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 18, 2011, 07:09 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
27,707 Posts
Someone posted this link in a throwaway thread. Much more appropriate here.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1392290

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Feb 18, 2011, 07:55 PM
Registered User
Joined Dec 2006
131 Posts
If this is true it just made my weekend. Thanks for posting the link Daemon.
indycobra is offline Find More Posts by indycobra
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2011, 09:04 PM
Registered User
United States, AZ, Sierra Vista
Joined Feb 2011
27 Posts
I wouldn't get too excited. See #2. But I guess its better than nothing. It looks like the AMA wrote it for him.

ch1

(g) Special Rule for Model Aircraft.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into FAA plans and policies,, including this section, the Administrator shall not promulgate any rules or regulations regarding model aircraft or aircraft being developed as model aircraft if such aircraft is--

(A) flown strictly for recreational, sport, competition, or academic purposes;

(B) operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization; and

(C) limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program currently administered by a community-based organization.

(2) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.--For purposes of this subsection, the term ``model aircraft'' means a nonhuman-carrying (unmanned) radio-controlled aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, navigating the airspace and flown within visual line-of-sight of the operator for the exclusive and intended use for sport, recreation, competition, or academic purposes.
ch1.5 is offline Find More Posts by ch1.5
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2011, 09:12 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
27,707 Posts
As I said earlier, VLoS is core requirement to all the regs, new or old. Anyone hoping
otherwise is fooling themselves. That doesn't mean that I think it's a good idea, but it
is the way it is.

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 19, 2011, 09:04 AM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,304 Posts
It will be interesting to see how the Senate bill S.223 initiative pans out. This was apparently run through with zero publicity or hearings and would represent a significant change in FAA's NAS authority. As written the winners would be AMA, turbines and sailplanes. The loser would be amateur autonomous flight with FPV falling somewhere in the middle. I expected Rule # 550 to be the best-case scenario with the other FAA driven possibilities being down hill from there.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2011, 09:11 AM
Just trying to get a nut.
scrtsqrl's Avatar
United States, VA, McLean
Joined Oct 2006
6,122 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
As I said earlier, VLoS is core requirement to all the regs, new or old. Anyone hoping
otherwise is fooling themselves. That doesn't mean that I think it's a good idea, but it
is the way it is.

ian
Indeed...which is why a "creative" interpretation of VLOS is in order...lols...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Evans View Post
It will be interesting to see how the Senate bill S.223 initiative pans out. This was apparently run through with zero publicity or hearings and would represent a significant change in FAA's NAS authority. As written the winners would be AMA, turbines and sailplanes. The loser would be amateur autonomous flight with FPV falling somewhere in the middle. I expected Rule # 550 to be the best-case scenario with the other FAA driven possibilities being down hill from there.
This will depend on how it is written...If it specifies what is already in Rule 550, then yes we are in trouble...If it otherwise says "what the AMA (or some other 'national association') says"...then we'll have something to work with...a FPV Special Interest Group within the AMA could be the way to go...
scrtsqrl is offline Find More Posts by scrtsqrl
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2011, 09:41 AM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,304 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrtsqrl View Post
This will depend on how it is written...If it specifies what is already in Rule 550, then yes we are in trouble...If it otherwise says "what the AMA (or some other 'national association') says"...then we'll have something to work with...a FPV Special Interest Group within the AMA could be the way to go...
Right you are!
As it stands a club now could unofficially waive parts of 550 depending on the specific circumstances. Some fields could safely handle that and some not so much. Our hope has been from the start that it was a foot in the door that perhaps could be relaxed as experience was gained. My personal interest in flying a pattern around a field is zero to none but the valve of having that legal option should not be under estimated.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2011, 12:48 PM
Mr.Pibb's Avatar
Lewis Center, OH
Joined Jun 2006
2,272 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrtsqrl View Post
Indeed...which is why a "creative" interpretation of VLOS is in order...lols...
I don't even think you need to be that creative to say VLOS = as long as there's a way to see the plane (even with aided vision) from where you are standing, then you are within VLOS. The AMA specifies unaided vision, but this does not. Based on my interpretation, you could be 30 miles away, but as long as there are no obstacles between you and your plane, the plane is within the VLOS.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Mr.Pibb is offline Find More Posts by Mr.Pibb
Site Sponsor
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2011, 02:59 PM
Just trying to get a nut.
scrtsqrl's Avatar
United States, VA, McLean
Joined Oct 2006
6,122 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Pibb View Post
I don't even think you need to be that creative to say VLOS = as long as there's a way to see the plane (even with aided vision) from where you are standing, then you are within VLOS. The AMA specifies unaided vision, but this does not. Based on my interpretation, you could be 30 miles away, but as long as there are no obstacles between you and your plane, the plane is within the VLOS.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Tim,

I think intent of maintaining VLOS is to keep the FPV plane clear of full scale traffic.

What I'm actually saying is that spotter shouldn't be looking at your FPV plane. He should be looking at a chunk of airspace in search for other traffic. You just need to know where your FPV plane is within the airspace that your spotter is visually clearing and stay in it.

This IMHO makes more sense than staring at one rc airplane allowing the spotter to clear for more than one operator and opens up a much larger operating area...again so long as the FPV plane is within the airspace visually cleared by the spotter.

JBB


This concept is very well articulated by Team Black Sheep here:
http://www.team-blacksheep.com/article/page:8
scrtsqrl is offline Find More Posts by scrtsqrl
Last edited by scrtsqrl; Feb 21, 2011 at 03:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2011, 08:08 AM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,304 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrtsqrl View Post
Tim,

I think intent of maintaining VLOS is to keep the FPV plane clear of full scale traffic.

In terms of intent it depends on if we are talking about the PIC or a spotter.

The purpose of a spotter is exactly as described which is to fill in for the loss of situational awareness that comes from the pilots view through a camera lense.

For the PIC the purpose of VLOS is to be able to safely fly the plane. As Tim points out both AMA and FAA have interpreted this to be "visual contact without enhancement other than by corrective lenses". Obviously the size of the aircraft would dictate the actual maximum distance.
Time will tell if the vague VLOS reference in the S.223 amendment succumbs to House editing.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2011, 03:26 PM
Spektrum Dev Team
aaronredbaron's Avatar
United States, IL, Champaign
Joined Apr 2002
1,006 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Pibb View Post
I don't even think you need to be that creative to say VLOS = as long as there's a way to see the plane (even with aided vision) from where you are standing, then you are within VLOS. The AMA specifies unaided vision, but this does not. Based on my interpretation, you could be 30 miles away, but as long as there are no obstacles between you and your plane, the plane is within the VLOS.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
This is exactly how I am viewing it, fingers crossed... But I think this is really a positive move...
aaronredbaron is offline Find More Posts by aaronredbaron
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2011, 08:11 AM
Registered User
typicalaimster's Avatar
United States, CA, San Diego
Joined Jan 2005
5,034 Posts
If anyone in the states feels the need to email your Congressperson... The AMA has made it easy..

http://amagov.modelaircraft.org/4077
typicalaimster is online now Find More Posts by typicalaimster
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: Airframes Side-By-SIde
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2011, 11:51 AM
Just dog tired.
Wearyman's Avatar
USA, NY, Buffalo
Joined Dec 2010
458 Posts
I have actually already mailed (A paper letter. Not email.) my House Representative on this issue. Unfortunately, my representative was Chris Lee. Yes, that Chris Lee; He of the shirtless Craigslist photos. As of now I am currently unrepresented, no idea when a special election will be called to fill the vacant seat.
Wearyman is offline Find More Posts by Wearyman
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2011, 04:03 PM
Registered User
tushev's Avatar
USA, NY, New York
Joined Nov 2008
1,502 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by typicalaimster View Post
If anyone in the states feels the need to email your Congressperson... The AMA has made it easy..

http://amagov.modelaircraft.org/4077
Done
tushev is offline Find More Posts by tushev
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2011, 02:31 PM
Registered User
Drednox's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
203 Posts
Where did this list of "rules" come from?
Drednox is offline Find More Posts by Drednox
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