step in and... it won't be pretty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZsUL6kzdps

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR-LRPGwUKI

TimJ

Here is some food for though guys. Some of you may be old enough to remember this ( I am not) but the FAA tried to outlaw general aviation all together I think in the late 60's early 70's. The FAA also tried to attack the model community in the 80's. Both times the FAA has lost.

So I ask: What if this is a power trip by the FAA to over regulate our hobby out of existence? Asking that simple question and looking back at the history of the FAA, one has to wonder. So along that thought process, instead of pointing fingers and saying all will be good if we turn our backs on FPV, is just plain selfish.

We all need to band together to fight the government (FAA) to keep them from taking away one of our liberties. Quit the infighting and blaming certain modes of flight. Don't give the FAA anymore ammo. The battle should not be with ourselves in trying to figure out if the FAA will leave us alone if we toss FPV under the bus just so that we can keep flying warbirds, Helis or IMAC.

Lets face it guys, we ALL know our liberties are under attack everyday. This is not a time to compromise with the FAA saying "Oh will you let us keep flying if we ban FPV". That is complete rubbish. We need to flight to keep it ALL!

dbsonic

My Feedback: (3)

FAA and AMA have had negotiations in the past. Here is some history I found on AC 91-57 that I found interesting:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1347138

ira d

Even though the AMA approves of FPV operations they still only approve of Line of sight operations. So If you think of it using common sense
there is no difference between flying FPV within line of sight than any other model.

When it comes to rouge flyers there is nothing the AMA can do about them at all. But as I said the FAA needs to come up with some rules
and a permit system for those that don't fly at a rc site and if someone is seen flying outside of a rc site unless on their own property or
in a unsafe manner any peace officer could ask for their permit and or site them on the spot.

dionysusbacchus

My Feedback: (25)

Exactly, I think what the FAA is doing is brilliant, it's an old tactic called divide and conquer, I can't believe how fast people turn on one another once big brother makes them feel a little uncomfortable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsaWC5-eJ2E

Chris Nicastro

My Feedback: (3)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oqwwrG...ature=youtu.be

here is a prime example of what the FAA is looking at and why we will lose our priveledge. It looks awesome, no argument there, and its pretty impressive anyone could by this set up and go fly but whats next?

In my opinion this model type should be banned from retail sales and sold only to qualified professionals. All thats needed now is for some guy to fly too close to an airport or military base and then this all becomes pretty academic. They will shut it all down.

All of the main outlets like Tower and Horizon should take responsibility and stop sales of these products. I know that sounds ridiculous but whats better? Lose a profitable product segment or lose the whole Air RC division?

jester_s1

Guys, the FAA doesn't care enough about model aircraft to regulate us out of existence. Even if you believe that there are evil neo-Nazi liberal hippie communist dictators running the outfit who were abused as children and therefore can't stand to see anyone have any fun, what would be the value in attacking us? We don't present much of a financial benefit one way or another, and we aren't a big enough group to make much of a public impression one way or another. I guess you could make a case that they are shaking down the AMA for bribes, er, fees, or thinking of putting a pointless licensing requirement on the hobby in order to extract money from us. But even then, it's hardly worth it given our numbers.

So what's the far more likely scenario is that the FAA leadership is just trying to do it's job. There's no particular desire to piss us off, nor much of a concern if they do. They just want to do what they've always done, and that's keep the airspace safe. Traditionally, they've erred on the side of caution, driving up the cost of aviation but also improving its safety dramatically since the early days. They've also generally allowed as much common sense leeway as they could for pilots to enjoy their planes or make a living off of them. I think they'll continue to do that with our situation too.

As for how that works out, I think we'll see regulations along the lines of not flying any model aircraft near occupied structures, over people, within 5 miles of an airport, or near valuable buildings or property. I don't think any of us traditional aeromodelers would object to those laws since we've abided by those rules for decades, but quite a few of the FPV and multi rotor crowd will. The only thing that those rules will change is to create the ability to prosecute RC pilots that flagrantly violate common sense safety standards. As it is now, if you hover a quad over a crowd at a concert you're only guilty of unauthorized photography and maybe, at most, reckless endangerment of people. The first is a civil matter, and the second is a very fuzzy judgment call. That is, of course, until the moron doing it crashes and hurts somebody. With the regulations stated above though, there will be a black and white crime being committed the second the pilot leaves the ground, making it much easier for police to stop him and to prosecute those who fly with no regard for other's safety and privacy.

DrYankum

My Feedback: (11)

[QUOTE=TimJ;11848503]Here is some food for though guys. Some of you may be old enough to remember this ( I am not) but the FAA tried to outlaw general aviation all together I think in the late 60's early 70's. The FAA also tried to attack the model community in the 80's. Both times the FAA has lost.

Where are your references for that statement? I am old enough to remember, and during that time the FCC expanded our frequency allotments on 72, general aviation exploded with use, and the FAA did not threaten our hobby

cloudancer03

My Feedback: (22)

In this day and age I never thought I could lose a hobby that I have loved for the past 38 years but the technology of using for and quad copter appears to be doing just that.i am not trying to throw for under a bus.in fact when a couple of members brought it to the field several years back I enjoyed seeing what they could do.today the lines between what is rc modeling and come received are getting blurred.in a good way the am a is trying to embrace for vehicles into the membership.but with technology advancing exponentially and the opportunities for commerical uses becoming reality one has to ask whether or not it's really a hobby.flying a small fpv around the flying site even equipped with a go pro cam is no big deal.i get it.but when it travels at high altitudes and several miles beyond line of site and compensation is made for doing so , is it a rc hobby ? I have conflicts with it.i feel it's counter to the goals or preface of rc

Bob violets comments to Bob brown at am a were extremely valid.i know that these vehicles can do a world of good and it's regret able there are rogues defying any common sense with respect to privacy and trepassing.adding laws and regulations will never work with that mentality


Everyone who cares about rc whether or not you fly planes, race rc cars, race boats or fly helis needs to chime in both to am a and local government officials.tell them how you feel.what rc modelling means to you.sadly the media looks at all of us as drones.how sad is that!

cloudancer03

My Feedback: (22)

Sorry my tab won't type fpv it just says for sorry

AndyAndrews

The problem with that argument is that we have a 2nd Amendment right to own guns in the Constitution of the United States. There is no constitutional RIGHT to fly drones in controlled USA airspace. You're going to have to try harder to find a useful analogy to your argument.

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

Let's keep the guns! I've got a 12-guage loaded with goose shot I plan on using on the first drone I see taking pictures of my house.......

DISCUS54

My Feedback: (211)

I think the point was made...laws only work to the law abiding. The social media FPV group don't belong to the AMA or fly at a club field because its...boring, expensive, and safe! So why does the FAA need to restrict FPV to LOS if operated from and within the club field enviornment or a sparsely populated location? They don't, it is simply an overreach of what is needed. Like sticking a bandaid on a mosquito bite. Same can be said for their interpretation within 5 miles of ANY airport. I would go along with Class B, C and D airspace but its not needed for Class E. Its not that we don't need some regulation here, but the FAA wants more than what is needed. FPV is a great technology, and its here to stay whether we like it or not...yes it needs to be controlled and the abusers held accountable. Might be a little myopic to suggest that FPV is not part of RC because its a technology that you don't personally use or make products for. Should Commercial FPV operators be licensed? Sure. While I am disappointed with the FAA's posturing on the special rule, I am encouraged to see the comment period extended...please be sure to let them know your concerns.

Hydro Junkie

And that is exactly when we will see the AMA, FAA, NRA, local law enforcement and local government actually look for a solution because that's going to be the result of someone flying over a home with a gun toting privacy advocate. Obviously, the police will be called due to the firing of a weapon and the owner of the aircraft will file a complaint over the downing of his aircraft that he was flying over said home that he couldn't see except through his camera and everything will end up in court. Now the question is "Who is in the wrong?" Was it the guy flying the aircraft or the guy who shot it down with birdshot? And what about the guy that flew a motor glider through downtown NYC from Liberty Island a few years back or the guy that was doing circles around the Space Needle and some the hotel towers in Seattle? Within a few blocks of the Space Needle are three television stations and a couple of hospitals with licensed helicopter pads on their roofs. Just think what could happen if a full sized helicopter was landing with a critical patient on the hospital roof and was hit in the rotor by a FPV being flown from the other side of the hill. The full sized chopper has a hard or crash landing on top of the hospital. The crew, patient and hospital staff ready and waiting are injured by the possibly uncontrolled landing or flying parts of the quad/camera from being hit by a rotor or parts of the full sized rotor itself. Let's scale this back a bit, same thing happens to one of the television station choppers as they are hovering over a news story or reporting on afternoon traffic issues.............. Anyone besides me see the implications in all of this?

DISCUS54

My Feedback: (211)

You missed the large meteor hurtling towards earth.