mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

I guess my problem is understanding where these RC fields are located that could cause harm or damage to persons or property other then the clubs members or the clubs property. I have never flown at a club or local government flying field that was anywhere near other poeple or their property. The only exception is when I fly my Eflight P51 280. I just walk around the block to the baseball fields and if no one is there I fly. But there are only a few houses and nothing else and they are not that close. Even turbine flight at our club field would not bother anyone because there is no one close enough to be bothered. Why would anyone have a club field close to people or property?

I certainly feel bad for you guys with the boating situation. Not as easy to find an accepting lake as it is airspace.

JeffH

My Feedback: (43)

The AMA is not self insured. They have a company that provides the coverage. Those guys will adjust the premiums to the AMA based on what they think the risk is. They are not modelers, they are insurance salesmen and risk management people. To them, it does not matter what caused the headlnes in the news, whether it is an FPV craft flown by a non AMA member or a 1.20 sized biplane by a lifetime member....all they see is the potential for payouts and lawsuits.
As incident counts rise, landowners will take notice.
The chances of the guy flying the biplane making the news due to a crash is nil, the chances of the quad videoing a kids soccer game.....MUCH higher.
The lawyers and insurance people see that a remotely controlled aircraft hit a kid playing soccer.
This is where I fully agree with BV. The AMA, by courting the FPV crowd had blurred the lines between model aviation and FPV. This makes it easier for Federal Rules and lawsuits to be sucessful.

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

Fair enough. Makes sense to me.

SushiHunter

In this specific scenario above, I don't think the AMA would be effected. The individual in the above scenario isn't a member of the AMA and is not flying at a designated r/c field. Only thing that would happen is the individual would be sued, if authorities in fact could find who was responsible for the r/c craft. But these clowns who don't belong to the AMA and who fly wherever they please, most, if not all of them, do not put contact information on their a/c. Like the moron who crashed their drone on my friend's property. Not one piece of contact information on the drone.

A good starting point is for authorities to come down really hard on the morons who are caught flying without AMA membership outside of AMA guidelines. I'd make serious examples out of the first batch caught. Maybe start with hobby shops not selling drones unless proof of AMA membership is provided. It all boils down to current culture of individuals who don't want to follow rules, don't like rules being enforced upon them, and don't take any responsibility for their actions.

Hydro Junkie

In many cases, it's not by choice. I have a flying field two miles from my house that is at the base of a hill with a field around it. The hillside is covered with houses that were built AFTER the field was established. Another field was established at a private airstrip used for full sized aircraft on the edge of another town. Within five years, the land adjacent was covered in new houses and the R/C club was forced to defend itself from the new "homeowner's association" due to violations of the association's "noise" policy, even though the planes were quieter than the lawn care equipment used by the homeowners

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

That stinks man!! I really feel sorry for people in areas like that. Does not sound at all appealing. Nothing around here but forests, hills and small mountains.

wfield0455

My Feedback: (7)

Sorry, I'm still not buying it. While I agree that flying beyond line of sight can cause an unsafe situation, FPV doesn't require flying beyond line of site. Also, I don't see any blurring of lines between drones and models. Any model that can carry any sort of payload or camera can be considered a drone, while FPV can be used in a fahion that is strictly hobby related. I don't think the FAA should be encouraged to decide what technology can or can't be used for hobby related purposed,within reason of course. Personally I think interfering with the activities of people that are doing nothing wrong, simply because someone wants to assume they MAY do something unsafe is just plain wrong. I also feel that the AMA should be doing everything possible to pull FPV into the fold and try to educate people on how to operate this technology in a safe and responsible fashion to prevent this type of negative publicity that we've seen lately. Trying to distance ourselves from any activity that may be seen in a negative light by the general public is futile because no single modelling activity is really inherently "safe". Unless you want to limit us all to small elecrtic park fliers there is a certain amount of risk involved with any flying model. Safety comes from following safe operating procedures and it seems to me the best way to prevent most of the nonsense that we've all seen lately is to make sure potential FPV enthusiasts understand how to operate this technology safely.
Personally, I think the only distinction that the FAA should make between models and sUAS is how it is being used. If it's being used for recreational purposes, even if the participant receives some sort of compentaion such as free equipment, etc, then it's a hobby activity. If the equipment is being used, strictly to accomplish some sort of task, whether it's farmers tracking livestock, or surveillance, or whatever, it's NOT a hobby related activity. Both seem activities seem perfectly reasonable within certain guidelines and neither should be regulated by the FAA other then to ensure that they don't create a safety issue for the aviation community. Whether it's a model or a drone, if it's in the wrong place at the wrong time it can present a hazard and that's the problem that needs to be solved, not whether a sponsored pilot can get a free airlines ticket to represent his manufacturer at an airshow or whether someone should be allow to enjoy the view from their model airplane while flying it..

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

There are no lines blurred between Model Aviation and FPV. FPV is not a stand alone technology and requires some form of vehicle or aircraft in order to utilize it. FPV is simply a new technology that allows for the enhancement of Model Aviation. FPV is like adding telemetry, retracts or bomb drops. It's just another add-on to Model Aviation.

AndyAndrews

Right, right, except that it's also the same technology used for weapon carrying drones.

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

And your point is? Other than to try and throw in a snide little comment.

I think the lines are blurred or completely non existent regarding the definition of "Model Aviation" and "Drones" in the public eye based on media drama. When it comes to the hobbyist, FPV is a potential add-on that can help to maximize the enjoyment of Model Aviation and can be added to almost any aircraft.

jtlittle

My Feedback: (7)

Our hobby is a minuscule group with no voice or mainly no money to influence politicians. The FAA painst with a broad brush and will rule to include worst case no matter the interest who in their eyes have no votes. I agree with BV we and the AMA need to wake up before we are brushed aside like most of our rights and privacy! They are GONE and they were protected by the constitution!

SushiHunter

Well isn't that sort of like saying it's ok to light off fireworks just as long as they are not going to be used outside the scope of recreational activities? Problem is, in a lot of cases, fireworks were not intended to be used outside the scope of celebrating the 4th, but too many "accidents" happened. Exactly why fireworks are in most places outlawed, because too many "accidents" and/or misuse of such devices occur.

Second issue is just because people are educated doesn't mean they are going to now just fly their drones where it's safe to do so and in accordance to the AMA guidelines. Look at the big picture with these drones. If they fly them where AMA rules and regulations state r/c should be operated, that wouldn't be any fun taking video over dirt, rocks and weeds. That wouldn't be any fun spending hours rendering video and uploading it on youtube channels showing dirt, rocks and weeds.. And the greatest and foremost advertising tactic by the manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers for drone a/c sales with or without FPV is showing it operate near/over buildings, houses, back yards, busy highways, crowds of people, etc. etc. Ask yourself this question, What fun would flying a drone with gimbal camera functions be if it weren't flown near/over such things such as land marks, buildings, houses, bridges, back yards, swimming pools, city streets, highways, crowds of people, sporting events, etc. etc. and all other things that the AMA does not allow? Who would then spend a few hours editing it with music audio that sounds like spending an afternoon with the girlfriend in places such as Victoria's Secret, Bebe, Wet Seal, 9 West, Aldo, Guess, etc. etc. etc., rendering it and then uploading it on youtube? If they were flown in accordance to the AMA guidelines, they wouldn't be any fun at all basically. The primary purpose of drones with/without gimbal camera functions is for flying in areas, near/over things that the AMA specifically does not allow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqtayZE-Uhc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxzh92Bb2RY

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

wfield0455

My Feedback: (7)

True enough but if you think in general terms, that statement is pretty true for all of our models. The only real difference is the intended use. I suspect that telling the average person that FPV shouldn't be allowed because it's the same technology as used in weapons carrying drones will only result in questions like "what's so different about your (your model type here)?" I'm also guessing that there will be plenty of people that will feel that any model aircraft looks like it could be used to do something that they won't like. Encouraging people to restrict certain aspects of the hobby only encourages further restrictions later on. After all, when restricting FPV doesn't prevent idiots from doing stupid, dangerous things they will assume that they simply didn't put enough restrictions in place.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

It really is just that simple. I think many here are over thinking this.

DISCUS54

My Feedback: (211)

Personal responsibility once again...and the AMA insurance would only apply to the standards set forth by the AMA...if you want to free wheel then I hope you have a very large checkbook. Like the guy who penetrated the TRF over the fire or the Downtown overflights...it's called self insurance and good luck with that, when your pushing your grocery cart down the street.

wfield0455

My Feedback: (7)

While I completely agree with most of what you said, the problem isn't really the technology, it how it's used. If people used fireworks responsibly most of the accidents wouldn't happen. The reason accidents happen is that people tend to get carried away and use them in too small of an area, too close to flammables, let kid set them off, etc, largely because they don't understand the consequences. You are also correct that even if people understand HOW to use FPV safely, that doesn't guarantee that they will. Unfortunately that argument can also be applied to model aviation in general as there is plenty of room for abuse. Adding FPV to the mix is simply a small incremental step.

However, I don't agree that unless you're breaking the rules, FPV simply isn't any fun. I've seen it used well within the guidlines that the AMA puts forth as I mentioned in a previous post and it most definitely was pretty cool. Personally, I have no interest whatsoever in posting videos to youtube but I definitely found it very enjoyable to put on the FPV goggles with a head tracker and see a view from the air that followed where ever I turned my head. It was as close to flying as you can possibly get from the ground. I can see that it could get boring flying in the same area all the time and seeing the same sights which is why I don't spend my money on an FPV setup. However, to allow spectators at an event to put on the goggles and get a view from the air as the plane flies could also be a great way to show them why we are interested in model aviation, assuming of course that the technology isn't banned.

While it's true that manufacturers seem to encourage the misuse of this technology by the way that they market it, I would rather put pressure on them to stop advertizing products in a fashion that is seems to encourage unsafe use rather than try to ban the legitimate use of the technology.

Chris Nicastro

My Feedback: (3)

Just as model AC have weight and size restrictions and guidelines it seems appropriate to have the same for quads, drones, FPV, UAV or whatever classification these models fall under.

Lets ID the class very clearly.
Lets restrict the size and capability of retail for public use vehicles in this class.
The moment an air vehicle has GPS, Autopilot, a Camera, or any kind of related electronics it should fall into this category. This defines the model and its use or purpose regardless of its airframe type.
Allow any version over the specified class specification to be used by licensed/certified pilots just like a turbine waiver at a bare minimum.

The AMA should have a meeting with distributors to discuss this topic and encourage them to do their part to restrict the sale of these products temporarily while the category is figured out. The same goes for the boutique companies that produce the larger models they should take responsibility and provide training and education for the proper safe use of the product as well as applicable laws their customer will violate if they fly irresponsibly.

Right now this segment is basically a gold rush and just like a gold rush everything will be ruined in its wake. Only after the dust settles will we understand where we stand with the hobby in the US.

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

I thought you started out good with restricting the size, but then you threw in the capability part. Why should I not be able to outfit my plane with GPS, autopilot, a camera and related equipment and fly responsibly?

Hydro Junkie

Once you add an autopilot, you now have an autonomous aircraft that no longer needs an operator. That takes it from R/C model to programmable drone that is now on it's own and will follow it's programming rather than a radio operated by a pilot on the ground. What happens if that autopilot fails and someone gets hit by the now uncontrolled aircraft? Will you be able to save it using just the FPV camera and R/C gear or, more importantly, is it still in range of the transmitter so that you will have a chance to do so?

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

It's called RTH (return to home) in the event of a radio disconnect, low battery etc. And why can I not use that technology responsibly? Look at the Eagle Tree Vector just as one example. Many technologies built into one unit with RTH capability.

SushiHunter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06G-CaalP7Q

Chris Nicastro

My Feedback: (3)

Thats fine, in this hypothetical new class specification you would have a waiver or certification just like I did to fly turbines. Why should I have to get certified to fly a plane with just a different engine? To certify that I have a clue about operating it safely. Why the high power EDF guys flying the exact same airframe dont have to get some kind of certification is beyond me but thats a different topic.

However, the fact that the AMA requires this self policing certification for turbine pilots has produced very few incidents and a long track record of safety only proves and further supports the need for action regarding the Drone class.

Ive used the RTH feature just to see what it does and its pretty cool, like operating a CNC mill but without the big red panic button, LOL

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

I think (not that it matters) I would be satisfied with a waiver like for turbines. I would also agree with the part about EDF jets. I personally have never owned a jet or FPV craft. My beef is more on the FAA/regulation/laws side. My biggest aircraft is a .60 Corsair I am building. But I do love technology and love learning about it especially related to RC.

Chris Nicastro

My Feedback: (3)

Agreed
Im not in favor of yet more laws and regulation but Im in favor of continuing my lifelong hobby and protecting my financial investment. To that end I will support reasonable FAA and AMA rules.

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

Can't say that I diagree with that statement.