Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Jets
Reload this Page >

EAA and First Person View FPV

Notices
RC Jets Discuss RC jets in this forum plus rc turbines and ducted fan power systems

EAA and First Person View FPV

Old 04-04-2015, 09:38 AM
  #1  
jofunk
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: willow springs , IL
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default EAA and First Person View FPV

In the EAA Sport Aviation April 2015 issue there is a 7 page article about FPV, quad copters ,and drones. It looks like the EAA is welcoming FPV much in the same way as the AMA. A while back I read a letter, by Bob Violett, to the AMA. In it he strongly opposed The AMA welcoming FPV into our hobby. It looks like he is fighting a losing battle. The EAA is looking for the safe operation of this technology to start with the AMA "Know Before You Fly" program. We as AMA members are at the bottom of the aviation pyramid. We are the ones as you would say are "out in the field". Regardless of your views on FPV etc. It is increasingly looking like they are counting on us whenever possible to educate people about safe operations.
Old 04-04-2015, 05:00 PM
  #2  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,967
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

The AMA is trying very hard to have the FAA consider them to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem. "Know before you fly" is a key element of that. It is not going to be possible to "outlaw" FPV, so the approach is to educate people on how to do it safely.

The AMA needs the FAA to certify it as a "Community-Based Organization" (CBO) in order for our members to be free of FAA regulation as long as we follow AMA rules. Working *with* the FAA instead of against them - while still fighting for our continued right to fly safely is the best approach to making this happen. If you look at the NPRM, you will see that it basically leaves recreational modeling under CBO rules alone - which is what we need. This is a direct result of the AMA's efforts in working with the FAA...

Bob
Old 04-05-2015, 08:25 PM
  #3  
Roger Shipley
My Feedback: (35)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Springfield, IL
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Excellent comments guys regarding the regulation of RC Flying as posted on NPRM.It is very important that a contingency of RC Jet Waiver Holders comment on the pending FAA rules....who better than us....so please post your comments on: Link for Comments
Old 04-06-2015, 09:48 AM
  #4  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,956
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Roger Shipley View Post
Excellent comments guys regarding the regulation of RC Flying as posted on NPRM.It is very important that a contingency of RC Jet Waiver Holders comment on the pending FAA rules....who better than us....so please post your comments on: Link for Comments
What's Violett's reason for opposition?
Old 04-06-2015, 10:34 AM
  #5  
wfield0455
My Feedback: (7)
 
wfield0455's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Holliston, MA
Posts: 1,277
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
What's Violett's reason for opposition?
My take from reading his comments was that he simply felt that FPV offered no real value to the hobby and that the only people interested in it were a bunch of dopes that were going to totally ruin model aviation for us all. The typical gloom and doom stuff that people drag out when talking about something that doesn't interest them and since it doesn't interest them, it should be banned because someone might abuse it..
Old 04-06-2015, 01:30 PM
  #6  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,956
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by wfield0455 View Post
My take from reading his comments was that he simply felt that FPV offered no real value to the hobby and that the only people interested in it were a bunch of dopes that were going to totally ruin model aviation for us all. The typical gloom and doom stuff that people drag out when talking about something that doesn't interest them and since it doesn't interest them, it should be banned because someone might abuse it..
I found his letter and a bunch of other writings of his on the subject of safety, and his thoughts seem cogent, relevant, and informed. I would characterize them as taking a professional's view of safe operations, and I see his letter as an extension of that thinking. I share his concern with FPV, specifically "see and avoid," as I do not see how it can be even marginally effective to the same extent that is expected of full scale pilots. Simply trying to determine whether traffic is of "constant bearing, decreasing range" requires the pilot of the FPV to point his aircraft velocity vector toward the traffic - which to me seems inherently unsafe. But that's just my opinion.
Old 04-06-2015, 02:24 PM
  #7  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,967
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
I found his letter and a bunch of other writings of his on the subject of safety, and his thoughts seem cogent, relevant, and informed. I would characterize them as taking a professional's view of safe operations, and I see his letter as an extension of that thinking. I share his concern with FPV, specifically "see and avoid," as I do not see how it can be even marginally effective to the same extent that is expected of full scale pilots. Simply trying to determine whether traffic is of "constant bearing, decreasing range" requires the pilot of the FPV to point his aircraft velocity vector toward the traffic - which to me seems inherently unsafe. But that's just my opinion.

Check out AMA Document #550 - it clearly spells out the requirement that an FPV pilot *MUST* have a spotter who is responsible for "see and avoid" with full-scale aircraft. It also clearly spells out the duties of the FPV pilot and spotter when operating FPV.

Bob
Old 04-06-2015, 02:34 PM
  #8  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,956
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by rhklenke View Post
Check out AMA Document #550 - it clearly spells out the requirement that an FPV pilot *MUST* have a spotter who is responsible for "see and avoid" with full-scale aircraft. It also clearly spells out the duties of the FPV pilot and spotter when operating FPV.

Bob
I was aware of that. AMA members are very good at complying with all the safety rules all the time, but my concern is that by embracing the technology, it's become much more plentiful and thus available to those non-AMA members who will create the safety problems.
Old 04-06-2015, 04:15 PM
  #9  
Terry Holston
My Feedback: (1)
 
Terry Holston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 3,759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
I was aware of that. AMA members are very good at complying with all the safety rules all the time, but my concern is that by embracing the technology, it's become much more plentiful and thus available to those non-AMA members who will create the safety problems.
+1000
Old 04-06-2015, 06:26 PM
  #10  
rgburrill
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,581
Received 45 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Thanks for hijacking the thread! This was about a serious problem that threatens ALL fliers, not just the few who can affor those fancy jets!

Can we get this back on track! FPV could have been shut down before it started witht he right pressure on the hobby manufacturers by the AMA 25 years ago. And if the AMA had taken the commericial drone industries arguments and used them to stop the toy drones they would not have had to spend $1 million on legal fees.
Old 04-06-2015, 07:12 PM
  #11  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,967
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rgburrill View Post
Thanks for hijacking the thread! This was about a serious problem that threatens ALL fliers, not just the few who can affor those fancy jets!

Can we get this back on track! FPV could have been shut down before it started witht he right pressure on the hobby manufacturers by the AMA 25 years ago. And if the AMA had taken the commericial drone industries arguments and used them to stop the toy drones they would not have had to spend $1 million on legal fees.
You're kidding, right? FPV wasn't even feasible at the hobby level 5 years ago, let alone 25 years ago! Besides, FPV was a natural evolution of technology, and in this country (to this point anyway), we don't outlaw technology, we embrace it and figure out how it can be used safely - that's our bread and butter!

From a practical standpoint, there is NO WAY that FPV could have been blanket made illegal - its simply not possible to keep that genie in a bottle, and even if it was, the AMA has no power or leverage against manufacturers to do so. Saying that the AMA could, and should have done this is simply a foolish statement...

The bottom line is that FPV, done in accordance with AMA rules, is safe. In the future, when the FAA rule comes out as currently envisioned, FPV in accordance with AMA rules will be allowed. If its not in accordance with AMA rules, it must be done in accordance with the *stricter* FAA rules. FPV not done in accordance with those two sets of rules will be *illegal* and subject to substantial fines and/or jail time. That includes most of the really stupid FPV stuff you see on Youtube which prompted Bob Violett's original comments. Unfortunately, just hoping it will go away if we turn our backs on it simply won't work...

Bob
Old 04-07-2015, 04:52 AM
  #12  
Terry Holston
My Feedback: (1)
 
Terry Holston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 3,759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Well said, Bob. Thanks
Old 04-07-2015, 05:22 AM
  #13  
gunradd
My Feedback: (9)
 
gunradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Springhill, FL
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 49 Likes on 42 Posts
Default

The good part that I am hearing at the meetings I have attended with the FAA on quads and other RC aircraft has been good. They have a FIRM line drawn between us doing it at a proper field flying model aircraft. They want nothing more then to just leave us alone. The problem they have is the FPV guys and the quads flying around airports and other populated areas. The issue is the FAA has no power other than to charge some one civilly. They are trying to get cities and others to make no fly zones for city limits by going through city council. This would give local law enforcement the power they need to make some one land and do something about people flying in unsafe areas doing unsafe things.

The scary part in all this is people that know nothing about what we do are making the rules.I had a look at a rough draft for my area and after reading it had a long talk with the guys who wrote it and educated them on the AMA and AMA fields. They are looking now into changing it to basically say flying will be allowed at AMA sanctioned fields within the city limits but everything else will be banned.

I think we need to all keep an eye out on our local government and not so much the FAA on this issue.

Bottom line is something needs to be done. We almost hit a qaud at night on patrol in one of our helicopters. We also had to call ground units on another occasion to come make a guy land that was flying a 40% extra within 1 mile from an international airport. Even after us flying around him he continued to fly. Another one was a huge octocopter flying over our gasperilla parade downtown over huge crowds very low. He was even going eye level with the guys on the boats. Legally their is nothing any one can do right now until new rules come out. I know no one likes new rules but we need some to be able to stop people doing reckless things.

If done right it will protect our hobby because right now its only a matter of time before something bad happens. Please keep in mind the focus here is on people doing unsafe things not on us and that's straight from the FAA guy I talked too in the meeting.
Old 04-07-2015, 10:10 AM
  #14  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,967
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by gunradd View Post
The good part that I am hearing at the meetings I have attended with the FAA on quads and other RC aircraft has been good. They have a FIRM line drawn between us doing it at a proper field flying model aircraft. They want nothing more then to just leave us alone. The problem they have is the FPV guys and the quads flying around airports and other populated areas. The issue is the FAA has no power other than to charge some one civilly. They are trying to get cities and others to make no fly zones for city limits by going through city council. This would give local law enforcement the power they need to make some one land and do something about people flying in unsafe areas doing unsafe things.

The scary part in all this is people that know nothing about what we do are making the rules.I had a look at a rough draft for my area and after reading it had a long talk with the guys who wrote it and educated them on the AMA and AMA fields. They are looking now into changing it to basically say flying will be allowed at AMA sanctioned fields within the city limits but everything else will be banned.

I think we need to all keep an eye out on our local government and not so much the FAA on this issue.

[snip]
Even that's not the right thing though because now, you can fly at your local school yard or park, that isn't an "AMA sanctioned field" and as long as you fly within AMA rules, you're covered by AMA insurance and will fall within the CBO-based recreational and hobby use that gives you an exception to the FAA rule. Why should that activity be banned by a city ordinance?

Bob
Old 04-07-2015, 10:20 AM
  #15  
gunradd
My Feedback: (9)
 
gunradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Springhill, FL
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 49 Likes on 42 Posts
Default

I am all for park flying Bob. Im just telling you what I am getting at these UAS meetings with the FAA-TSA-FBI and police. I can see a blanket ban coming and it wont be the FAA that does it. It will be our local city councils.

Originally Posted by rhklenke View Post
Even that's not the right thing though because now, you can fly at your local school yard or park, that isn't an "AMA sanctioned field" and as long as you fly within AMA rules, you're covered by AMA insurance and will fall within the CBO-based recreational and hobby use that gives you an exception to the FAA rule. Why should that activity be banned by a city ordinance?

Bob

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.