bkdavy

My Feedback: (1)

It appears that the new administration in Muncie is making progress in accepting new technology. I just saw the box on Page 10 in the January Model Aviation that the AMA will now permit FPV (first person view) flying.

Great day!

Brad

Kemosobie

I have seen one of these fly and it was very impressive.

Hossfly

AMA Web. Oct 08 meeting

MOTION X: Moved by J. Rice (VIII) and seconded by B. Brown (III) to approve the document titled FIRST PERSON VIEW (FPV) OPERATIONS – AMA MEMBERS AND AMA CHARTERED CLUB SITES as amended; and add it to the Supplemental section of the Safety Code and the PDF file listing.
MOTION passed unanimously (Dist. VII VP out of room for vote).

Muroc1

I've always wanted to try FPV. It looks so cool. I wish someone in my club did that and I would love to see it in person.

Glad to see the AMA amend their safety code to allow it. They are definitely looking to the future.

Frank

typicalaimster

Yeah, a group of us over on RCG's FPV forum got together and submitted some rules to the AMA.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=945685

Muroc1, where are you located? I fly FPV at NVRC in Northern Va. Maybe I can travel down your way sometime and put on a demo?

bkdavy

My Feedback: (1)

Frank- I also have a setup that I'd be happy to let you try next time you find yourself in the Frederick area.

I was using this at a demo at the Meyersville Trolley Festival in October (not actually letting them fly, but letting them view through the goggles. It was a HUGE hit and a great way to promote the hobby.

Brad

typicalaimster

I agree with Brad. Many people dream of flying but can't afford the cost associated with it. Model aircraft is an affordable way of becoming a pilot. Putting FPV gear into the plane brings them one step closer to reality. The FPV setup is defiantly the talk of the town whenever I bring it to a club event. Hopefully FPV will lure in some of the XBox generation.

Robotech

My Feedback: (9)

10 lb., 60 MPH Limit. Who is going to monitor this? Another burden on the clubs? Where did they get these arbitrary numbers? Did Mark Smith have a secret commitee meeting with FPV vendors? [&:]

...........>pulls chain<............

typicalaimster

No actually the FPV Community on RCG had a debate and voted on a couple numbers. If you'd like to muddle through the thread I'm sure I can dig it up. Trust me it was a messy debate. Many argued that a Easy Star can fly 80mph down wind in a dive... The 60x10 numbers was the middle ground we came up with and submitted to the AMA. Granted most people that fly FPV are using foam models. The idea was to allow some room for growth. The 60x10 number will allow a very well equipped '60' sized trainer with FPV gear. We didn't want someone taking a 15lb jet and flying it via FPV at 120mph. There really is no way of knowing how fast the plane is going unless you have a OSD displaying ground speed from a GPS. So with that in mind there will be some self regulation on the FPV'ers end.

Keep in mind the "Suggested AMA Field" is roughly 23 acres. Do a bit of math and tell me how fast and how big of an object you want maneuver in that limited amount of space. Plus these are numbers to start out with. Once FPV is out in the field for a bit, the numbers can be looked at again.

Threads where numbers came from..

Max Speed:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892878

Max Weight:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892862

bkdavy

My Feedback: (1)

My guess is that the AMA is also working with the FAA and the AOPA to work on regulatory limits/restrictions for hobby vs. commercial use. It would not surprise me to see the 10 lbs x 60 mph show up in the FAA regs. Its entirely possible that the FAA has already told the AMA those numbers will be in the regs.

Brad

KidEpoxy

it is interesting that the middle ground compromise for FPV speed
happens to be the speed that was found for the parkflyer tier...

Do we fly PFs in the park at speeds above the lower considerations for FPV?
Or is FPV slowed down to the hamstrung speeds for flying in parks?
Odd how 2/60 is safe, but 10/60 is safe too.

typicalaimster

Well as Gary pointed out in one of the threads

Do FPV'ers fly in parks? Yes some do. However now 550 gives them access to fields. This allows the AMA to collect a bit of data on the subject. That data can be presented to the FAA giving key points on FPV's impact on NAS.

Muroc1

Brad,

Thanks for the offer. I have a feeling I might just be up your way again anyway to complete the round the USA journey of a certain plane that you and I know well.


typicalaimster,

That sounds like a great idea. I am about 3 hours south of you. Maybe if you have some free time and are down this way it would be very cool if you could do some show and tell.

Frank

Robotech

My Feedback: (9)

I know. I was ..........>pulling chains<..............

FlyinTiger

My Feedback: (45)

Notice that FPV is only SECONDARY control!

The primary control is done by the person on the primary controls...the person on the buddy box can control via FPV.

This eliminates any real danger. The aircraft still must remain in sight of the PRIMARY PILOT. I think some people are getting the wrong idea, thinking that someone is controlling an aircraft with FPV and no safety pilot.

Any time the FPV pilot gets too far away or starts to lose control, the primary pilot simply releases the trainer switch and corrects, giving the FPV pilot time to get re-oriented and back on track.

There is NO added danger of flynig FPV as long as the safety pilot has PRIMARY control.

Way to go AMA! I can't wait to give this a try...just have to find a pilot I trust to fly my planes! [8D]

typicalaimster

Which in regard to the Primary / Secondary control. The AMA told me they'd revisit the issue in the future. Right now they want to roll it out the door and see what impact it has. I'm still a huge advocate of having a spotter if you're flying FPV at a AMA field. Once you have the video goggles on, you have no situational awareness of other models flying around you. It's nice to have someone there to help spot you should danger arise. To me if you crash your plane because you went to far out, that's your own fault. However if someone else at the field has lost control and may crash into you or the pits.. I want someone there to pull me out of the way!

KidEpoxy

I'm still hung up on how a Buddy Box is unsafe if the model is over 10/60.

Does it really matter if the PIC takes over
from someone that lost control while looking at the plane, or someone that lost control waring goggles.

If Muncie wants to say that BuddyBoxes are unsafe taking over out of control planes
based on if they are over 10/60,
but only if the assisted pilot was looking at a screen or goggles,
does that make it safe for an assisted pilot get sun in his eyes or lose orientation with a heavy fast plane?

What does it matter if the guy that get control taken away by the buddybox master PIC
was looking at a screem, his phone, or staring at the sun.... or just dropped the stick.
What would the master PIC do different with a 11lb FPV out of control that he can do just fine with a 9lb one?

FlyinTiger

My Feedback: (45)

To make it simple, it will be just like training a student on the buddy box.

Pick the guy who has the master control carefully. If he has the right skill set he'll know when you're getting close to the limits of his comfort zone and rescue the aircraft before the situation develops beyond his control.

That is the difference.

Most will agree that in control means the plane is going where intended somewhat smoothly and the next turn or two is thought out ahead of time.

You're right, many people can't fly this way looking at the plane from a third person point of view...they need focused practice before they start getting on the end of a master control for someone else.

When the guy wearing goggles will not know he needs assistance until the situation has developed beyond his ability to recover.

Flight training. Simple. Yes, with some outside references (a fence, trees or other land marks) and some flight training, it is definitely possible to fly FPV unassisted. Make that LOTS of flight training for most people. Now you're flying a plane just like being in the real thing, except that it is harder because you can't feel the flight loads on the airframe.

Bob Mitchell

I'm reading between the lines here, but I think the two are unrelated.

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. Homeland security may have put that bug in their ear and I suspect that we'll see those limits again, published by another agency.

typicalaimster

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..

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.

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.

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
We would have liked these distance guidlines...
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:
The buddy box requirement is covered in a few places....

Section 8.1.1 states:
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.

FlyinTiger

My Feedback: (45)

Thanks for the rundown...this is exciting! I think there will be many neat opportunities in the future. I like the potential to hook some new pilots just because flying FPV is much more like flying a "real" plane. I may just start with a Multiplex EasyStar with a 900MHz downlink camera and some goggles.[8D]

KidEpoxy

Uh, there is no difference.
The PIC takes over for 20lb Turbine trinees just fine & safe but has problems taking over an 11lb plane
just because the guy that lost control was using a camera instead of being unskilled or stung by a bee?
I was talking about the degree of safety of a Buddybox is now somehow dependant on the weight of the plane that the trainee lost control of? When a 20lb turbine trainee loses control it is safer than the forbiden 11lb cameraplane losing control? That is the gist of the new BuddyBox use restriction: Buddyboxes are safe for 20lb 100mph unless the guy that totally lost control was looking at a screen prior to losing control and having the PIC take over?



uh, that is like having a law to make killing someone with a sharpened DVD illegal:
Killing the guy is already illegal, we dont need restrictions on DVD thicknesses.
I dont think the guys that put illegal activity payloads in RC planes will abide by the payload limit restrictions of a private club they may or maynot belong to. If someone attempting to commit FPV RC mass murder, I dont think having an AMA inhouse limit will stop their plot.Wouldnt a simpler and SAFER rule for muncie to put out be:
Illegal Activity Payloads are now forbidden by AMA rules.
there
instead of AMA limiting members to slow planes & small bombs, forbid the member from carring ANY bombs.
But thats not what came out of Muncie.
The concept that slow small bombs are ok FPV, that only fast large bombs/drugs violate AMA rules..... IS SILLY!!!!

I didnt see a payload limit,
I saw it allow a 4lb payload on a 6lb plane while forbiding a 1/4lb payload on a 15lb plane.
The limits on how how much payload is directly limiting how much telemetry you can recieve- a plane with 3 or more high res video feeds with airspeed & alt would be safer than a single 320res FPV, yet there is the cap on how much equipment you can use by arbitrary weight..... 9lb planes can use less control(safety) stuff than 5lb planes.



It absolutely a new rule on BuddyBox Use.
Previous to 550, what was the weight limit on using a buddybox?
What is the weight limit now? 10lb
...but only when the guy that the PIC take control away from was using FPV. If the guy that lost control was stung by a bee or lost it in the sun, or is a walkup rookie pilot, or spontaneous human combusted, then the 20lb or 54lb planes going 100-120 are much safer for the PIC to recover than a 15lb 70mph BigOle Telemaster/Cub.

What is the FVP guy doing to the plane to make it out of control worse
than the trainee guy that got stung by a bee while staring at the sun.... how does FPV make it harder for the PIC to recover with the buddybox? If we say one is totally out of control while the other is toally-ER out of control it sounds silly..... because that is what the rule is saying and it is indeed silly.


I am not against FPV.
I am not for anarchic chaos of unfretted FPV.
The Buddybox requirment seems ok, the plane needs eyes on it and the PIC does that.
But the weight limit is not a safety thing, and it makes no sense as a homeland sec thing.

FlyinTiger

My Feedback: (45)

One thing I recommend to FPV pilots to help with orientation is an FMA Autopilot. This system can make things a lot more fun and take away some of the guess work when it comes to flying safely.

The BIG difference is between pilots who want RC to stay around for a few more years and those that are just out to have fun for a couple flights and really don't care. This difference is evident at every flying site, AMA or otherwise, around the world.

The effort taken to train to become a safe and skilled pilot, improving with every flight and ever learning, is evident after flying with someone for only a few minutes. Remember, flying RC aircraft is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.

AMA is not creating a first person pilot training and evaluation program...they are making it so a few enthusiasts can operate at the same airfields and under the same basic rules as the rest of the RC people...NOT UAV rules! I don't ever want RC to fall under UAV rules, EVER! If you fly an RC aircraft with FPV and no safety pilot, you are operating a LOS (line-of-sight) UAV. The radio signal is the only thing that is LOS.

Have you ever flown a FPV aircraft larger than a small foamy? Have you ever flown FPV aircraft at any faster speed? Have you ever flown an FPV aircraft that had more than 3 channels (i.e. has ailerons?). If you have you'll know how quickly a person can lose orientation while looking at a two dimensional TV screen or goggles and flying in three dimensional airspace.

Visual disorientation is common among full scale pilots that sit in the plane and have the luxury of using instruments to aide their control of the aircraft. Even VFR pilots need an altimeter to tell how high they are!

FPV pilots, without instruments (except for a few with telemetry systems) and very little first person flight training, are a recipe for disaster. Like I said before, well trained and equipped pilots will be safe and promote the hobby. Untrained and poorly equipped FPV people will keep depending on their safety pilots to keep them from crashing.

I regularly fly as a safety pilot with the master control for some older gentlemen that don't have good vision or reflexes...I prevent them from crashing and keep them flying and enjoying the hobby...otherwise they would have to quit.

The SAFETY PILOT decides how far the other person goes before they can't recover...VERY safe...NOT at all like getting stung by a bee or making a bad decision to fly through the sun.

Most accidents/crashes in RC can be prevented by safe operating practices and staying within the operating envelope of the aircraft and the pilot. This is also true of full scale aircraft. The safety pilot ensures that the aircraft doesn't leave the safe operating envelope...therefore, NO CRASHES.

I HIGHLY recommend that KidEpoxy try training a new RC pilot using a buddy box system to fully understand how this works. If you haven't been on the master control side, you won't know how the decision process is made in the name of safety. Ask the instructor that taught you how to fly if you aren't ready to be on the master end of a buddy box.

All of this is said with the best intentions. Maybe others will read and make wise decisions with regard to FPV flying and RC flying in general.

FlyinTiger

My Feedback: (45)

Thank you to typicalaimster for laying out the facts and keeping all of us straight. Thanks for explaining how a smaller aircraft is safer...smaller payload and less of an impact itself. I'm sure there's a lot of math around some of those decisions out there.

typicalaimster

You hit the nail on the head here. We didn't want FPV to fall under the same ruling as UAS/UAV's. We were very clear about FPV vs UAS. There are products that will return your FPV craft back to the launch site. However those systems can lump FPV planes into the UAS crowd. The next best thing to a Autopilot fail safe is another pair of eyes and tumbs on the plane. Some FPV pilots will use a Gyro/FMA setup to level their plane. We communicated the use of these products to the AMA. However we wanted to keep things as simple as possible.

As you've mentioned, new pilots can become disoriented very easily. This is where your spotter/buddy comes into the picture. The spotter/buddy can help 'walk' you around the flight zone. The spotter/buddy is there to keep you away from the pits, or from flying behind the flight line. Once again something that usually happens until someone is used to flying around the area. There's a video out there from a FPV pilot who was lost. I believe the film was done somewhere over in the EU. The pilot thought he was going one direction to his field, but ended up in another direction. Most FPV pilots will tell you it's happened to them when they first start out.. This is why a Spotter is _highly_ suggested. I've spotted a fellow FPV'er at a fun fly here in the DC area. For the first few minutes I helped him establish a flight pattern. I'd also alert him when he was getting to far out and I was losing orientation of the plane.

Once FPV is common at flying fields I believe you'll see a call for a rule change. By that time the FPV community should have more data points and proof of proficiency. I've flown FPV at AMA flying fields BEFORE SC550 went into affect. I started out with a spotter/buddy on the other end of my transmitter. After awhile the elders waved me on and told me to do it Solo. I'm very optimistic and hope the AMA will follow the same path. From what it sounds like there is a valid concern that SC550 is the end all be all document for FPV. Rule changes can and will happen as the aspect of the hobby changes. Once again the numbers can and will probably be tweaked as FPV gains exposure out there in the field. The Jet gang were very limited when they started out. As that aspect of the hobby grew the numbers were changed. Once the flying season gets under way I'll solicit comments from the FPV community and find out what IS working and what IS NOT. I'll probably solicit everyone at the end of the flying season fall of 2009. Once we compile those comments we'll submit them to the AMA for review. As long as SC550 has the support of its community it will continue to be a living document.

As far as the weight thing goes... The difference between 9lbs and 11lbs post SC550 is insurance. If something drastic happens, and you've knowingly put a 12lb plane up in the air you and your club will not be covered. If your FPV plane was flying 90mph across the sky and hits someone at full speed and kills them, you won't be covered. If you flying solo and hit someone and seriously injure someone, you won't be covered. This especially becomes true as investigators piece the puzzle together. It's not that hard to replicate airframes and equipment used in a craft. Once again to start out we needed some numbers the community could agree on. We drew a line in the sand and proposed very level headed numbers. SC550 is the result. We can talk numbers all night if we wanted. It comes down to the simple fact that if you, your field, and your land lord want to be insured by the AMA you have to play by the rules. It really is as simple as that.