Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Jets
Reload this Page >

BV's letters to AMA and FAA

Notices
RC Jets Discuss RC jets in this forum plus rc turbines and ducted fan power systems

BV's letters to AMA and FAA

Old 07-26-2014, 10:14 AM
  #101  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,523
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

NO, I didn't. I'm taking one hypothetical situation, shooting down a quad by a homeowner as suggested by Lifer, and talking about two very real events and what the possible ramifications COULD be.
Being from western Washington, I'm very familiar with the Seattle area. Within a mile of the Space Needle are Harbor View Medical Center, Swedish Medical Center, and a VA Hospital, all with landing pads on the roofs and all accepting "Life Flight" air ambulance services routinely. There are also TV stations KOMO(Air 4), KING(jointly uses Air 4), and KIRO(Chopper 7). KIRO's studio is literally less than a 5 minute walk while KOMO IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM SEATTLE CENTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To make things worse, this area is also directly under the northern approach path to both Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and King County International Airport(also called Boeing Field). With KCIA less than two miles away, planes taking off or landing there, altitudes of less than 2000 feet are very common. A FPV flying around with an operator not caring about the implications could be disastrous, not only to a plane from KCIA or one of the news choppers but to those on the ground that might be caught up in the possible crash. This very thing happened back on March 18, when a KOMO rented helicopter crashed just after take off. The helicopter landed on top of someone's vehicle, sending the driver to the hospital. The pilot and cameraman both died in the crash. While this is still under investigation, just think about what the results could be to modelers if it was determined to be FPV related.

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 07-26-2014 at 10:20 AM.
Old 07-26-2014, 10:48 AM
  #102  
cfircav8r
My Feedback: (1)
 
cfircav8r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hampton, IA
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

There is no reason that, aside from the LOS rule, that model flying should be any more restrictive than ultralights. They carry no passengers and are well below the size and weight of an ultralight. Speed is the only factor that can be beyond an ultralight and those could be handled as jets are today. Just as with FS you can have a safety pilot when not flying visual (meaning LOS) IE under the hood. As long as the safety pilot is capable and rated (if required) and has a set of controls (buddy box) it should be legal to fly FPV just as FS flys "under the hood." Just an FYI the Seattle incident would have been illegal if the pilot were, instead, in an ultralight filming the Space Needle. So basically class B and C airspace restriction would be the biggest change, but that is a far cry better than what they are proposing now. As far as commercial, just require formal training and licensing and specifc rules to allow specialized uses more suited to commercial enterprises. You want to be able to use it privately the same as the "pros" go through the training and licensing and have at it.
Old 07-26-2014, 11:16 AM
  #103  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,523
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Cfircav8r, I wasn't looking at legal or not in my last two posts. As of now, as you stated, there are no rules or laws against flying a FPV in an area where landing pads and high rise buildings are in close proximity. My issue has to do with the fact that, to fly around the Space Needle and then around high rise hotels is not only inherently unsafe to the people on the ground, it's also downright dangerous for the licensed news helicopters that are taking off and landing literally only yards away from the Space Needle. The fact that this person's "flight" was reported on a national morning news show makes it that much more of an issue that the AMA, FAA and local government must address before someone causes a major incident and people do get killed because of it.
Old 07-26-2014, 01:09 PM
  #104  
cfircav8r
My Feedback: (1)
 
cfircav8r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hampton, IA
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

My response was directed more at the main topic than your posts, however my response would deal with your scenarios as well.
Old 07-26-2014, 01:37 PM
  #105  
dasintex
My Feedback: (10)
 
dasintex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Displaced Canadian in Central Texas TX
Posts: 2,601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I made a revised revision see s few posts down! thanks.

Last edited by dasintex; 07-26-2014 at 05:01 PM.
Old 07-26-2014, 03:15 PM
  #106  
jetmaven
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fl.
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

It's funny how this works , I've been an AMA member since the '70s and felt compelled for some reason ,after all those years ,to send a message to the editor of Model Aviation just last night about what trash the magazine has turned into . I understand its about advertising revenue but they've lost sight of the mission . ( unless mission- creep has migrated to foam and quad copters or whatever they're called )
Time for the AMA to do a rethink . Bob is just stating the obvious .
Old 07-26-2014, 04:59 PM
  #107  
dasintex
My Feedback: (10)
 
dasintex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Displaced Canadian in Central Texas TX
Posts: 2,601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Back to the Subject of the original posting that being Bob Violett's letter to the AMA; in reading the letter, Bob asks the AMA why they attended the 'AUVSI' Convention, spending AMA Member's dollars; when in my opinion, a large number of AMA Members do not support sUAS or FPV; and this has been shown to be the case.

At a recent AMA Executive Council Meeting on July 19, a proposal was made that Headquarters continue with the small UAS program and allocate $250,000 over 18 months for implementation.

Here is the link to those meeting minutes; scroll down to 'Motion V':

http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutam...ecmotions.aspx

It narrowly passed 7 to 6; please note what Districts that voted 'NO'; III, V, VII, VIII, X and XI.

Which means, the AMA is willing to spend $250,000 of Membership money to support something that could be detrimental to the existance of our Hobby, huh, am I missing something here?

So depending in what District you live in, you can see what side of the fence your District VP sits on!

I am appreciative that my VP voted correctly!
Old 07-26-2014, 05:16 PM
  #108  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,523
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

How can it be passed 7-6 when there are only 11 districts? That must mean that two people get to vote "ad hoc", otherwise the motion goes down 6-5. What I see as interesting is that the 6 areas that said no include 28 states as well and Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. The states that were listed as yes votes include all of New England and the Atlantic coast states south through North Carolina, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas. Interesting that most of the Great Lakes states, all of the deep south and west said no. Here's a link to the AMA district map for those that want to look:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutam...rictlinks.aspx

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 07-26-2014 at 05:19 PM.
Old 07-26-2014, 05:59 PM
  #109  
dasintex
My Feedback: (10)
 
dasintex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Displaced Canadian in Central Texas TX
Posts: 2,601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

11 Districts: I through XI; AMA President casts a vote and Exercutive VP Gary Fitch casts a vote, there's your 13 Votes, 7 were for and 6 were against!

Last edited by dasintex; 07-26-2014 at 06:04 PM.
Old 07-26-2014, 07:17 PM
  #110  
jester_s1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 7,266
Received 35 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

It was the right decision. Whether you are a fan of FPV or not, it is here to stay. So AMA can develop a program for it and a set of safety regulations to push, or it can completely lose control of that segment of the hobby by throwing it under the bus for the FAA to over regulate. I don't fly FPV, but I think it's a neat new thing to get into. I want people to be able to do it within reasonable safety limits. And yes, I think that if those limits are developed that most FPV flyers will abide by them. It's not so hard to get traditional modelers to abide by common sense safety regulations, so I don't see why it would be so hard to get the FPV crowd to also.
Old 07-26-2014, 08:58 PM
  #111  
speed is life
 
speed is life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Redstone, CO, USA
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

New model industry and AMA cash flow? FPV & "DRONES"

I'm not a fan of this, the AMA ought to distance itself, I fully agree with the "Bob Violet Letter" to AMA.
And the use if the word "drone"? Well the horses are already out of the barn and AMA can't bring them back.

To wit; the attached pics of an advert from the latest Model Airplane News sister publication.

Seems to me that FPV/quad/drone appeals more to all the non-modeler non-model airplane types that have minimal to NO appreciation or attachment for our hobby and likely have never even HEARD of the FAA.

My opinion? AMA is dazzled by FPV $$$ and is groveling at the altar of ephemeral "membership numbers". The AMA poobahs that run the outfit are hopelessly lost and don't care about the grassroots real RC fixed wing and jet modelers concerns. AMA has essentially become a smaller version of AARP..... an old boys insurance company with a semi-plausable public agenda and advocacy/safety mission.
Well, I carry plenty of personal insurance, were it not for the necessity of being an AMA member to fly at events I likely would not even bother with them.


AMA needs to spin this FPV/UAV/Drone bunch off corporate style into a CBO I will call "ADHD" the "Academy of Drone & Headgoggle Dudes", to be affiliated with Fast & Furious RC Buggy Racing....... Let them have to deal with the Feds.


- Mike
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	63
Size:	399.5 KB
ID:	2017625   Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	73
Size:	193.4 KB
ID:	2017626  

Last edited by speed is life; 07-26-2014 at 09:01 PM.
Old 07-26-2014, 09:45 PM
  #112  
jester_s1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 7,266
Received 35 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

It's definitely a different kind of RC hobby, but I see lots of overlap too. I'm primarily a fixed wing aerobatics flyer, but I plan to get a hexcopter before long. And yes, I want to have an FPV setup on it. I'll abide by the AMA guidelines, and I won't do anything to endanger the hobby with it. I like seeing the articles about these vehicles in the Model Aviation magazine, and I like seeing them at the flying field occasionally.
Old 07-26-2014, 10:04 PM
  #113  
ronnie1952
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I find Bob to be right on the money. FPV flying out of line of sight will be our down fall.
Old 07-27-2014, 07:59 AM
  #114  
cfircav8r
My Feedback: (1)
 
cfircav8r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hampton, IA
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Yes beyond line of sight (BLOS) is not a good idea, however the decision that the operator of the controls has to have unassisted LOS is absurd. Full scale has a similar situation and a legal means of dealing with it. If I am learning IFR (instrument flight rules) and want to get some practice without paying an instructor I can have a safety pilot on board. The safety pilot has to have a set of controls (buddy box) and be at least a private pilot rated in the aircraft being flown (for FPV this would be a safety pilot next to you with LOS). So the FAA says you can fly VFR solely by reference to instruments (no outside visual reference including looking for traffic) if you have a safety pilot, yet they say you can't fly FPV even with a safety pilot. This in my opinion is descrimination.
Old 07-27-2014, 08:19 AM
  #115  
AndyAndrews
 
AndyAndrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 6,147
Received 8 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cfircav8r
Yes beyond line of sight (BLOS) is not a good idea, however the decision that the operator of the controls has to have unassisted LOS is absurd. Full scale has a similar situation and a legal means of dealing with it. If I am learning IFR (instrument flight rules) and want to get some practice without paying an instructor I can have a safety pilot on board. The safety pilot has to have a set of controls (buddy box) and be at least a private pilot rated in the aircraft being flown (for FPV this would be a safety pilot next to you with LOS). So the FAA says you can fly VFR solely by reference to instruments (no outside visual reference including looking for traffic) if you have a safety pilot, yet they say you can't fly FPV even with a safety pilot. This in my opinion is descrimination.
Hey take it up with the FAA and don't lump us in with your FPV issues. We simply want to be left alone like we have been from the FAA for almost 100 years.
Old 07-27-2014, 09:30 AM
  #116  
chris923
My Feedback: (53)
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: milwaukee, WI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The AMA can't regulate none AMA members who fly planes and Helis in crowded parks and out in " poor flying venues" were the chances of the general public being injured greater then at a AMA club site.
How will they be able to regulate UAV/FPV/BLOS fliers, some of which have already put a "bad" spot light that shines on all fliers?

The answer is the AMA can't and won't be able to. And when the FAA figures that out, the AMA will cease to exist and the FAA will be the sole arbiter of all RC flying!

Last edited by chris923; 07-27-2014 at 09:33 AM.
Old 07-27-2014, 09:58 AM
  #117  
cloudancer03
My Feedback: (22)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: palm harbor, FL
Posts: 2,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I don't see the fpv future as a hobby.its largely going commerical.sure there are park style quads and likely just another for of flying within limits.but when you build a vehicle that can be remotely controlled at high altitudes and long distances and that it has commerical purposes it's not a hobby.It's a technology that has wide opportunities to really be helpful.the rogues sadly cause the prop.had damage for all aspects of this great hobby.i think am a is going to be way over their head if not already and needs to separate itself from this mess.I am hoping that our line of sight hobby as we know it currently remains largely in tact.the music outer issues will eventually get worked out.personally with the way it's going I feel they should become licensed as a commerical remote unmanned vehicle and be regulated.
Old 07-27-2014, 10:22 AM
  #118  
cfircav8r
My Feedback: (1)
 
cfircav8r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hampton, IA
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by AndyAndrews
Hey take it up with the FAA and don't lump us in with your FPV issues. We simply want to be left alone like we have been from the FAA for almost 100 years.
First off I don't have FPV issues, I don't ever plan on doing it. Second this is more about overstepping their authority. They are denying a legitimate work around to allow limited FPV while having a similar work around in place for full scale. While you may not care due to your dislike of the FPV flyers it has repercussions on the entire hobby. If they start applying rules unequally and no one protests, where will it stop. To allow an entire segment of the hobby to be destroyed due to the acts of a few rogue flyers is only setting us up for more problems.
Old 07-27-2014, 10:39 AM
  #119  
DISCUS54
My Feedback: (211)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sun City, AZ
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Innovation changes things, most hard core skiiers didn't think snowboarding was anything more than a passing fad. I'm not following the line of thinking on how the AMA's position related to FPV model activity is an all or nothing event. The FAA is already into regulating model aircraft...regardless of whether its FPV related or not. The AMA is a broad based interest organization, why wouldn't they support all aspects of model airplane flying whether the majority of participants are currently members or not? I think Bob's position was that FPV was not okay beyond line of sight, and that the AMA should not focus on BLOS. The AMA should still support and represent FPV in the context of LOS though. The other issues in the Feds interpretation are vastly more damaging and the AMA has done a very good job of making those issues clear. Say what you will about their shortcomings, but I heard about the interpretation through the AMA, not the FAA or anyone else.
Old 07-27-2014, 10:40 AM
  #120  
George
My Feedback: (57)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Va Beach, VA
Posts: 3,069
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

I just saw this.

http://i-hls.com/2014/07/first-uav-n...m_campaign=RSS
Old 07-27-2014, 11:07 AM
  #121  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,523
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

So it begins. A near miss with a cropduster in this instance, what happens next time?
Old 07-27-2014, 11:14 AM
  #122  
LarsL
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Shorewood, WI
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ronnie1952
I find Bob to be right on the money. FPV flying out of line of sight will be our down fall.
The AMAi s also against beyond line of site FPV flying. Their position is that the person flying FPV also needs to have someone present who does have continual line of sight and can/will take control when that line of sight is in jeopardy.

As I have been reading all of the posts, I at times am unclear about what people are against. In some cases it seems that folks are against any FPV flying, even if it is following the continual line of sight protocol by the pilot team. That to me seems wrong. Some posters appear to be against multi-rotor aircraft (Quads, Hexa, etc.). That too for me is wrong. The type of aircraft, as has been pointed out by some here, is not connected to FPV flight. FPV flight can be done with any type of aircraft.

i do recognize the fact that some aircraft today are very easy to fly. Anyone can buy them and with almost no training, go out and fly them in an FPV mode. That in turn allows some folks who are not what we call "model hobbyists" (into RC, Control Line, Free Flight, Soaring/Sloping,, Rotor-wing, etc.), to go out and fly them in ways that reflect poorly on us and them. We can't do anything about that. Can we distance ourselves from those who fly FPV irresponsibly while still allowing responsible FPV flying? I believe so.

Lars
Old 07-27-2014, 11:17 AM
  #123  
jwren00
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

FPV is the future of the hobby. It's already a much bigger segment of the hobby than turbine jets are. I'd be willing to bet that if you're against FPV you're probably over 50 and you have Fox News on you're tv right now. "Get off my lawn!" Lol
Old 07-27-2014, 11:26 AM
  #124  
VF84sluggo
My Feedback: (55)
 
VF84sluggo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 2,367
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

...

Last edited by VF84sluggo; 07-27-2014 at 11:39 AM.
Old 07-27-2014, 11:33 AM
  #125  
DISCUS54
My Feedback: (211)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sun City, AZ
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie
So it begins. A near miss with a cropduster in this instance, what happens next time?
If he was at an AMA field with a spotter this never would have happened. Sounds like he might have been LOS as well. I your an idiot, it doesn't matter much about LOS, BLOS, FPV, or otherwise.

Last edited by DISCUS54; 07-27-2014 at 11:51 AM. Reason: clarification

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.