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

[Mr.Pibb]

Just because "Homeland Security" thinks it's illegal, doesn't mean it is.

Wow...just....wow...

like this hasn't been discussed to death.

[FPVExtremer]

Yes Pibb,

Great point, very big WOW factor here.

And this is for Jim,

I would not want to troll in, but now that's just really absurd...come on, foam planes are subject of homeland security? Come on, go play xbox live spy games or else...

Also can't wait to see JettPilot's optinion here...really.

Cheers,

Ernani

[Mel Duval]

Originally Posted by Gary Evans

I understand that the FAA's ARC has basically completed its task which was to pull together information for the preparation of proposed UAS regulations. Next step will be the drafting of proposed rules which may be completed this year with adoption and enforcement to follow.
No details on exactly what the ARC has provided have been disclosed yet.

Here you go. Note sections 2 and 3 and the visual line of sight rule...........

[JimDrew]

Interesting my post was deleted. If anyone thinks that Homeland Security does not have the final say, even over the FAA, they are fooling themselves. Homeland Security got greatly involved with this ordeal after the guy was flying his FPV equipped plane over top airliners on approach into McCarren Airport in Las Vegas, NV.

[gundamnitpete]

Originally Posted by JimDrew

Interesting my post was deleted. If anyone thinks that Homeland Security does not have the final say, even over the FAA, they are fooling themselves. Homeland Security got greatly involved with this ordeal after the guy was flying his FPV equipped plane over top airliners on approach into McCarren Airport in Las Vegas, NV.

thank you for your input....

[Martin Y]

Originally Posted by JimDrew

Homeland Security got greatly involved with this ordeal after the guy was flying his FPV equipped plane over top airliners on approach into McCarren Airport in Las Vegas, NV.

Funny that, couldn't find anything about that on the net. Or is it just me, Or was that deleted.

[pratorian]

Originally Posted by Martin Y

Funny that, couldn't find anything about that on the net. Or is it just me, Or was that deleted.

Obama calls Jim every morning so he knows better, listen to him and dont ask questions.

[David22]

I find it really sad that his post WAS deleted

it would be interesting if someone had info about what he was and is talking about

or is this post going to be deleted?

[VRflyer]

I read his post, I was to answer yesterday.

I already discuss the subject with the preseident of our association, the MAAC. In Canada it exist no clear law that restrict us to do FPV. The only rule that write somewhere, it is the plane must remain in visual contact. But that need to be discuss in court with lawyer. it's not a law as i know.

Presently the rule is a no sens. To be cover inside MAAC club, the plane weight must remain under 35Kg. No size limitation. So you are allow to build a plane with giant wings. The visual range depend on the size of the wing and the good eyes of the pilot who kept visual contact. So it's possible to go easily beyond one km inside rc club. I don't think it is require to have double receiver. I think you can buy the cheapest stuff to build your plane. So if you lost contac and your plane fly severals km and fall on highway, the MAAC insurer is covering you...

But when I fly whit my Fox with my goggle, the insurer is not covering me. It will cover the 20 pound turbine plane that fly beyonf 200kmh, no problem, no need a co-pilot for those toy. But for the Fox, I need an experience pilot who will take the control.

Imagine receivig a Fox in the eye...

[gundamnitpete]

Originally Posted by David22

I find it really sad that his post WAS deleted

it would be interesting if someone had info about what he was and is talking about

or is this post going to be deleted?

he stated he heard from some poeple it was illegal. your up to date.

[SoMoney]

1. Maximum flight altitude of 400ft AGL as per FAA guideline AC 91-57.

91-57 says model aircraft "should" be kept under 400ft. But later in that document The FAA state "UAV's" operating over 18,000 feet SHOULD have transponders and open an IFR flight plan. I get it though, let them all THINK we fly under 400, good plan, but broken by EVERY FPV pilot to date.

2. Flights are not permitted over densely populated areas of cities, towns or over any open-air assembly of persons.

So Parks and "non densely populate" areas of cities, towns are fine.

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

Like that's gonna happen...Airport manager isn't going to...

4. Maximum operating range shall be limited to AMA safety rules and FAA guidelines.

Why are UHF TX/RX recommended for FPV again? 1st step to make the UHF RC System illegal in around AMA sanctioned flying fields? Or eventually illegal in the US?

5. Flights shall be conducted in such a way as to prevent harm to full-scale aircraft, people, animals or property.

See Rule 1

6. Flights should be only conducted under VFR weather conditions.
a. Day = 1 statute mile of visibility
b. Night = 3 statute miles of visibility
7. Night flights require on-board aircraft lights that show the aircraft’s attitude visible from 1000 ft.

I guess for other fpv aircraft can spot me.

8. Fully autonomous aerial vehicles that lack the ability to be totally controlled by the pilot in command are not considered to be FPV aircraft and as such are not covered by these guidelines.

Yay, OSD with RTH FTW! We can ignore the rest..

9. Aircraft will be flown by regular visual line-of-sight method during initial testing and/or testing of any flight system changes that could affect performance and/or handling.

Thats not FPV. Thats from the standard RC Model flight rules. Who let this guy in? I guess when making rules that resemble the 10 commandments of FPV you need Filler.

10. Aircraft will contain contact information for the pilot, including but not limited to, the pilots full name, address, and phone number.

FPV rules should compliment AMA rules as an addition, not a repeat of. This is already in AMA guidelines.

[scrtsqrl]

FWIW...In the full scale aviation world...

Should = "The Standards use the word "should" where conformance is expected unless, when applying professional judgment, circumstances justify deviation."

Shall = Compliance is Mandatory

[PeteSchug]

Originally Posted by SoMoney

1. Maximum flight altitude of 400ft AGL as per FAA guideline AC 91-57.

91-57 says model aircraft "should" be kept under 400ft. But later in that document The FAA state "UAV's" operating over 18,000 feet SHOULD have transponders and open an IFR flight plan. I get it though, let them all THINK we fly under 400, good plan, but broken by EVERY FPV pilot to date.

2. Flights are not permitted over densely populated areas of cities, towns or over any open-air assembly of persons.

So Parks and "non densely populate" areas of cities, towns are fine.

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

Like that's gonna happen...Airport manager isn't going to...

4. Maximum operating range shall be limited to AMA safety rules and FAA guidelines.

Why are UHF TX/RX recommended for FPV again? 1st step to make the UHF RC System illegal in around AMA sanctioned flying fields? Or eventually illegal in the US?

5. Flights shall be conducted in such a way as to prevent harm to full-scale aircraft, people, animals or property.

See Rule 1

6. Flights should be only conducted under VFR weather conditions.
a. Day = 1 statute mile of visibility
b. Night = 3 statute miles of visibility
7. Night flights require on-board aircraft lights that show the aircraft’s attitude visible from 1000 ft.

I guess for other fpv aircraft can spot me.

8. Fully autonomous aerial vehicles that lack the ability to be totally controlled by the pilot in command are not considered to be FPV aircraft and as such are not covered by these guidelines.

Yay, OSD with RTH FTW! We can ignore the rest..

9. Aircraft will be flown by regular visual line-of-sight method during initial testing and/or testing of any flight system changes that could affect performance and/or handling.

Thats not FPV. Thats from the standard RC Model flight rules. Who let this guy in? I guess when making rules that resemble the 10 commandments of FPV you need Filler.

10. Aircraft will contain contact information for the pilot, including but not limited to, the pilots full name, address, and phone number.

FPV rules should compliment AMA rules as an addition, not a repeat of. This is already in AMA guidelines.

Your criticism of (9) misses the point.

The wording is: "during initial testing and/or testing of any flight system changes that could affect performance and/or handling."

Read before you babble. It makes good sense to anyone who reads and thinks.

Pete

[SoMoney]

I got the point and summarized at the end.

YESTERDAYS DODGER GAME, SOME ONE DECIDED TO DIVE BOMB THE PLAYERS.
I guess he was applying rule 9 and skipping the 1st one.

9/1/09 ANOTHER LOOK AT REMOTE CONTROL AIRPLANE AT DODGERS BASEBALL GAME (0 min 38 sec)

[outngo]

What about FPV flying for non-AMA members?