Discussion United States Amateur Model Fpv Safety Code (Including AMA Code 550)

[bulldozerr]

[tvdude310]

...and remember, VLOS is actually a good distance away. Under the right circumstances, easily a mile or more.

However, if we succeed in gaining AMA approval, we'll still be limited to the confines of each particular flying field should we choose to fly there.
Still not bad, and things will continue to change, so don't lose faith! Remember, right now it's simply not allowed (Rule #10). So we're moving forward! Stay optimistic, FPV can't be ignored.

[tvdude310]

Originally Posted by patrickegan

I finally got to do a little FPV flying the Raven, visual acuity was observed and commented on by the group.

So, how did you like it? Was it ackward, or did it feel more natural?
I'm dying to hear your opinions...
Rob

[typicalaimster]

Originally Posted by tvdude310

...and remember, VLOS is actually a good distance away. Under the right circumstances, easily a mile or more.

However, if we succeed in gaining AMA approval, we'll still be limited to the confines of each particular flying field should we choose to fly there.
Still not bad, and things will continue to change, so don't lose faith! Remember, right now it's simply not allowed (Rule #10).

And continuing off this. Right now there is no data supporting that FPV flying is safe beyond VLoS. Until a college student in the group decides to do a study on the overall impact of FPV in NAS, then we don't have anything to stand on. Make all the analogies you'd like. Keep in mind those things you're comparing us to are things that have been studied. The impact of drunk driving is known. Data on sports injuries are out there. For FPV Nada! So if you'd like acceptance by high ranking 3 letter agencies, someone better dig up some data!

This brings us to another argument that 'putting a camera on a model airplane doesn't make it more dangerous'. It probably doesn't but once again there is no data supporting this argument. There is data, however, a certain 3 letter organization has collected over the several years. That's the data of model airplanes impact on NAS. However keep in mind this data is flying a model airplane within VLoS.

Now before anyone goes off the cliff, pump your brakes. I've been in contact with plenty of key players over the past couple weeks. One key player pointed us back in the direction of a certain organization. This organization represents Model Aeronautics on a national level. Even if you're not a member of their organization they are still your voice and your representation when aspects of this hobby come under fire on a national level. I've been in contact with this organization and they have welcomed our input in a positive manor. As long as this community continues to drive safe FPV flying they will still continue to welcome us..

Right now like many have pointed out there is a concern between all parties. This hovers around the known data points of VLoS. I know everyone BOO and HISSES when it comes to VLoS. Especially those flying in remote parts of this country. If you want to start being accepted by big agencies and organizations I'd suggest we start to agree to VLoS and start bringing them in a bit closer.

For those out there saying we shouldn't of stirred the pot. Quite frankly from what I've gathered over the past couple weeks you'd be surprised. If you knew a fraction of what I know you'd be sending Patrick a fruit basket with a thank you note. I can't really go into exact detail, but I can say Patrick's acted at the right time. I believe we have the attention of key parties. The community came together and drafted something in almost less than a month. I believe that shows we're serious, and we're motivated.

It's been said before but I will say it again. People in high level spots are watching. They're watching this thread, and this group. Please keep that in mind as we move forward and work things out. Let's continue to move forward and push for acceptance at ~1250 sanctioned flying sites across the nation.

[patrickegan]

Screw the fruit basket, send beer I'll do an after action that will be posted at some point on the "new and improved" RCAPA Reporter site. Raven is cool but it's a fully heads down system and geared more at looking at the ground then sitting in the cockpit. (To be honest, I thought the quality of Wade's stuff was better, shh )

[typicalaimster]

That's because they have to use the FAA Approved equipment in their craft. We couldn't afford Wade's stuff if it was FAA approved

[Gary Evans]

It has been pointed out that some approved AMA flying fields are located within controlled airport boundaries. To accommodate these we have made two changes.


The first is to Operating Requirement #3 shown below which has been removed.

3. Flights are only permitted in uncontrolled airspace as per the current appropriate Sectional Aeronautical Charts.

The second is in Operating Requirement #4 shown below. The word "uncontrolled" has been removed.

4. Flights within 3 statute miles of an uncontrolled airport require prior approval of the airport manager.

[Gary Evans]

The AMA section of the Safety Code has been revised based upon feedback from AMA representatives. See the latest version of the Safety Code in the first post of this thread for the details.

[typicalaimster]

Under the AMA section.. Someone would like to see a small change...

C. Spotters are required that can assist the pilot and/or take control of the aircraft in an emergency situation. This may include, but is not limited to, use of a buddy box system.

-- TO --

C. Spotters may be required to assist the pilot and/or take control of the aircraft in an emergency situation. This may include, but is not limited to, use of a buddy box system.

Comments?

[Gary Evans]

That in effect makes it an option at the discretion of the field safety officer, which is how it was originally worded (see below).

AMA model aircraft Safety Code will apply.
The AMA field safety director may at their discretion require –

A. Range restriction to visual line of sight
B. The use of spotters
C. Supervision of initial flights
D. Waivers

The original wording was tightened based upon feedback from AMA persons as to how this was likely to go down.

It is pretty clear from all indications that if allowed at all AMA FPV rules will require at least spotters. Anyone still hoping that won't be required is dreaming. How that would be enforced at individual fields will be up to the people in charge as it is today with all of their other rules.

There may or may not be an advantage for us to spell this out clearly in our Code before they sit down to decide but from all indications AMA isn't going to argue or negotiate on these points.

[typicalaimster]

Well either way I've been told Waivers will probably not be needed. So if we went back to the original wording we could Nix D!

[twinturbostang]

Originally Posted by Gary Evans

There may or may not be an advantage for us to spell this out clearly in our Code before they sit down to decide but from all indications AMA isn't going to argue or negotiate on these points.

Well, I can't remember from our other discussions. Have they specifically stated that a spotter will be required?

I would definitely prefer to leave it as a recommendation. Or somehow soften up the wording. Actually, Scott's suggestion sounded pretty good...

"Spotters may be required to assist the pilot..."

It's not quite "required", but it's definitely stronger than "recommended". Is that a happy medium??

Brian (aka: Dreamer)

[typicalaimster]

It's being VERY strongly suggested.

[tvdude310]

Originally Posted by typicalaimster

Under the AMA section.. Someone would like to see a small change...

C. Spotters are required that can assist the pilot and/or take control of the aircraft in an emergency situation. This may include, but is not limited to, use of a buddy box system.

-- TO --

C. Spotters may be required to assist the pilot and/or take control of the aircraft in an emergency situation. This may include, but is not limited to, use of a buddy box system.

Comments?

This sounds good to me and addresses Brian's points pretty well. And as Gary said, enforcement is going to be up to the folks at the field anyway.
This will still give the AMA the wording they want to see (hopefully).

[Gary Evans]

Originally Posted by tvdude310

This sounds good to me and addresses Brian's points pretty well. And as Gary said, enforcement is going to be up to the folks at the field anyway.
This will still give the AMA the wording they want to see (hopefully).

Done!