Since I was the spokesperson to the AMA for the committee of 5 people that drafted these guidelines I'll try to explain it a bit more..
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
What would the master PIC do different with a 11lb FPV out of control that he can do just fine with a 9lb one?
The answer is simple.. You have to start somewhere. We can play the what if game all day, and trust me we did when the community was drafting the rules. There was the analogies of drunk driving, kids getting hurt with soccer, and birds hitting planes. This is all great analogies, but that's statistical data that has been collected over several years. The problem is you need hard core written data saying a 11lb plane is any different than a 9lb plane when you submit this stuff to the FAA/AMA. The rule makers and insurance underwriters only work with data. Until that data has been collected by a reliable source you have no ground to stand on. FPV has only been around for a few years now. Therefore the data on impact hasn't been collected yet. We looked at documents the AMA has in place. This included the current turbine and park flier guidelines.
We really wanted to keep the current 55lb model weight limit that is already in place for general MA flying. However we didn't want to propose something to far off in left field. We polled our general community and let them decide. From there the 10lb limit was proposed and submitted to the AMA. It was really a challenge considering we had one group of people that want to fly their 15lb 50cc gasser via FPV. On the other hand you have people that want to fly their 24oz foamy at their local park. Trust me if the electric gang had their way it'd of been a weight limit of 3lbs.. As I stated before the 10lb rule would allow very well equipped '60' sized planes into the picture. Again, we asked our community, gathered a general consensus, then proposed that to the AMA. If we find out a year from now that 10/60 doesn't work then we can revisit the rules. By that time we should have a better understanding of what works and what doesn't.
ORIGINAL: Bob Mitchell
I don't think it's a buddy box issue. I believe it's an issue that the AMA doesn't want to permit/certify/allow (pick your word) anything larger/faster due to potential payload issues, not speed and size of the plane itself.
The original draft did not include a buddy box. However after a few phone calls from high ranking officers over at the AMA, they suggested the buddy box would help seal the deal. Yes it is a small caveat especially if you're a more proficient FPV pilot. As stated above by FlyinTiger "It is definitely possible to fly FPV unassisted. Make that LOTS of flight training for most people." However the AMA doesn't really have any real data on how safe FPV flying is. Once the AMA collects some data on the impact and how safe it is, the FPV community can revisit the rules (including weight and speed) and go from there. Trust me I asked how difficult it would be for a rule change in the future. Everyone is aware a rule change doesn't happen overnight. After FPV has been out there for a year or two, we'll look at the rules and see what needs to change. For right now we (the FPV community) wanted our foot in the door and access to more than 2,500 sanctioned clubs across the nation.
Homeland security may have put that bug in their ear and I suspect that we'll see those limits again, published by another agency.
Not really per say. It's more like the FPV Committee wanted to take a proactive approach in creating some guidelines. We took a very close look at [link=http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/media/uas_guidance08-01.pdf]AG 08-01[/link] plus a few other proposed documents when we were drafting guidelines. We even looked at a few of the proposed rules the UK/EU have in place. We wanted to match the proposed ruling the FAA is coming up with as close as we could. This makes it easier for the AMA to propose guidelines on modelers behalf. If you look at the document you can see a few things we used from it. Not to mention the AMA already has rules that match the proposed guidelines..
For example..
FPV Plane must remain within LoS taken from section 8.2.1
Visual observer duties require the ability to maintain visual contact with the UA at all times while scanning the immediate environment for potential conflicting traffic. At no time will the visual observer permit the UA to operate outside their line-of-sight. This ensures that any required maneuvering information can be reliably provided to the PIC.
We would have liked these distance guidlines...
Generally, observers are to be positioned no greater than one nautical mile laterally and 3000 feet vertically from the UA.
However we figured the AMA insurance would only cover a pilot if the vehicle was on the AMA Field's property. That's why SC550 states the pilot must remain within the boundaries of the field.
SC550:
3. The flight path of model operations shall be limited to the designated flying site and approved overfly area.
The buddy box requirement is covered in a few places....
Section 8.1.1 states:
Onboard Cameras/Sensors: Although onboard cameras and sensors that are positioned to observe targets on the ground have demonstrated some capability, their use in detecting airborne operations for the purpose of deconfliction is still quite limited. Therefore, these types of systems may not be considered as a sole mitigation in the see and avoid risk assessment. In general, current designs are not mature and have shown to be insufficient to provide the sole mitigation in the see and avoid risk assessment. Although these systems are currently immature, applicants may be allowed to propose any system solution that provides a mitigation strategy and should be evaluated as a potential solution.
Lost Link Procedures: In all cases, the UAS must be provided with a means of automatic recovery in the event of a lost link. There are many acceptable approaches to satisfy the requirement. The intent is to ensure airborne operations are predictable in the event of lost link.
So basically by having a person on a buddy box, we now have a reliable way of recovering a plane should a loss of link (video) should occur. Since according to these guidelines cameras can not be used as a primary source of detection, we have a secondary person there for see and avoid.
Believe it or not a few of our hard line FPV groupies have positive things to say. One of our pilots has a son that recently started flying model airplanes. That pilot recently joined a AMA club and has been welcomed as a valued member with his FPV equipment. This is after that pilot trashed and bashed the AMA and said he'd never join a club. Now that SC550 has been put into affect, he now has a field he can call home.