JohnShe

Absolutely brilliantly expressed. One important issue, however, club has the right, authority and responsibility to require and enforce safe behavior on the club flying field. It is not just up to the individuals, it is up to everybody there. Off the flying field, all heck can break loose and it is the sole responsibility of he perpetrator.

bradpaul

There is no need to ban FPV or to have different rules form all other forms of RC modeling.......................  that is to only operate within VLOS like all other types of model aircraft and not fly over people or structures.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

the FBI and other law enforcement agencies will disagree with ya here.

go to thailand and have sex with an underage person, let someone in authority find out about it. the will try you for it here, under US laws and you will serve the time. the only reason they do not chase you down and try you for the autobahn example is, they don't want to. not, that they can't.

JohnShe

You missed Tinners point. His analogy may have been weak, but his point was that KE likes to play a little game. KE will post something outrageous or incomprehensible. Then when someone calls his bluff, he demands proof and then proof is presented he challenges the proof. Eventually, when he loses to superior argument he blocks the winner's postings like a three year old throwing a tantrum.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

The way I see it is; your post is purely an attack of KE's character... The premise that the AMA safety code diminishes depending on where you are is ludicrous... I think the Kid just may have felt the stupid question doesn't deserve an answer.. But I don't mind at all... I fully realize the more religious AMAer has a hard time comprehending reality due to their faith based persuasion... just a typical human phenomenon most can't overcome.

JohnShe

You are right, I have no respect for KE. He is just a joke to me. More like a good fart.

As for the AMA safety code, I see it as good engineering based risk management. It evolved from a great deal of experience and will continue to evolve as new technologies and new experiences are introduced into the hobby. I don't "believe" in the AMA safety code, instead I accept it as good engineering practice.

The AMAsafety code does not diminish by location. Anybody who wishes can follow it wherever they fly. But, apparently there are a few out there who don't always follow it, but, they follow it, or else, at my club field.

bradpaul

+1


Here is another question for the "Maynard Hill broke the rules" crowd.

The TAM flight was in 2003 before AMA 550.............. so what provision of the 2003 USAMA Safety Code did he break in his flight from Canada to Ireland?

Brad

corch

My Feedback: (1)

So would this be the appropriate time to merge this thread with the SOS, DD thread?

JohnShe

Thanks, and a good question. I don't have a clue whether he broke or bent rules. I suspect, or hope, that the planning for this achievement involved soliciting support from the AMAand appropriate government agencies. If that happened that the worst it could have been would be a few slightly bent rules at most.

Silent-AV8R

Speaking of broken rules in the past, do you realize that neither one of the Wright brothers were licensed pilots!!! Talk about breaking rules!!! [&:]

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

I took that survey a couple of weeks ago. There was a box for comments after some of the questions. I stated that I did not fly FPV, did not plan to, do not know anyone that flies FPV, and that I really didn't see FPV as part of the hobby.

It seems the AMA was trying to gauge the amount of support for FPV within the membership. The results should be interesting.

JohnShe

What rules? I don't believe that our nations constitution allows the imposition of retroactive rules or laws. But I could be wrong. There was no FAA or anything like it when the Wright Brothers were fooling around in their bicycle shop.

If that was meant to be humorous, don't quit your day job.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

As far as Maynard Hills flight, there was no Federal law prohibiting that activity and the government will only hold U.S. citizens accountable for breaking the laws of the land in which you are located (sometimes) or certain laws that fall under human rights violations (the arrests of sex tourists in aisia for example are charged under human trafficking laws and the host countries laws that may be applicable.) The Autobahn example is correct in that there is no federal law against driving that fast and there is no local law against it either, therefore the U.S. has no legal grounds to charge you for that. I don't know much about the story, but as long as the flight was for a scientific purpose, or to help promote model aviation, and was conducted safely with the countries involved being informed of the flight, then the fact that the AMA safety rules were not followed is really a moot point. There are a number of commercial and educational programs that have been using model aircraft for R&D for years. Some of the flights may not have been within AMA standards, but were completely safe and legal at the time. I don't see their flight as anything worse than that, and maybe a little better as it was a boost for model aviation at the time.

I agree that the AMA rules are a well thought out and researched safety program, but I also believe that FPV's can be safely operated if the same effort is placed on designing a safety program for it, and I believe the DIYD group has started such a program.

Live Wire

FPV flight
See Members Airplane Video's

804

My Feedback: (1)

IMO, the flight was to prove Maynard Hill could do it, and to get in the record books, nothing more, nothing less.
Nothing wrong with that, it's what he liked to do.
That happened right about the time I got into the hobby, and I sure don't see that his accomplishment has been
used to promote model aviation in general, or autonomous flight in particular, at least not by AMA, and whether that fact
is seen as right or wrong, I couldn't care less.

And since it had nothing to do with FPV, what is the relevance to this discussion,
except to be used by the one who brought it up to browbeat other folks by using
a model airplane legends accomplishment to make some off the wall point.

tinner1

Mongo,

YOU must not be aware of what the autobahn is judging from your comment on my post. Here is its description from Wikipedia:

"The German autobahns are the nationally coordinated motorway system in Germany. In German, they are officially called Bundesautobahn (plural Bundesautobahnen, abbreviated BAB), which translates to federal expressways. German autobahns have no general speed limit, but the advisory speed limit (Richtgeschwindigkeit) is 130 kilometres per hour (81 mph)."

Note that the only speed limit is an "advisory" speed limit. That means as long as traffic and weather conditions are favorable there is NO LIMIT, there fore an American can drive 180 MPH LEGALLY in Germany when it would be breaking every speed limit in every state in the US, and THAT was my point to Kid. The US speed limit has NO bases in Germany. You must have mistaken my putting "sp" in the little "( )" marks as indicating "speed" when it was showing that at the time of that post I wasn't sure how autobahn was spelled. My point WAS, and still is, that something that is law in this country is not always law in another country. Putting rape , child molesting, etc in the same context as flying model planes or driving cars is just ignorant at best. Comparing crimes against humans and crimes of speeding or flying is comparing apples to oranges. My analogy was NOT "weak" but rather it was good, in spite of your misunderstanding it...unless of coarse you are into RA, where you could keep finding fault with everything including the air we breath....

m1morrow

My Feedback: (3)

Guys,

This PFV debate is so crazy.  I fly REAL AIRPLANES for a living and I have never once worried about running into a foam easy star with a little security camera on it.  Give me a break.  There are way more Canadian Geese out there to worry about.

If a terrorist uses a little RC airplane to cause damage they are stupid because they could cause way more damage with just about every other vehicle on the planet.

All the old timer RC guys here take this crap way to seriously.  I cant take out my .40 sized trainer at my AMA field without some half drunken 70 year old unshaven divorced guy bugging me about my weight and balance.  He is making sure my plane is "safe"........ok there guy thanks for the inspection.  The world is now safe from the scurge of my my Hobbico Nexstar.

Just because flying a 4  pound toy is the coolest thing you have ever done does not mean you have to turn Model aircraft flying into something its not.  These are still TOYS!  Yes they are expensive, yest they are fast, and yes they could cause damage.  But I can cause way more damage with my Volkswagen.  And I can hit a kid with a line drive playing baseball and knock him out.  I could slice a drive on the golf course and hit a car on the road and break a window causing a 10 car pile up.

Do k you now anyone that was killed by a RC airplane?   Thats right....No.

If your not Climbing into it its not a vehicle.  I love how the people that hate FPV somehow think line of sight is flying is safer.  Tell me.  How is flying a 30% Carden Extra 300 with a 100cc gas motor yards away from the flight line with people watching safer than a foam FPV plane?  Flying away from the ground is safer than flying near the ground.  If that Carden Extra looses RC it could fly miles and miles away on its own and crash into people and property also. 

The bottom line.  The AMA is insurance guys.  If your flying FPV your not insured, not less safe.  Just keep the plane below 2000 ft agl  400ft to be legal and even safer.  and more than 5 miles away from an airport and you wont hit a real plane.  If you do hit a real plane below 2,000ft agl the pilot was scud running and flying unsafely anyways.  If you think because you are at a AMA field and you can see your plane you have no chance of causing damage you are wrong.

Thats my 2 cents.  For what its worth.  Just use common sense.  Make sure your line of sight plane or FPV plane is reliable.  Don't fly it in stupid places.  Andy don't fly it recklessly...  End of story.  I know that people abuse FPV but people also abuse Line of sight.  Just like people abuse everything else.
 
Fly safe guys

 

Live Wire

Look up the sighting over Denver, Is it a drone, an RC plane or a bird at 8000 ft. pilot plum scared out of his shorts Look at some of the video's. Some of these are no Foamies

bradpaul

I know of two and I believe there have been more then that.

One was a guy in Texas killed by a RC Heli another was spectators at a RC event in Europe.

Brad

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

And a guy in Arizona a couple of years ago. Got hit in the chest by his own plane and died. On the whole, though, we have an excellent safety record. And there are people who constantly agitate for more rules, more because they like rules than because they will likely do any good.

KidEpoxy

they were 'breaking the rules' in the same way the FPV is 'breaking the rules'
-the USofA didnt have a rule against that then, nor a rule against this now
...aka no rules broken

Just doing some recreational Look&Launch(See&Avoid) FPV is far more inside the rules
than a film corporation hire an ad firm to fly superhero shaped drones... and claim its ok cause those two companies were just doing it 'as a hobby'... and the paid pilots (non-currency compensation for piloting work performed) were just doing that work for that company as a hobby and the compensation for work done was just a 'gift' after doing 'hobby stuff' for the ad firm

WaffleMan

My Feedback: (1)

Holy acronym Batman!! What you guys are saying makes zerosense to me beyond First Person Veiw.

chuckk2

Actually, there are enforceable "speed limits" on sections of the autobahn. I lived in Germany in the late 70's.
One late evening, going from Frankfurt to Trier, at an average speed of about 95MPH, (in a 76 Buick Regal, of all things) as we were going under an overpass, there was an extremely bright flash of light,
from an overhead camera mounted on the overpass. It turned out that there was a posted "speed limit" on that section, even though it was in the middle of nowhere, with no entry or exit ramps. A ticket was never issued, since the plates on the car were "Green" SF plates. The Buick was sort of a "hoot" to drive in Germany. Seems that it was the only red Buick Regal with Hurst Hatches in the country at that time. That, along with a massive front bumper, mounted on shocks, (A plastic trim plate between the bumper and grille had been removed to allow mounting of fog and driving lights) made the car look like it was capable of going through low barriers, or pushing obstacles out of it's path. With the exception of France, border crossings were always a wave thru. The limiting factor on speed was actually tires, as US "TPC" spec tires were unsafe at or above 100MPH. ($35 vis $135 for TUV speed rated tires.)

1320Fastback

M1s rite on the $$.


Nanny State go away!

cj_rumley

OP's question was completely answered in post 3 of this thread.

After 3 pages of replies, maybe this question will be comparatively on-topic:

Why did AMA poll the members about this?  
Kinda rare that they do.  SOP seems to be such issues, if not resolved in a perfunctory manner at the HQ staff level, are brought to the EC by one amongst them for discussion at a quarterly meeting, and voted on.  If not enough information is available, matter is tabled while the task of filling in info and providing recommendations goes to a committee.
Prior polls from AMA have sought member input re their activities and preferences for marketing/business planning purposes.  The poll regarding Park Flyer Program for example didn't ask members if they were in favor of the program, they had decided to do it regardless of what members wanted,  with but one caveat: might not be good if too many current members might prefer the lower priced PF member option.  That is what the poll asked, and a NO PF majority vote by members was a GO for the PF Program.
I'm skeptical about member input being solicited on a matter of AMA policy.  Too radical a change where any measure of control is delegated even one level down in the pecking order with great reluctance.
I'm thinking they already know the outcome with a high confidence level, that it is anti-FPV, and the reason stated is "the members have spoken."