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 Dec 02, 2011, 03:11 PM
FPV Browncoat
prelator's Avatar
United States, CO, Parker
Joined Mar 2011
1,439 Posts
Quote:
Anyone else? Operators are standing by, this is a free call...
You might have missed mine since I probably posted while you were writing your post.
prelator is offline Find More Posts by prelator
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Dec 02, 2011, 03:13 PM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,389 Posts
Some back ground.


The AMATEUR MODEL FPV SAFETY CODE drafted in 2008 was written and approved by all-voting U.S. FPV pilots at the time. The action was taken for two reasons.

1) To try and provide a positive influence to the FFA ARC committee who were writing new proposed small UAV SUV regulations.

2) To try and gain AMA acceptance for FPV which at the time was specifically excluded.

We pretty much had zero effect on #1 but did win limited AMA approval on #2.

At this point with FAA proposed regulations expected in 6-8 weeks there is no reason to worry about crossing more T's or dotting more I's. 2008 was the time for that.

We expect that there will be two categories under the new regs. Small UAV's that will be subject to licensing, certification, permits and Amateur models will be regulated by AMA rules. AMA is writing the revised rules to hopefully comply with FAA requirements, which will be the future definition of amateur model aviation.

When the proposed regulations are published we will better know how to respond.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 02, 2011, 03:25 PM
Registered User
Joined Aug 2010
865 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by n5iln View Post
Yep, feedback is what I was asking for, and you're the first, so you win...the world-famous FPV No-Prize!

One of the things we have to learn is to be very careful with terminology. A TCA (Terminal Control Area) is a very specific section of airspace, and is associated with Class B airports...it's the "upside down wedding cake". Don't confuse it with the Airport Traffic Area, which is the airspace around ANY airport, and extends from the surface to 3,000 feet AGL in a five-mile radius. Now, with that said, everyone flying RC (not just FPV flyers) inside the ATA needs to remember the requirement for contacting airport operators, and following the See and Avoid rule (AMA Document 540-D). That's why I made sure to call that out specifically in my rewrite.

Anyone else? Operators are standing by, this is a free call...
I don't want to get into specific airspace debates, (I am intimately familiar) but I think it will be up to the AMA to educate and regulate FPV in the vicinity of controlled airspace or my thousands of $$$ of FPV equipment will be worthless. If we are too vague, then you'll see lots of "prohibited" in the FAA version. yes, I do know what I am talking about.
thekubiaks is offline Find More Posts by thekubiaks
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 02, 2011, 03:35 PM
Registered User
United States, CA, Salinas
Joined Nov 2011
153 Posts
This is exactly why I took the time to do the writing today: get people talking about this again. The NPRM may (or may not) be only a couple of months away, and based on the "who's who" of the committee that's hashing it out, model aviation in general looks to be almost completely excluded from the initial process. By coming up with some level of community standard, the RC community (NOT just the FPV community) will have something to point to during the comment period. And if it opens the door for more relaxed regulations regarding FPV because the community has been proactive in establishing its own policies, so much the better.

The key? Community involvement.

I don't make the fatal mistake of thinking what I wrote will be the be-all and end-all of the proposal. It's already been pointed out that I've made several errors in assumption and omission. What I did was take what was already there and added to it. Nothing's carved in stone yet...right now, at best, it's drawn in wet sand. And it's wide-open to further modification and revision...think "Wikipedia article" (without the vandalism and political slashing).

I've shaken the sleeping giant awake. Let's see what it wants for breakfast.
n5iln is offline Find More Posts by n5iln
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 02, 2011, 03:39 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,279 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekubiaks View Post
I don't want to get into specific airspace debates, (I am intimately familiar) but I think it will be up to the AMA to educate and regulate FPV in the vicinity of controlled airspace or my thousands of $$$ of FPV equipment will be worthless. If we are too vague, then you'll see lots of "prohibited" in the FAA version. yes, I do know what I am talking about.
Keep in mind, from the AMA's perspective FPV can only safely be done with
the PiC on the main controller in constant visual contact and ready to take control
of the aircraft at any instant. The FPV pilot can only operate from a buddy box
and control can be taken from them at any time. In AMA's eyes it
means an FPV piloted plane and LoS piloted plane can only carve out the exact same
airspace, so AMA would see no need to craft any more special rules or restrictions for it.

Of course I know of virtually nobody who actually follows the AMA rule to the letter.

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by Daemon; Dec 02, 2011 at 03:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 02, 2011, 03:39 PM
Team White Llama!
gundamnitpete's Avatar
Joined Jan 2008
8,144 Posts
I think we should definitely be careful with the AMA regs as all FPV guidelines. I for one, do not want to use a buddybox everytime i go fly. Most of the time i get a chance to fly FPV, it's by myself. Though i do enjoy flying with friends.

the 400ft ceiling is an FAA guideline, so to ignore it would kind of be a slap in the face. However, i do think there should be some outline for long range or higher altitude flight. I.E. don't go flying your quad to 1500feet if you are above a city. keep the long range and high altitude stuff to rural areas.
gundamnitpete is offline Find More Posts by gundamnitpete
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 02, 2011, 03:43 PM
Registered User
United States, CA, Salinas
Joined Nov 2011
153 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by gundamnitpete View Post
I think we should definitely be careful with the AMA regs as all FPV guidelines. I for one, do not want to use a buddybox everytime i go fly. Most of the time i get a chance to fly FPV, it's by myself. Though i do enjoy flying with friends.

the 400ft ceiling is an FAA guideline, so to ignore it would kind of be a slap in the face. However, i do think there should be some outline for long range or higher altitude flight. I.E. don't go flying your quad to 1500feet if you are above a city. keep the long range and high altitude stuff to rural areas.
I listed the "buddy box" reg specifically for flying at a AMA field. Operating from a non-AMA field (as in your own property, a public park, etc.) would make that an option. Some would argue that it's still a Good Idea(tm).
n5iln is offline Find More Posts by n5iln
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 02, 2011, 03:45 PM
Team White Llama!
gundamnitpete's Avatar
Joined Jan 2008
8,144 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by n5iln View Post
I listed the "buddy box" reg specifically for flying at a AMA field. Operating from a non-AMA field (as in your own property, a public park, etc.) would make that an option. Some would argue that it's still a Good Idea(tm).
deliberately non-specified? you are good at this
gundamnitpete is offline Find More Posts by gundamnitpete
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 02, 2011, 03:49 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,279 Posts
400ft is only a guideline today. It could become law.
Personally, I can actually have quite a lot of fun flying FPV entirely under 400ft AGL
but if FAA institutes a hard 400ft cap on RC modeling, it's going to have an instant
negative affect on a lot of other areas of RC, from discus launch gliders, to thermal
duration, to cross country soaring, to turbines to 1/3 scale IMAC style planes.. etc,
who all routinely exceed 400ft AGL. Heck, an F3J glider launches to 600ft. This is
one area where AMA has been fighting fairly hard to maintain status quo. Hopefully
they'll succeed but I think there's a good chance we'll get bad news. If so,
it could be the one issue that wakes up the sleeping beast, that is the rest of
the RC community and they'll make their voice heard in the public comment period.

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Dec 02, 2011, 03:53 PM
Team White Llama!
gundamnitpete's Avatar
Joined Jan 2008
8,144 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
400ft is only a guideline today. It could become law.
Personally, I can actually have quite a lot of fun flying FPV entirely under 400ft AGL
but if FAA institutes a hard 400ft cap on RC modeling, it's going to have an instant
negative affect on a lot of other areas of RC, from discus launch gliders, to thermal
duration, to cross country soaring, to turbines to 1/3 scale IMAC style planes.. etc,
who all routinely exceed 400ft AGL. Heck, an F3J glider launches to 600ft. This is
one area where AMA has been fighting fairly hard to maintain status quo. Hopefully
they'll succeed but I think there's a good chance we'll get bad news. If so,
it could be the one issue that wakes up the sleeping beast, that is the rest of
the RC community and they'll make their voice heard in the public comment period.

ian
this is very true, Infact i don't think i've ever been to 400 feet with my quad, maybe 250, and even then i was thinking "too high for no wings"

I do hope that it does not become law.

However, a law restricted 5000 feet above ground, i could deal with. That's plenty of space for cloud bursting methinks....
gundamnitpete is offline Find More Posts by gundamnitpete
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 02, 2011, 04:04 PM
FPV Browncoat
prelator's Avatar
United States, CO, Parker
Joined Mar 2011
1,439 Posts
Hehe, a quad probably wouldn't need to go that high. But my Hawk Sky (a pretty benign plane compared to a wing or something) will reach 400 feet a couple seconds after launch. For the 3 flights my CE OSD worked before I had to send it back for exchange due to a bad GPS connector, I was surprised to find my average flying altitude on a normal FPV flight is 300 feet, and I easily made 1,000 feet. 400 feet was a lot lower than I thought it would be, and doesn't give you a lot of room.
prelator is offline Find More Posts by prelator
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 02, 2011, 04:06 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,279 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by gundamnitpete View Post
However, a law restricted 5000 feet above ground, i could deal with. That's plenty of space for cloud bursting methinks....
That would never happen.

Keep in mind that from the FAA's perspective clouds are to be avoided by all uncontrolled
see and avoid aircraft, period. Only aircraft flying on instruments (and actively guided
by a controller) are allowed to pass through clouds or even fly near them.
VFR planes are to fly no closer than a few thousand feet from clouds at low elevations
and further away from them at high elevations.
The separation rules are meant to give room to fast moving IFR aircraft that may emerge
from a cloud and then see and avoid a VFR aircraft.

Cloud busting will forever remain taboo. I am not suggesting it can't be done safely,
but the FAA will absolutely never allow it. AMA's FPV rule already excludes it because
of the base VLoS requirement.

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Dec 10, 2011, 04:16 PM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar
Yumastan RCAPA.NET
Joined Feb 2003
5,821 Posts
ARC 2.0 is up and running...

http://www.suasnews.com/2011/11/10245/uas-arc-2-0/
patrickegan is offline Find More Posts by patrickegan
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2011, 06:35 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,279 Posts
Wow!
Not to put too fine a point on it, but unless they plan to exempt amateur model aviation
from the sUAS regs, we (the whole amateur model aviation community) now have
zero representation, and are more or less screwed.

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Dec 10, 2011, 09:10 PM
FPV Browncoat
prelator's Avatar
United States, CO, Parker
Joined Mar 2011
1,439 Posts
Nevermind. SUASNews was down but now it's back.
prelator is offline Find More Posts by prelator
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