bruceal

We have also decided against FPV at our field. Besides having homes in close proximity, we also have an active heliport, County park, and the largest marina on the east coast right across the street. We are not against new technology, however not all flying locations can host all types of aircraft. In our case it happens to be FPV. We don't have the luxury of having an "incident" and apologizing for it. With full scale helicopters right next to us, there is no second chance.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Give real examples, not more of the usual......vague.......mumbo...... jumbo.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Color me confused. I like that idea of yours, but see no reason it cannot be done under the current AMA rules for FPV flying. I suppose your reasoning is that the model cannot ever leave the direct line of sight of the FPV spotter.

As long as non of the obsticles are large enough to fully block the entire aircraft from view and as long as the obsticle course is visible from the where the FPV pilot and FPV spotter are standing, I think this is good to go under current rules. If you want to do it over the next hill, completely out of sight, then it is an issue...but I see no reason to do it over the hill or on the other side of the woods, etc, out of line of sight.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

I guess I do not see how FPV aircraft operated under the current AMA rules for FPV would be any more dangerous than any sort of normal R/C model at your flying field. With a decent FPV spotter, it actually might be safer flying FPV at your flying site than it would be for a guy to fly a normal model with no spotter to keep an eye out for the local heli traffic.

Flying FPV does not automatically mean that you fly away from the normal confines of your flying field.

ZRX631

My Feedback: (1)

Safer possibly, but proximity to neighbors is a big issue as well. People outside the hobby don't want to see a large flying insect with a camera mounted underneath flying over their house. It might be safe but it might get your club shut down also.

The pilot flying FPV only has a view to the front with limited side to side and up and down. The demos we have seen demonstrated that the primary pilot was not fully aware of his proximity to obstacles. I feel you are correct that a good spotter would help keep things clear, but remember that the spotter with LOS must be able to fly the aircraft also. This is a limiting factor at some clubs where multi-copters are not the norm. Also, if you are moving to FPV after a long time in the hobby, do you really want to have to rely on a spotter every time you go up?

Some of the autonomous features of the multi-rotors are great in that they return to take-off point when losing a signal or on command from the pilot, so if we could get them to stay in the normal pattern and 3D maneuver area I think we could make it work much like we have with heli's. A lot depends on the actions of those pursuing FPV flight at excisting clubs.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I am indeed talking about obstructions that completely obscure the sight of FPV models...Just think of flying behind a maze of banners and through large tunnels similar to the ones dogs run through for some of their competitions. Completely safe and a real FPV challenge.

mikestang746

i was reading the thread to get an idea, hmmm i need to visit the link they post, by the way thanks for the info shared.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I'll give you an example...Based on much of what you've said recently, I can't help but think you must fly only 2 channel slow stiks with .049 engines...on second thought, maybe not...as that would be pushing the envelope of flying with foam...Matter of fact, I can't think of a single thing man does that isn't a result of pushing the "envelope". As pointed out earlier it really is "how" we push the envelope that is the issue.

Nothing inherently dangerous about FPV. Nothing inherently safer about conventional "modeling" either. Both require common sense and an eye to safety. Look, when I see a guy put that Big ole 30# P-51 on the flight line after only 2 weeks previous Alpha 40 trainer experience...those little FPV models seem very innocuous to me...

People spend way to much time making cases against FPV while completely ignoring much worse scenarios...It's just redickulious. Get over yourself already!

Your perspective might change when some old guy almost takes your head off... flying his turbine powered creation...or his overpowered Piper Cub.

804

My Feedback: (1)

LCS,
trying to explain to some here the philosophy of technical advancement is like
going back in time and trying to explain women's rights to the Neanderthal.
They ain't ever likely to get it.

bradpaul

Interesting that in a thread about emerging technology that many posters do not even get the termonology right. FPV is flying a airframe from a the perspective of the arframe. The airframe could be any airpllane, or any helicopter (for AMA there are weight/speed limits). Multirotors are just ONE KIND or airframe that can optionally use FPV.

Autonomous flight may be used on a FPV airframe but it has nothing to do with the FPV system.
Multirotors may use FPV and autonomous flight but they are not required to fly multirotors.

On one of my giant scale planes I use a EagleTree Guardian unit (three axis gyro stabilization and a artificial horizon) is that a "emerging technology" to ban because simular systems can be used by multirotors? If I wanted to, I could add GPS waypoint flight to it and nobody here would without examining the electronics even know it was there. You would just see a giant scale plane flying some very precise patterns uneffected by any wind.

I get the impression that much of the angst is "they are not nitro powered CUB (kits) that fly the pattern"

Of course the AMA is correct to embrace FPV and autonomous flight as well as they were correct to embrace Lipo batteries and 2.4G radios over many of the same objections seen in this thread. There were actually ignorant AMA clubs that banned Lipos and 2.4G when they first came out.

This is actually a subject that LCS and I are in agreement on.

Brad

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

I think that the AMA could be convinced to allow that as an event with some reasonable restrictions, even if the models do go out of sight behind banners and fabric tunnels. Note that the AMA is showing some flexibility concerning FPV and as they gain more experience, things could open up even more.

An FPV obsticle course would certainly be much safer than than R/C combat as allowed now.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Flying any type of RC model, FPV or not FPV, close enough to a neighbors house for them to see if it has a camera or not could get your club shut down. Not really a valid argument against FPV.

Spotters cover the limited field of view issue. If you want to fly FPV in an AMA club environment, you are going to need qualifed spotters as the AMA prescribes. Seems reasonable to me at this stage of development. Again, not a valid argument against allowing FPV ops at an AMA club field.

Simply a matter of selecting a suitable pre programmed RTB spot to use that does not park the model in the way of normal RC activity. Perhaps outside the pattern bring flown. I have yet to see an RC field where the occasional excursion across the flight pattern does not occur and a rare LOS on a model with autonomous RTB capability is not going to cause any more of an issue than we already have with human error or exuberance at the RC fiield....

No need to invent problems that are actually less of a problem than situations we already peacefully co-exist with in the RC hobby.

rmh

This is all getting to be a wildfire --
The idea of AMA was to provide a body for those who -as a hobby use models which are controlled by direct visual input.
In a few isolated cases some cross country models were permitted to set examples of what was possible.
Today - the advent of models which can launch - fly - collect info (photos ) and safely return to launch point with NO operator flying corrections required, has happened - seen it -
for 400bucks on a four rotor copter - No RPV used.
It also has auto distance recognition which prevents operator flying it into oneself.
The rules MUST change
These same copters could easily range for miles using satellite controls and programmed courses..

ZRX631

My Feedback: (1)

I agree with your first sentence but Since the FPV flights were the only ones that flew to close to the houses, My club voted to not allow it at this time. It may work just fine at some clubs depending on the layout and the safety committee rules.

None of the one liners in the post are enough to make a decision one way or the other on FPV ops. BTW, my statements are from actual events not what I think might happen if FPV ops are allowed at our field.

I don't disagree with the requirement but it is not the club's responsibility to provide the spotters. If the FPV pilot is flying something the spotter is competent at flying the FPV flight will be much like training on a bubby box. If the FPV pilot is flying something that is not usually flown at the club it would up to them to ensure the spotter is capable of fulfilling their duties. In our case, the FPV pilot felt he was to experienced to need a spotter and that $100 a year was to much to pay to have to fly in the pattern. (Which I understand, as I would want to be able to fly my FPV out of LOS if I had one)

My reference to the RTB capability was a complement to the multi-copters not a reason for disallowing FPV. If the multi-copter pilot announced dead stick, for lack of a better term, it would be a benefit to all on the flight line to know that it would return to it's take off point and other pilot's should stay clear until it has arrived.


I don't believe I have invented any problems, only described the problems I've witnessed. We have a leased flying site with 50 active members but only one prospect that was seeking to fly FPV, It's not likely that the club was going to change a whole lot for one possible member. If in the future our members obtain enough equipment and people to try it again all it takes is a motion and vote to give it a shot.
We lost a flying site in our area recently because of noise complaints from a newly built sub-division.


My perspective on FPV is that it may work better at flying sites that are on public land away from homes and private property. I hope FPV takes off and eventually the cost comes down so that more can afford to do it with whatever they like to fly but at this point risk versus reward has to be a factor. Same reason we have to get special permission if we want turbines at our fly-in events.

edh13

My Feedback: (9)

No, the rules must NOT change.

AMA Mission -
The Academy of Model Aeronautics is a world-class association of modelers organized for the purpose of promotion, development, education, advancement, and safeguarding of modeling activities.

bradpaul

But you see they are models after all......... models of drones currently used by the police and military units of countries worlwide ......... they could actually be classified as warbird models....

bruceal

If the FPV aircraft is flown within the boundaries of the flying site, that would be one thing. However, who is going to police people to make sure that they are within bounds when no one else is there. The temptation to fly over a park or golf course is a big one. It's just human nature to push limits. I also don't know many people who want to invest in FPV to just fly in the pattern. In one case, another area club had a member flying 2 1/2 miles away over a golf course. He was being spotted by his father who was using binoculars. I'm not saying that all FPV users would do this, but again in our case one time would be the last time. My stance is that not all flying sites can accommodate all types of aircraft.

edh13

My Feedback: (9)

OK Brad, way too much logic goin' on here...
Eric

bradpaul

Who is going to police ANY OF THE AMA SAFETY CODE RULES when no one else is there?

sweetdwillie1

My Feedback: (11)

My 2 cents.......this used to be a hobby. Build something, sweat a little, worry a little, learn some skills, hang out with your friends, improve your skills, pass them along to another generation. Now it's who can afford the most high tech toy. And there are a lot of toys, you can buy a pretty fancy toy helicopter at the mall that a 8 year old can learn to fly in 5 minutes. That's a hobby? No. It's a toy.

bruceal

You are entitled to your opinion, but like I said before we will not allow FPV at our field. I will not sacrifice a flying site that hosts 75 members for the sake of 2 or 3.

cj_rumley

FWIW, you may have received an Email entitled "Drones, FPV, Multirotor, sUAS – your opinion please!" from AMA. It may, or may not, be more productive to direct your (collective 'your,' not just bruceal) opinion to those that make AMA policy via answering the poll questions. There is an incentive for offering your opinion in a chance to win a DJI Phantom Quadcopter. If you are anti-FPV, maybe we can deal if you win it.

cj

NorfolkSouthern

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Sorry, but I see FPV activity as described in the AMA guidelines a completely valid aero modeling activity. Nothing you are posting above about the AMA and its missions and guidelines ad definitions affects using new technologies in a model aircraft of any type.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Some good points there. I also agree with the poster than stated "how to you ensure any safety rules are followed?

The point I am making is that flying FPV responsibily, within the AMA guidelines and within the normal confines of your flying site, simply does not seem to be something that needs to be outlawed. I see another posters point that most people will likely not invest in FPV and want to fly in the confines of a normal field. However, ay my club field, we have a couple of people that do just that. Not causing a problem at all.

My club operates three club owned trainers and gives free flight instruction one day a week to the public. This winter, we are upgrading one of them and adding an FPV system and some flight stabilization equipment and will offer training in FPV as well, in a responsible way within the AMA guidelines.

I do respect the right of any club to set safety rules as they see fit and I can complete agree that many club fields cannot accomodate unlimited FPV. I would hope a club that I was a member of would outlaw only the part of the activity that would create an issue and not outlaw the entire activity in one fell swoop. We all must exercise a little self discipline at the club field and FPV operations are no different.

I know of a club or two that decided that 2.4 radios were not safe when they were introduced and they outlawed them. Seems foolish now. Other clubs outlawed lipo batteries as they were simply too dangerous to be allowed at the flying field.....