HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by Gary Evans, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Old Feb 17, 2011, 08:02 PM
Registered User
Joined Dec 2006
131 Posts
So is it safe to say at the very least we will be able to fly at VLOS, under 400 ft, and with a buddy box? Or is it to early to say even thats true about the upcoming regs?
indycobra is offline Find More Posts by indycobra
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Feb 17, 2011, 08:05 PM
Just trying to get a nut.
scrtsqrl's Avatar
United States, VA, McLean
Joined Oct 2006
6,317 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by indycobra View Post
So is it safe to say at the very least we will be able to fly at VLOS, under 400 ft, and with a buddy box? Or is it to early to say even thats true about the upcoming regs?
This is probably the FAA's start point given that it is currently the AMA's stance.
scrtsqrl is online now Find More Posts by scrtsqrl
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2011, 08:10 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,200 Posts
I'd say only that it is likely to be the very best case possible given the current process.
I do not think it is "safe to say" that that is what we'll actually get.
For instance, AMA might not include the equivalent of rule #555 in their proposal
to the FAA. Or they might, but FAA might discard it.

ian
Daemon is offline Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 17, 2011, 08:14 PM
Mr.Pibb's Avatar
Lewis Center, OH
Joined Jun 2006
2,272 Posts
The whole buddy box thing just drives me crazy. How many FPV pilots actually fly with another pilot "in control" with a buddy box? Implementing that just makes things more complicated and more likely to fail. Hopefully the FAA regulations won't go in to that much detail. All we can do is wait and speculate at this point, I suppose.
Mr.Pibb is offline Find More Posts by Mr.Pibb
Site Sponsor
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2011, 08:16 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,200 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrtsqrl View Post
Having one foot in amateur and the other in professional aviation, I expect the following:

- A "hard" 400' ceiling.
This is one point that I'm hearing may not be "hard", from both AMA folks and others
within the process.

Quote:
- IMHO, Operations restricted to VLOS will be the hardest one to defend.
This is likely to be the hardest rule of all.
Most of the other NAS stakeholders are are almost pathological about this.

Quote:
- Mandatory reporting requirement if operating within 3 miles of an airport. This can be as simple as calling in to declare your field is active.
Basically yes.

Quote:
- There AMA will not have a monopoly representing "amateur aviation". The door will be left open for other organizations like RCAPA.
I suspect otherwise.

ian
Daemon is offline Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 17, 2011, 09:08 PM
Engineer for Christ
IBCrazy's Avatar
Amherst, VA
Joined Jun 2006
10,299 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Pibb View Post
The whole buddy box thing just drives me crazy. How many FPV pilots actually fly with another pilot "in control" with a buddy box? Implementing that just makes things more complicated and more likely to fail. Hopefully the FAA regulations won't go in to that much detail. All we can do is wait and speculate at this point, I suppose.
None of us fly with a buddy box and spotter, myself included. The rest of the rules are difficult to enforce at best. The hard 400' ceiling makes people feel good, but really doesn't give any safety at all. It does make sense near an airport as one can assume most traffic near an airport would be that low. However aircraft around here regularly fly 200-300 feet off the deck.

Same thing with VLOS. VLOS gives very little added safety, if any. Again, that's a "feel good" rule. Kind of like making it illegal to drive barefoot. it makes you feel good to think that shoes make it easier to control the car until you think of women in high heels...

An exception to the rules for weight and speed would be a good suggestion. Obviously less weight and speed makes for less potential damage... which I can't recall ever happening yet. But then we have no idea what statistics the FAA is looking at right now.

-Alex
IBCrazy is offline Find More Posts by IBCrazy
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 17, 2011, 11:23 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,200 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBCrazy View Post
Kind of like making it illegal to drive barefoot. it makes you feel good to think that shoes make it easier to control the car until you think of women in high heels...
Random bit of trivia, but that's an urban myth. There is no state in the US where
driving barefoot is illegal.

ian
Daemon is offline Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 17, 2011, 11:42 PM
Just trying to get a nut.
scrtsqrl's Avatar
United States, VA, McLean
Joined Oct 2006
6,317 Posts
So...how will it work?

If they say the AMA is our "governing body" or what ever they call it...

The rules as they are now vis a vis FPV becomes law...

or

They just say "what the AMA says"...thus the rules can be tweaked from within.
scrtsqrl is online now Find More Posts by scrtsqrl
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2011, 11:52 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,200 Posts
That part wasn't quite clear. Not sure whether the FAA would codify a version of the rules
that the AMA supplies, or whether they will include in the rules a statement that
the AMA is a chosen community based standards body and that they
maintain an alternate set of rules which can be followed. I hope it is the
latter, but would put my money down on it being some form of the former.

One thing the AMA folks did mention was that if their alternate set of rules
are accepted, that they will need to handle the possibility of handling
training, and turbine waivers and such, for people who want to follow
their set of rules, but aren't AMA members. Basically there can
be no legal requirement that you be an AMA member, even if you
choose to accept their set of rules instead of the FAA's alternative.

ian
Daemon is offline Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 18, 2011, 12:15 AM
Live FPV or Die
VRflyer's Avatar
Montreal,Canada
Joined Feb 2002
3,959 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Pibb View Post
The whole buddy box thing just drives me crazy. Implementing that just makes things more complicated and more likely to fail.
I see a reason... The MAAC association have less peoples each years. By forcing all peoples to use a buddy box and after that only MAAC peoples will be allow to give a waver, they have find a way to get some money and more members in their association.

I did not see a lot of jet in my life. I saw two jet crashing in around 10-15 jet that I saw. In both case it was obvious the the pilot had lost orientation of his plane. Only a spotter are required for them. And any of our styrofoam, we need buddy box and a certified pilot...

I got a 45 gr FPV helicopter. As per MAAC regulation, I am not allow to fly without buddy box too. In fact they are implanting a rule that true FPV flyer follow, and the technoloy is already ahead and show that it is ridiculous, and it not even write lol They told me that will be the next step to make a weight limit.
I fly since 10 years FPV alone and never had a serious accident. They had not ask our opinion to make those rules. i was there all the time and it had been present like a favor they do for us. I don`t agree, I will better represent myself. I was flying FPV with my 6 foot glow plane, and the two time police talk to me, they let me fly. Flynig with goggle do not make difference to peoples outside the MAAC, what it is important is to talk with the guy to see if he respect security. Don`t need to be a certified members of the MAAC to judge us

The line of sight rule is not better. I can follow a big r/c plane with my 150gr Fox. If the bigger plane is authorize to fly over an empty field because it is safe to crash there because no house etc, why my plane can not fly over the same field. Where is the advantage to build giant FPV plane to be allow to fly up to the same distance if I can do it with smaller plane?
Thoses rules are made by peoples who know nothing in FPV and defend their own interest primarly. They made rules and after all the peoples become outlaw because we will continue to fly
VRflyer is offline Find More Posts by VRflyer
Last edited by VRflyer; Feb 18, 2011 at 12:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2011, 01:33 AM
Registered User
Joined Nov 2010
95 Posts
Madness

It seems like some modellers just love regulations, as if not content with making scale models of planes they admire, they have to recreate the aviation laws surrounding them. How long until we have to log a 'flight plan' with the control tower before being cleared for take off?

All of these discussions seem intent on restricting the non-club RC scene, and I'm sure part of that is to bring people back under control of the clubs.

I haven't seen many or any stories of electric models (FPV or otherwise) causing safety concerns, which to me demonstrates that this is a solution in search of a problem.

Yes, I can see how flying can be dangerous, but really how many people have gone out and endangered people with their models? Even with the hundreds of thousands of flyers out there and the search power of the internet, i bet there are only a small handful of examples of this.
HighwayChild is offline Find More Posts by HighwayChild
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2011, 06:36 AM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,381 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrtsqrl View Post
So...how will it work?

If they say the AMA is our "governing body" or what ever they call it...

The rules as they are now vis a vis FPV becomes law...

or

They just say "what the AMA says"...thus the rules can be tweaked from within.

After the AC 91-57 altered wording experience I doubt that AMA is going to be given the latitude to do much tweaking. I see them submitting AMA rules that mimic the regulations and FAA saying ok you did good. If FAA installs AMA as the front man it will be to keep FAA out of the daily details of model aviation which they are in no way set up to do. It makes sense and has worked for a long time. They want to tighten what have previously been recommendations and not have to hire bazillion agents to check parks and fields. The issues that would require FAA intervention are few enough that they can be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2011, 11:16 AM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,200 Posts
While there's no telling what the FAA will ultimately do, I can say that the AMA is *not*
approaching it from that perspective. They do not intend to submit alternate rules
to the FAA that include a hard 400ft cap for instance, and they said flat out "We are
not an enforcement agency", so AMA isn't going to be patrolling parks and fields any
more than the FAA could. While the flow of information has been pretty much one way
into the FAA during this process (due to a quirky legal requirement that all
stakeholders be notified of issues at the same time), the AMA folks said they are
being asked a lot of specifics about why they've crafted their rules the way
they do and they're backing it up with safety data. If FAA intended to totally
steamroll them, they wouldn't bother asking or listening.

ian
Daemon is offline Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 18, 2011, 01:35 PM
Registered User
Joined Mar 2001
2,624 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
If FAA intended to totally steamroll them, they wouldn't bother asking or listening.
I so am hoping you are correct about that.

Tony
t-turley is offline Find More Posts by t-turley
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2011, 02:50 PM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,381 Posts
AMA has stated that they are drafting safety rules that will be submitted to FAA. The last I read that wasn't going to be completed until the proposed regulations have actually published which makes sense because only then will we know to what degree the existing AMA rules comply. It is possible that nothing will need to change but that is a lot to hope for.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Range Gary Evans FPV Talk 65 Aug 10, 2008 02:27 AM
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Weight Gary Evans FPV Talk 16 Jul 30, 2008 01:30 PM
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Altitude Gary Evans FPV Talk 52 Jul 30, 2008 01:05 PM