FAA intentionaly hyping up Drone News. AMA needs to go to WAR!
#51
My Feedback: (25)
General Aviation kills on average 7 innocent people on the ground a year and that is acceptable and I take it you agree with this. So you are saying that it's OK if a GA guy getting a $150 hamburger kills your family that it's fine but just the chance that a quad copter may kill a pilot sometime in the future that it's unacceptable? Throw others under the bus to save yourself, don't worry they will come for your jets soon.
#52
here is the proof you need to show that the FAA is bending the truth. http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...6674&cid=TW234
In that article the FAA is claiming a victory, when in fact that is NOT the truth. IN FACT THIS IS THE TRUTH! http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the...ls-court-rules
LISTEN AND LISTEN WELL. WE DO NOT NEED TO BE INFIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER RIGHT NOW. WHAT SHOULD BE DOING IS FOCUSING OUR ENERGY ON WAYS AND ACTIONS OF FIGHTING THE GOVERNMENT SO THAT WE MAY KEEP OUR WONDERFUL FAMILY FRIENDLY HOBBY OF MODEL AVIATION. As well as not allow it to be over regulated.
In that article the FAA is claiming a victory, when in fact that is NOT the truth. IN FACT THIS IS THE TRUTH! http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the...ls-court-rules
LISTEN AND LISTEN WELL. WE DO NOT NEED TO BE INFIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER RIGHT NOW. WHAT SHOULD BE DOING IS FOCUSING OUR ENERGY ON WAYS AND ACTIONS OF FIGHTING THE GOVERNMENT SO THAT WE MAY KEEP OUR WONDERFUL FAMILY FRIENDLY HOBBY OF MODEL AVIATION. As well as not allow it to be over regulated.
#53
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville,
TX
Posts: 2,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dont know about what gobbly gok air rights are .he was on nprivate properyty and with a cam attached taking pics of patients in examination rooms.as a retired hospital ceo if that cam was taking video of my hospital and patients are in the rooms and that go pro exposes them that person is going to be arrested.i realize if that damn thing flies over my house and takes a pic of me not a heck of alot i can do except try to knock it out.i really think privacy rights will be infringed.as for ama step away from this stuff protect our flying fields and our rc hobby flying planes etc. let this movement create its own association its not what purists in rc ever wanted .
Makes for interesting reading. I gather from it that the property owner is the only one with a basis for complaint, leaving out the privacy issues.
CR
#54
I think as long as your toy stays in or over your back yard you should not need permission.
#55
differently and different places will have more risks and that IMO is why we need rules. Also in spite of the best of intentions things can go wrong and that is why we
need insurance. As far as the size yes some of the quad copters are small but I would not want to be hit in the face with one with it spinning blades.
#57
I enjoyed the video and there is a place for this type of flying in the hobby, However since this is being done at a place other than a RC site I think the FAA
should come up with some with some rules for FPV operations not performed at RC sites and require permits and insurance.
should come up with some with some rules for FPV operations not performed at RC sites and require permits and insurance.
#59
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sulphur Springs,
TX
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, here is one. While this FPV video is well done with an exceptional view the pilot violated AMA rules by not having a spotter. If he had a spotter, I think it probably would have met all the guidelines. Watch it to the end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8N1Sj5Qshk&sns=fb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8N1Sj5Qshk&sns=fb
This flying is exactly what the media and FAA are criticizing . It is a very amazing video but you could argue the guy sitting on the deck has a right not to be 'stalked by a DRONE' ..........the media started the drone (scares sheeple)
#60
other than a RC site that would be where the permit and insurance would come into play. Someone a few post ago asked the same
question only they referred to their back yard and I said as long as only over fly your backyard you should not need a permit but as
for insurance I think it would be a good idea.
#61
I still can't fathom why some here advocate that the FAA should start issuing permits to fly toy airplanes.?????
The choice offered is you should get a permit to fly on "public property" or join the AMA and fly at a club field? Gezzz don't let the AMA EC hear about that!
The choice offered is you should get a permit to fly on "public property" or join the AMA and fly at a club field? Gezzz don't let the AMA EC hear about that!
#62
I think having permits which would offer some control over who is flying what, Where and how is better than the outright bans the FAA would like. Also I think
we all know that if the FAA wins this first round there will be more restrictions coming.
we all know that if the FAA wins this first round there will be more restrictions coming.
#63
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville,
TX
Posts: 2,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ira d;
The problem to me is that there is a potential for endangerment if something goes wrong: either through equipment failure or pilot error. To me, the further out of LOS, the greater the potential danger.
CR
The problem to me is that there is a potential for endangerment if something goes wrong: either through equipment failure or pilot error. To me, the further out of LOS, the greater the potential danger.
CR
#64
like flying across town and such. But I also don't see anything wrong with FPV operations at all but there should be some operation standards that should be enforced.
In the video that we all have been talking about it does not appear that craft was BLOS although he should IMO have had a spotter.
Last edited by ira d; 07-21-2014 at 04:47 PM.
#65
My Feedback: (243)
Some of the more sophisticated hobby quads have controllers that can keep the quad under 400 feet and limit distance via GPS. If people would use those tools they easily stay out of FAA's proposal with the exception of commercial use and can fly FPV all they want.
Of course many do what they want and as long as nothing happens FAA doesn't know. But if something goes sour the FAA can and will find you.
#66
I completely agree and that is why I said the FAA is spot on in their interpretation. While this fellow is competent in FPV flying I believe he is riding a fine line between recreation (AMA's definition) and what the FAA wants to regulate (BLOS). Had a spotter been in the picture one could argue he is following AMA guidelines although he is pushing the VLOS edge. I personally know the location of the video and from where he is sitting the distance out to Morro Rock would make the average large hobby quad a speck and possibly not visible at all.
Some of the more sophisticated hobby quads have controllers that can keep the quad under 400 feet and limit distance via GPS. If people would use those tools they easily stay out of FAA's proposal with the exception of commercial use and can fly FPV all they want.
Of course many do what they want and as long as nothing happens FAA doesn't know. But if something goes sour the FAA can and will find you.
Some of the more sophisticated hobby quads have controllers that can keep the quad under 400 feet and limit distance via GPS. If people would use those tools they easily stay out of FAA's proposal with the exception of commercial use and can fly FPV all they want.
Of course many do what they want and as long as nothing happens FAA doesn't know. But if something goes sour the FAA can and will find you.
#68
My Feedback: (243)
You are correct on this. Just reread the interpretation and it is clear no vision enhancement devices ( other than corrective lenses ) can be used. A spotter can be used to enhance safety but cannot be in lieu of the operator. If the AMA approaches it with the 400 foot and line of sight rule plus a spotter they may get some wiggle room there.
#69
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
That may be the way to go if they are even going to go that far. At this point who knows, they may not want to push it. I was at a club last week where the pilot was flying LOS, his friend had the goggles, and they both had a screen/monitor in front of them as well. I don't know that this would work overall with the hard core FPV'ers, it would be like getting a Ferrari and being limited to 60 mph.
#70
My Feedback: (204)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Va Beach, VA
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That may be the way to go if they are even going to go that far. At this point who knows, they may not want to push it. I was at a club last week where the pilot was flying LOS, his friend had the goggles, and they both had a screen/monitor in front of them as well. I don't know that this would work overall with the hard core FPV'ers, it would be like getting a Ferrari and being limited to 60 mph.
#71
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville,
TX
Posts: 2,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CR
#73
Yes, a strict reading of the FAA "Interpretation" bans "FPV" flying in that the person wearing the goggles cannot be the pilot controlling the aircraft. The pilot must have VLOS (unaided) control on the model and the person wearing the goggles is simply a "virtual passenger". As the pilot no longer has "First Person View" the flight is no different then any other visual line of sight RC flight.
If the reason you want to fly video carrying models is "FPV" flying then this is terrible. But if the reason you fly video carrying models is to post "Hey look at me" videos on youtube then just fly VLOS and obey all other FAA requirements for "recreational or hobby" use.
tcraftk
If the reason you want to fly video carrying models is "FPV" flying then this is terrible. But if the reason you fly video carrying models is to post "Hey look at me" videos on youtube then just fly VLOS and obey all other FAA requirements for "recreational or hobby" use.
tcraftk
#75
The correct link http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...m?newsId=16674 I have received emails now from Tower and Hobbyking urging me to contact the FAA, and let them know why they should not lump the true model airplane hobbyist in the same boat with the few who choose to operate outside the reasonable rules already in place. If you contact them then I would suggest you do so in a calm and respectable manner and not use the kind of language I often see in these forums. If we want to be taken seriously we need to seem like rational people, with a reasonable argument about how restricting our hobby could prevent future generations of young people from becoming involved in aviation, or damage the economy.
I had to visit the FAA website today to download some airport charts...
Guess what is on the home page…
http://www.faa.gov
Guess what is on the home page…
http://www.faa.gov