I'm not Jules Verne, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

The hobby will be different, just like it's different now from when it was 20 years ago. Technology will be amazing of course, and I'm sure the AMA will be right there doing it's best to protect our privileges and freedoms in the best way possible, all the while being criticized for it. And anything the guv'mint is doing will be complained about as well.

At that point, I'll be one of the grumpy old guys complaining about "kids these days", how they don't remember what it was like to have to pull a BNF plane out of the Parkzone box and have to actually bind it to transmitter. Or the horrors of using non foam safe CA when trying to glue the wings together. And of course, having to actually walk to school, in the snow, up hill.

Things in 20 years are going to be different, that's all. Some changes for the good, some perhaps not. I doubt it will be drastically different.

If you believe that the US economy is an unsustainable model, then your visions of what it could cost to remain in this hobby might seem less .........relaxed.
As the % of "Haves" shrinks and the % of "HAVE NOTS" multiplies, your cost to be able to play with silly toys in the same league as the "Haves" will be surely tested with much vim, vigor and lust by Uncle Sugar..

Just today, at the LHS , I saw an FPV model , manufactured and sold by Horizon , making no mention of the guidelines laid out by the AMA, as it pertains to it's line of sight rules. I suppose with the buddy box mandate, the AMA is still only line of sight. The problem is most of those engaged in this activity, could care less. This attitude will be the death of us all.

I agree.
All I can say at this time is "Smoke 'em while you still can".

Which buddy box mandate is that?

Don't know if you were asking me specifically, or that was just a rhetorical question, but I don't recall mentioning anything about economics or the US economy, or the class of have/have nots. That of course is not a new concept, there will always be those more well off than others, not sure what that has to do with the hobby. I don't look at "playing in this hobby" as a competition. Someone can enjoy this hobby flying a $100.00 rtf glider just as much as someone who spends 2000 flying a 1/4 scale Cub.

Not sure what the problem is there? Should Horizon be required to lay out AMA, or any other entities law/rules/guidelines on their products? That's not really practical. Most items of an RC nature have generic safety cautions, isn't that enough? (and yet they are routinely ignored)

Probably something that was said 20 or so years ago when ARF's started to come into fashion...or heli's....or any other new technology. There will be plenty more to smoke in the years ahead (and some of it even legal).

Mr. grimmace may be thinking of the "old" doc. 550 ?

Just to bring Mr. grimmace and others up to speed here ;

The AMA states in Document #550 , Paragraph 3 "operations - requirements - limitations" Subtitle e)

"During an FPV flight , the FPV spotter must be prepared to acquire the transmitter/control from the FPV pilot and assume VLOS control of the model aircraft at any time safe operation of the flight is in question"

In other words , the AMA has the Pilot and spotter playing "pass the transmitter" during the very moment the flight is at it's most need of corrective inputs . Ever seen the results of a Newb tryin to hand off the TX to the instructor when a normal non FPV training flight goes awry ?

To the AMA's credit , Paragraph 3 section a) DOES mandate "FPV novice pilots undergoing training at low altitude must use a buddy box system with an FPV spotter , or must go to a safer altitude if no buddy box system is used "

So even in the case of a newb FPV pilot , if you've got altitude on your side , to hell with the buddy box alltogether .

Try this , take a model airplane , FPV equipped or not , to a "safer altitude" and aim it straight at the ground . Now hand off the TX to the person next to you , and see if he can save the model .

Wanna bet the ground wins the battle of the seconds past as control is re established ?????

I agree, the old (simple) 550.pdf had it right. Currently, as written I would not personally want the responsibility of "spotter" for FPV (novice or otherwise) without positive (buddy-box) control of the aircraft. Under the current rules if the handoff is fumbled who is responsible if damage and/or injury occurs?

Frank

Since when has AMA membership been required to fly a RC model? You might make the case that you need to follow CBO rules, but what CBO? The FAA refuses to name a CBO. And they are yet to release what rules apply to non CBO programming pilots.

So why should any manufacturer be required to include AMA rules? And really are some rules in a box are going to solve the problem?

Common sense can't be regulated. Basic common sense rules and suggestions are already on those items and aren't adhered to anyway. The technology has advance to the point where some additional rules and regs are needed. Hopefully, they will be minimally disruptive to the majority of law abiding rc'ers. Those that continue to fly recklessly, or cause property damage and/or bodily injury should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and hopefully become examples to others thinking about doing something stupid, like flying in an approach area to an airport, etc etc.

Totally in agreement here. Everything in RC, CL, FF or not controlled at all is to my estimated 95% of the purchasing public just simply another TOY.
AMA exists simply because there are a number of people that do take it seriously and join clubs, simply to have a place to fly when they so feel like. Other than paying the required dues, and AMA membership where required, those people usually soon move on and contribute nothing to the sport thereafter.
I have heard so many times, "I bought one of those remote-controlled airplanes for my (Dad) (Son) etc. We went to a school yard to fly it, but it crashed." Then comes the, "It made me very mad that the shop-owner would not refund my money" or the same thing if it was purchased by mail order.
Way back in the '70s when RC was just coming into its own, and I owned a Hobby Shop, and there was no such thing as "Buddy Cords", I probably got at least 2 or more chunks of balsa and/or broken engines brought into my store, weekly with "It would not work".
With the numerous outlets today, and so many kids seeing models and then Mom and Dad get one, go out and wreck it, I am surprised that the business keeps going!

That wasn't a question, that was a statement. As the ratio of tax payers to tax consumers continues to get worse, the government will need to find more creative ways to keep running. I can foresee a day when there are fees and even mandatory education programs that RC flyers must pay into and attend in order to receive their license to fly from the government.
How you were able to construe my earlier statement any other way is........just amazing....!

We in Chicago are routinely subjected to the 30nm notam whenever Obama & Co. come back to town. Fortunately, the duration lasts only for a few hours. Our club shares the concerns of many others on the affect of FPV misuse. At our club we have a rule where FPV is only allowed if the line-of-sight pilot has the master transmitter and the FPV pilot is on the slave.

lol....amazing? Your response came right after mine and started with "if you...." and then went on to talk about concepts of haves and have nots, "your costs" to stay in the hobby, and something about Uncle Sugar and lust. I apologize for the confusion there, guess I was easily distracted by the talk of vim, vigor, and lust. I got all 50 Shades of RC there for a moment. Apologies all around.

What 400 foot agl? I do not believe there is yet a mention of 400 foot agl in the regs. An AC yes but that is not a regulation.

A CBO is a legal term. There is nothing in the regulations that says a CBO must be named. It just is.

Tell me the law that defines this "national airspace system". I do not believe there is one. It is only referenced in the FAA's educational material. Kinda like the drivers manuals that are taken for law, but are not. The drivers manual says that you shall not exceed the speed limit, but if you look up the law you see that they cannot issue a ticket unless over a certain amount and so far past the speed limit sign.

If they rule everything that flies, then why did the Judge throw out the Pirker case? They said the FAA had no right to regulate the FPV plane because there was no regulation covering it. So obviously it is not automatic that the FAA currently regulate all that flies.

For those of you that wonder if the NOTAMs matter, I can tell you this. When one is issued to cover flying field, the local Police come out to the field to make sure no one is flying. We ( the club) does not call the Police,
they are being notified by Homeland Security and the Secret Service.

WoW....that's interesting. I don't think we've ever seen a cruiser at our field, but I have little double someone wouldn't show up if one of our members decided to ignore the NOTAM.

Have you ever seen this occur?

Yes, the doc 550 is what I was referring to. I may be wrong, but it seems to be a little watered down from it's initial inception. But I could be wrong.

As far as Horizon hobbies goes, they may not have any responsibility in pointing out any rules or guidelines, but it would certainly behoove them to be careful here. The future of the hobby is an issue here, and it would be unfortunate if they helped to eliminate their business through their undoing.

Anybody remember the old 'EZ just" control line handles? They were sued and quit manufacturing them because a pilot was killed by power lines. Guess what?.......CL kits and everything associated with them warned strongly about power lines after that.

A simple notification of these rules is no big deal to include with these products. Of course, nobody is going to follow them. In Horizon's defense, I did speak with someone on the online support. He said the range is so limited on this new offering, that it is of no threat. I am sure. He assured me that they are very aware of this issue, and trying to be careful.

If a policeman tapped me on the shoulder to land my toy plane because of a NOTAM, I would not like it but I would no doubt comply. This scenario is a far cry from expecting me to keep in constant contact with the latest, up to the minute issuances of NOTAMS.
Any cop with a triple digit IQ ought to feel pretty silly about telling guys who are out flying over a 20 acre field to cease and desist or else face arrest.
If the AMA and it's members held a unified stance about shunning drone style flight at AMA fields, we would have much firmer ground to stand upon in the eyes of the law.
The AMA field should be a sanctuary for RC flyers to be able to enjoy this hobby whether there are NOTAMS or not.

Exactly. You are boiling it right down to what I have been saying all along. FPV and autonomous flying is not allowed at our field. It is not what we are about, and it is a private club, so we make the rules.

I am not against FPV or autonomous flying, but they need to find their own way. The AMA needs to make a decision. Get dragged down with a technology that will be our undoing, or strengthen the arguments that WE are not THEY, and should not be regarded as so. Only then will we not be subject to these restrictive NOTAMs.

What is the definition of a drone style flight? The way I understand it the AMA rules for FPV is clear, That means your craft has to be flown line of sight
or close enough to be seen just like any other model would be. I don't see FPV as a problem but people that fly FPV with out any common sense as the
problem.

I think the NOTAM is pretty clear that they consider our model airplanes drones. That is we have been flying drone style all along. Put a video camera on the model and you could fly it right into a stadium or building. The thing is, you can't do that much damage even with a 55 pound model.