New Products Flash Sale
Thread Tools
Old Feb 14, 2013, 08:28 AM
CNY_Dave is offline
Find More Posts by CNY_Dave
DX5e fatal flaw- PM me!!!!
United States, NY, Cortland
Joined Sep 2010
2,839 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelator View Post
Huh. You would think they would have studied that BEFORE declaring that cameras a per se inadequate to sense and avoid now wouldn't you?
Cameras are easy to declare inadequate because there is no way to quantitatively compare the ability of a human and a human using a camera to carry out a safety-critical task.

Initially the UAS proponents thought that all they had to do was quantify the human eye, and create a camera system that would be equivalent or better.

Problem is, most of 'seeing' goes far beyond quantifying simple visual acuity.
CNY_Dave is offline Find More Posts by CNY_Dave
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Feb 14, 2013, 09:21 AM
Gary Evans is offline
Find More Posts by Gary Evans
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,577 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNY_Dave View Post
Cameras are easy to declare inadequate because there is no way to quantitatively compare the ability of a human and a human using a camera to carry out a safety-critical task.

Initially the UAS proponents thought that all they had to do was quantify the human eye, and create a camera system that would be equivalent or better.

Problem is, most of 'seeing' goes far beyond quantifying simple visual acuity.
This is the reason why security cameras moveable or not are no equal to human situational awareness. Unless your a licensed pilot it may not be apparent just how critical constant visual scanning is to safe flight and just how difficult it can be to spot other traffic. I have a lot of sailplane time and at meets there can be 25+ gliders launching one after another but once in the air they almost all can disappear from sight unless they are really close and you keep constant track of them. This problem is best demostrated when all of a sudden one appears almost upon you before you see it.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Old Feb 14, 2013, 10:30 AM
BillBlair is offline
Find More Posts by BillBlair
Foam Wrecker
BillBlair's Avatar
3710'36.54"N, 116 2'46.08"W
Joined Jun 2002
389 Posts
RC Reviews suggest we organize and be proactive in self-regulation before legislators implement unnecessary restrictions:

Drones threaten RC model flying (10 min 25 sec)
BillBlair is offline Find More Posts by BillBlair
Old Feb 14, 2013, 10:59 AM
Gary Evans is offline
Find More Posts by Gary Evans
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,577 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillBlair View Post
RC Reviews suggest we organize and be proactive in self-regulation before legislators implement unnecessary restrictions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz19DQ6-eGE&hd=1

We were proactive 4 years ago with FPV and it helped with AMA but not so much FAA. IMO the only piece in which there may yet be a chance here for user input is regarding privacy and the only credible U.S. based organization representing amateur modelers has already put forth a policy on the subject.
The chance of having any positive impact on Federal regulations will be in comments once the NPRM is published.
Nothing wrong with another organization as long as the objectives are worthwhile, attainable and do not detract from efforts already underway.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Old Feb 14, 2013, 01:04 PM
jrhode13 is offline
Find More Posts by jrhode13
KD5ANE
jrhode13's Avatar
United States, LA, Deville
Joined Feb 2013
63 Posts
First Person View Association (FPVA), maybe??

Other self-regulating hobby groups have been successful:

USUA (US Ultralight Association) -- Ultralight Aircraft
PADI (Professional Association of Dive Instructors) -- Scuba Diving
ARRL (American Radio Relay League) -- Amateur (ham) Radio,
etc., etc.,

Through responsible self-regulating, these organizations have avoided heavy imposed government regulations very sucessfully.
jrhode13 is offline Find More Posts by jrhode13
Old Feb 14, 2013, 01:14 PM
flyandi is offline
Find More Posts by flyandi
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,880 Posts
We have the VPA already .. and gearing up again over at FPVLabs.
flyandi is offline Find More Posts by flyandi
Old Feb 14, 2013, 01:31 PM
Gary Mortimer is offline
Find More Posts by Gary Mortimer
Gaftopher
Gary Mortimer's Avatar
Nottingham Road South Africa/Bedford UK
Joined Feb 2007
4,074 Posts
RCAPA it was at the first FAA meeting, the trouble is the AMA have ring fenced modelling with HR 658. None of this is new, its just people have stuck there heads in the sand.

This from 2010


http://www.suasnews.com/2010/11/2782/the-sfar-part-107-shades-of-things-to-come%E2%80%A6/
Gary Mortimer is offline Find More Posts by Gary Mortimer
Old Feb 14, 2013, 02:16 PM
Gary Evans is offline
Find More Posts by Gary Evans
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,577 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Mortimer View Post
RCAPA it was at the first FAA meeting, the trouble is the AMA have ring fenced modelling with HR 658. None of this is new, its just people have stuck there heads in the sand.

This from 2010


http://www.suasnews.com/2010/11/2782/the-sfar-part-107-shades-of-things-to-come%E2%80%A6/
Depends on your perspective. If HR 658 sticks (still IMO to be determined) it will be a major achievement for amatuer models as it exempts us from FAA regulations. Couldn't get much better than that except to be exempt from everything which was not going to happen. It obviously does nothing for the commerical operators but we are not commercial operators.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Old Feb 14, 2013, 04:23 PM
Daemon is offline
Find More Posts by Daemon
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
30,228 Posts
Cept under that exemption we still don't really know what "the auspices of a community-based safety program"
will mean for us in the long run. There's no guarantee that it'll be the AMA, and
no guarantee that even if it is the AMA that it'll be good for us.

ian
Daemon is offline Find More Posts by Daemon
Old Feb 14, 2013, 04:51 PM
flyandi is offline
Find More Posts by flyandi
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,880 Posts
Big issue is also that some of the FPV'ers want to continue doing commercial projects under those exceptions which are clearly not allowed... so that's going to be a major discussion point.
flyandi is offline Find More Posts by flyandi
Old Feb 14, 2013, 04:55 PM
Daemon is offline
Find More Posts by Daemon
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
30,228 Posts
Most folks I know operating commercially are just "doing it", making no
claim to be operating under the modelling exemption. I think they
generally use the "it's a stupid law" exemption.
Daemon is offline Find More Posts by Daemon
Old Feb 14, 2013, 05:23 PM
Blueshy is offline
Find More Posts by Blueshy
OSUFPV - KF7VFT
Corvallis, OR
Joined Apr 2010
1,790 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
Cept under that exemption we still don't really know what "the auspices of a community-based safety program"
will mean for us in the long run.
We don't even know what the "community-based safety program" entails or
means. There are no rules or clarification of process on becoming one.

-Blues
Blueshy is offline Find More Posts by Blueshy
Old Feb 14, 2013, 06:30 PM
Daemon is offline
Find More Posts by Daemon
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
30,228 Posts
I believe that was my point.
Daemon is offline Find More Posts by Daemon
Old Feb 14, 2013, 08:07 PM
jasmine2501 is offline
Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,696 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshy View Post
We don't even know what the "community-based safety program" entails or
means. There are no rules or clarification of process on becoming one.

-Blues
The AMA has a strong opinion on what it means. They are trying to make themselves into the only organization that fits the definition. I don't consider it good, but spreading ourselves thin might not be any better?
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Old Feb 14, 2013, 08:13 PM
Blueshy is offline
Find More Posts by Blueshy
OSUFPV - KF7VFT
Corvallis, OR
Joined Apr 2010
1,790 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasmine2501 View Post
The AMA has a strong opinion on what it means. They are trying to make themselves into the only organization that fits the definition. I don't consider it good, but spreading ourselves thin might not be any better?
Well, they don't have to spread at all really since they are the ones who wrote
the provision. AMA can have all the opinions they like about what they think it
means. I don't care what the AMA thinks it means, I care about whoever
decides whether or not you are a CBO thinks it means.

-Blues
Blueshy is offline Find More Posts by Blueshy


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Petition the FAA to revise the restrictive laws placed on model aircraft! Decroxx Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 18 Apr 03, 2015 03:38 PM
Discussion New Forum Suggestion - Model Aircraft Regulations mjgravina New Forum Requests 0 Feb 04, 2015 06:10 PM
Alert New FAA TFR prohibits model aircraft/RPAS flight within 3nm of large sporting events Ronan87 Multirotor Talk 8 Nov 05, 2014 12:46 AM
Discussion Deadline to have your say in FAA guidlines for Model aircraft is today Sept 23 bravetiger73 Multirotor Talk 0 Sep 23, 2014 07:18 PM
Discussion The AMA / FAA model aircraft and sUAS regulation struggle continues in the USA RolandS888 UAV - Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 49 Mar 02, 2011 09:29 AM