Originally Posted by NorCalMatCat

As the technology advances the ability of the government and agencies to do so only grows exponentially, it may have started 80 years ago, but look at the MAJOR strides made in the last 11.

Optics and a loitering aircraft (before UAVs even) are more of a threat than 5-0 with a quad ime.

Originally Posted by ramboky

anyone with a rational, fact based opinion is in the minority here.

+1

Originally Posted by vangvace

Optics and a loitering aircraft (before UAVs even) are more of a threat than 5-0 with a quad ime.

With the exception of it crashing on whatever it is looking at how is it more of a threat?

Originally Posted by NorCalMatCat

With the exception of it crashing on whatever it is looking at how is it more of a threat?

1) what agency
2) loiter times are longer than 10 minutes
3) you in 1080p live vs playback
4) proven techniques vs development

Hey guys, has anyone seen this? http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/AMATODAYFPV

Apparently in its May issue of AMA Today the AMA links to a survey asking for people's opinions about FPV. I haven't seen anyone on here mention it before. I just filled it out and probably told them a lot more than they wanted to hear. For starters, I said I got into FPV by watching TBS's videos. Then here's what I wrote for the open question:

The AMA must adapt to accommodate FPV or risk extinction. FPV is the future of model aviation, as the rapidly dropping cost of lightweight video cameras and wireless video transmitters make it more and more accessible even to modelers with modest budgets. With RTF FPV airplanes now hitting the market, it will not be long before anyone can get involved in this exciting new activity within model aviation. There may in fact come a time when nearly all new model aircraft sold have built-in video cameras.

At the same time, the AMA has thus far exhibited an astounding hostility to FPV, which can only be characterized as the reluctance of an aging and risk-averse organization to adapt to the challenges presented by new technology. The restrictions the AMA currently places on FPV flight are frankly absurd. I am very active in the rich online FPV community, and I can say with certainty that virtually no FPV flyer in the United States follows the AMA's rules. The most ridiculous of these rules is the buddy box requirement, which treats FPV pilots like beginners having to be coddled by an instructor. The requirement assumes that direct visual contact is superior to flying by video, when in fact the reverse is true. A live video feed from the model gives a far more precise idea of exactly what the model is doing at any given time than watching it with the naked eye from hundreds of feet away. The overwhelming attitude among FPV flyers is that the buddy box rule makes FPV less safe, rather than more, because a crash is far more likely to result from an inexperienced spotter seizing control of the model at the first sign of trouble than from the pilot simply flying through any video dropouts that may occur. Having a buddy box connected also precludes the use of other equipment like UHF control systems with far superior range and reliability compared to stock transmitters, or the use of head trackers and panning cameras. If the AMA ever wishes for its rules to be taken seriously by FPV flyers, it must at minimum eliminate the buddy box rule.

Additionally, most FPV flyers view the AMA's restriction to flying within visual line of sight as far too limiting, as most interesting targets to film from the air are further away than the couple thousand feet away one may safely control a model flying it visually. When flying through a reasonably reliable video link, it makes no difference whether the model is 10 feet away or 1 mile away. While there is a natural fear of flying a model out of sight, doing so does not substantially increase the risk of an accident, and becomes perfectly natural to most FPV flyers. While I recognize that given the current political climate this is unlikely to happen, the AMA should eliminate the VLOS requirement as well.

Finally, the leadership of the AMA has demonstrated an overwhelming hostility toward FPV that has caused most FPVers to reject the AMA out of hand. The AMA leadership has missed no opportunity to condemn certain high profile FPV flights as unsafe, regardless of the extensive safety precautions taken by those who conducted them. The most recent issue of the AMA's monthly magazine has the president of the AMA rejoicing that a supposed FPV flyer was arrested and jailed for flying over a sports stadium, despite the fact that the incident in question did not involve FPV and did not even occur in the United States but Ireland. The AMA is missing out on a growing source of enthusiastic new members, as I and many other FPV flyers refuse to participate in an organization that views us as a threat and an enemy. If the AMA is truly sincere about representing the interests of ALL modelers, it must end its knee-jerk reactions against FPV and start taking immediate steps to court those of us who represent the future of this hobby. If it does not do so, the AMA runs the risk of driving itself into irrelevance as the progress of the hobby passes it by.

You know it's funny, my may issue never came...

Originally Posted by prelator

Hey guys, has anyone seen this? http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/AMATODAYFPV

Apparently in its May issue of AMA Today the AMA links to a survey asking for people's opinions about FPV. I haven't seen anyone on here mention it before. I just filled it out and probably told them a lot more than they wanted to hear. For starters, I said I got into FPV by watching TBS's videos. Then here's what I wrote for the open question:

Excellent statement. I might pass that to the BMFA in the UK who appear equally hostile to FPV.

If it is beyond line of site, I can see adopting weight and alt limits and calling that good as a model aviation flight as opposed to a UAS flight, if it otherwise conforms to what model flight is vs commercial.

It would have to be light enough and low enough to not need see-and-avoid capability, and would likely need to be some distance from ANY airport for the BLOS portion.

Originally Posted by MikeTheCrash

Excellent statement. I might pass that to the BMFA in the UK who appear equally hostile to FPV.

?? No they aren't, they sorted out their insurers and the CAA back in 2007 ish to clarify what BMFA members should do to ensure they are legal and insured. Not what I would call Hostile, more like enabling.

Somebody at FPVLab gave me the idea of turning my response to the AMA's survey into a petition to try to get the AMA to change their stance on FPV. I used the online petition platform at Change.org to start a petition, so that each time it's signed it sends an email to the entire AMA executive council. Please sign it if you agree, and pass the word!

Petition to the AMA Regarding FPV Model Aircraft

I don't know if this will actually change anything, but it's worth a shot!

Originally Posted by prelator

Somebody at FPVLab gave me the idea of turning my response to the AMA's survey into a petition to try to get the AMA to change their stance on FPV. I used the online petition platform at Change.org to start a petition, so that each time it's signed it sends an email to the entire AMA executive council. Please sign it if you agree, and pass the word!

Petition to the AMA Regarding FPV Model Aircraft

I don't know if this will actually change anything, but it's worth a shot!

I think I am either signature 2 or 3, not sure ROFL. I support it, I sent it out on my twitter which has a few FPV followers, and on my facebook .

Originally Posted by prelator

I don't know if this will actually change anything, but it's worth a shot!

I was with the group of 5 people from RCG that originally worked with the AMA to get SC550 put into place...

Looking at what you have placed in the petition I'd say if FPV modelers came together there is a good chance of getting the buddy box requirements relaxed. By relaxed I mean possibly no buddy box but a spotter is still going to be required. This is something that Dave Mathewson and I talked about on the phone when I was working with him on SC550. FPV'ers have had SC550 for a few years now and it's about time to review the rules. Mind you SC550 was drafted in 2008.

Little to no chance for beyond Line of Site operations for a FPV model flown under AMA rules.

My suggestion is to pick your battle carefully. You can form a committee and work with the AMA on changing the rules. Just keep in mind it helps being an AMA member. FPV folks may want to look creating a Special Interest Group (SIG) and have officers of the SIG represent them when interacting with the AMA.. Here's some examples of SIG's...

http://www.modelaircraft.org/membership/sig.aspx

The AMA is willing to listen. It helps to have an organized voice behind the message.

One of the other 5

Originally Posted by typicalaimster

FPV'ers have had SC550 for a few years now and it's about time to review the rules.

And I've yet to see or even hear of one FPV pilot in all that time who follows the buddy box part of
the rule as written, for a variety of sound reasons, which means for the most part FPV'ers actually
never had anything useful from the AMA. My main problem though is that AMA leadership has been
actively/vocally antagonistic toward all forms of FPV that don't comply with their rule, that nobody
follows. From my perspective, that means they are anti-FPV period.

ian

You are spot on with this, literally I could not have written it any better had I done it myself. Trust me when I say yo expressed my *exact* feelings toward the AMA with this. Way to go! I would like to place emphasis on the part where you address the hostile attitude from the AMA and the lack of willingness to change. No way would I ever give them one red penny of my cash to support an 'organization' that, seemingly, hates my harmless hobby. Yes indeed, I am so glad someone put this in their ear. Now, if they would only listen...

*THANK YOU* for that !!!