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

[typicalaimster]

Supplement Code is what was mentioned to me.

[Hossfly]

Originally Posted by typicalaimster

I'm already in contact with the AMA and will be working with them throughout the lifespan of the document. Funny how Horace Cain ignored me when I emailed him.

typicalaimster, please accept my sincere apology. I read that mail as simply an informative advisement. I did not intend to ignore you. Again, I am sorry for my inattention.

Now, I am definitely NOT a wise individual reference this First Person Video thing, yet with just a bare introduction, I can see that this thing will spread, AMA or No AMA.
While as an individual with over 65 years active model aviation behind me, I can see FPV to be a real fun game. However some 41 years of professional aviation and 28 of those years in civil aviation where the FAA is a daily acronym in the mind, I foresee several major traps.
1. FAA is the biggest bureaucracy I am aware of. Having survived six (6) consecutive IRS audits, I think an audit is favorable to trying to reason with FAA persons.
2. AMA needs a green light from FAA prior to giving the greenlight to RCers.
3. The potential of increased accidents will loom big with the FAA bureaucrats who will have no problem sacrificing AMA's 150,000 voters for saving the world from these dangerous model airplane fanatics and possible terrorists. That is sarcasm but one has to know the FAA and I do from my first civil pilot's license to airline transport pilot, being under their gun for 28 years, including one criminal charge. That was thrown out of court however a year of harassment was not fun.
4. My BIG Fear: RC pilots are NOT trained for Situational Awareness and when they have goggles on they will never see anything but their model. In fact my experience dictates most are far too focused even without goggles. For the past 30 years so many young pilots are "instrument pilots" from day one. They don't know how to "Check Six" or what it means. Once the RC people start using these Video machines all the younger ones will want the same and never learn to be aware of the potential weapon they are trying to control.
That means if AMA can get and pass on that green light, then a lot of training may well be required for any decently safe operation.

Right now I don't have an answer that you would like to hear. AMA has to become much more sophisticated with dealing with Federal Bureaucracy before this green light happens. I'm afraid the "new technologies" may well be like tube receivers prior to the current AMA getting anything accomplished.

As Einstein said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
AND:
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

IMO AMA needs a facelift, but the membership ignores the ballots and it's the same old operation there. Another old saying: "The longest journey is begun with the first step."


Horrace Cain

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

George Washington

[PeteSchug]

You just have to look at their treatment of Bob Hoover to know how monsterous they can be.

Pete

[goliathman]

Originally Posted by PeteSchug

You just have to look at their treatment of Bob Hoover to know how monsterous they can be.

Pete

from wicked pee:

Medical Controversy
His air show aerobatics career ended over medical concerns, when his medical certificate was revoked by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the early '90s. Some in the aviation community believed that the controversial suspension, reversed after legal proceedings, was actually a "stalking horse" in the ongoing debate over the mandatory retirement age for US commercial pilots.

Ironically, shortly before the revocation, Hoover had proved his still considerable skills by making a difficult dead-stick landing in densely-populated Torrance, Calif., after his engine had failed miles out over the Pacific Ocean. Meanwhile, Hoover was granted a pilot's license, and medical certificate, by Australia's aviation authorities[1], enabling him to fly in any part of the world other than the United States.


Hoover's FAA medical certificate was eventually reinstated, but the damage had been done — he was unable to get the insurance necessary to perform, due to the company's fears. Hoover continued to fly his P-51 Mustang at shows, sometimes in tight formation with Yeager, but the Shrike Commander act was over.

[tvdude310]

Originally Posted by PeteSchug

You just have to look at their treatment of Bob Hoover to know how monsterous they can be.

Pete

My thoughts exactly.

[Hossfly]

AMA EC meeting July, 26 - '08 Minutes

http://www.modelaircraft.org/member...8ecminutes.aspx

Emphasis added

b. FAA ARC (Aviation Rulemaking Committee) Report
R. Hanson noted the use of unmanned aerial systems has intensified over the last 3-5 years; and the success has spurred interest in domestic application. The FAA has tasked the ARC with creating/recommending rules/regulations that would allow aircraft to operate in the commercial/public use environment. Hanson reported on the meetings he has attended; noted they will be gathering additional data through a survey of AMA members regarding flying activities; will review the standard type aircraft description for possible rewording and to make more clear. He will attend a demonstration and model test at Edwards Air Force Base on August 27, and will purchase an on-board system to aid in this testing. Argenio will check on the wholesale price of this system relative to purchasing one for each district. <<<<<<<<<<

[typicalaimster]

Yeah but the problem is not everyone received that survey. I don't understand why they'll be getting 'a device' for every district. I believe the testing should be more worded 'will be attending'.

BTW link is broken above.. Here is the minutes to the meeting.

[typicalaimster]

Welcome to the radar everyone..

First Person View (FPV) – It was discovered that there is information on RC Groups noting specific wording that is being used to allow this; B. Underwood, I. Maine and R. Hanson know nothing of this. It was discussed by the Safety Committee and there were varying views. The committee has no recommendations at this time.

This is from the meeting minutes on the AMA web site that I listed above. Before everyone jumps for joy over the note.. We're still waiting to hear back form them on how they want to handle it.

Crawl, Walk, Run folks. Right now we're still crawlin

[patrickegan]

Tomorrows the big day, keep your fingers crossed

[tvdude310]

Originally Posted by typicalaimster

Crawl, Walk, Run folks. Right now we're still crawlin

Funny analogy for me...
I never crawled as a baby. Just stood up one day (8 months) and started walking...

[tychoc]

Originally Posted by tvdude310

Funny analogy for me...
I never crawled as a baby. Just stood up one day (8 months) and started walking...

My youngest son did the same. Just skipped the crawling state and started walking at 8 months....

-tychoc

[twinturbostang]

Hey guys. Looks like I'm late to the party. I have been one of the "FPV Five" (the five guys that have been working offline on a set of proposed regulations. Things have been really busy for me and I haven't had a chance to get back on rcgroups in two weeks. Anyway, I'm back, and glad to see things are shaping up here. Just a couple of quick notes here...

1) I missed the first round of discussions (arguments?), but one thing I'd like to comment on.. There was a lot of negative feedback on the airplane limitations (weight, speed, etc.). For the record, I was never in favor of stating weight/speed/etc. limitations other than those of the AMA code. I thought we (as in the FPV Five group) had come to a decision to use the existing AMA regulations for those, but somehow that seemed to have changed. Anyway, many people have spoken, and I am glad to see that the proposed regulations now use the AMA limits.

2) The biggest issues that I see for us are going to be the altitude and distance limitations. I don't know where things are going to end up, but I have a bad feeling that we are going to be limited to 400ft AGL and visual line of sight. That's a huge blow to FPV flying since the very nature of it allows for safely flying beyond those limitations. Long range flying is something I really enjoy (in the proper safe environment of course!). So this is a huge frustration for me. It's been suggested though, that we may need to make a separate set of rules for long range flying. I imagine that will not be easy at all, but it may end up being a reality unfortunately.

Anyway, just checking in, since I've been off the forum for a couple of weeks.

Brian

[patrickegan]

I finally got to do a little FPV flying the Raven, visual acuity was observed and commented on by the group. This is stated in an effort to move things forward, forget anything beyond VLOS for the foreseeable future.

[typicalaimster]

Originally Posted by patrickegan

This is stated in an effort to move things forward, forget anything beyond VLOS for the foreseeable future.

I can vouch for that to. I just waiting for another stake holder, as you put it, to email me back. Which reminds me, I need to email someone.

[PeteSchug]

VLOS is better than no LOS at all.

Pete