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 May 28, 2012, 10:07 PM
Registered User
vangvace's Avatar
Greece, Kriti, Khania
Joined Feb 2012
73 Posts
http://www.dcma.mil/communicator/win..._pp36-pp37.pdf

vangvace is offline Find More Posts by vangvace
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old May 29, 2012, 05:54 AM
Registered User
Joined Dec 2011
72 Posts
Can you explain your position? Perhaps I am missing something.
pathloss is offline Find More Posts by pathloss
Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2012, 06:06 AM
Registered User
Joined Dec 2011
72 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrtsqrl View Post
With respects, what you are missing is that whilst flying IFR, you are under the control of an air traffic controller who is responsible for your airspace. That's how you can fly single piloted in IMC. Indeed FPV gives you a better idea of what your plane is doing. However, it is not as effective at maintaining situational awareness around it. This is why you need a spotter...to clear you of other aircraft. Even head on, you are more likely to see FS plane at 5 miles than you are to see a FS plane at 1 through your plane's video.
If you can see a plane at five miles, it must be a B747. No one said flying of any kind is without risk, so the question becomes what is reasonable for a toy airplane. Sounds like you have done some GA flying perhaps. Ever have a plane come close to you in the air? I have, even with radar service from either ARTCC or ASR. The best of efforts available do not eliminate risk. Now I ask you to compare this with a foam toy bobbing along at 200 to 300 FT that weighs a few pounds. Still think you need two "official" AMA dues paying pilots to guide this menace to society? Really....?
pathloss is offline Find More Posts by pathloss
Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2012, 06:41 AM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,432 Posts
When defending FPV safety the argument seems to always be how could a little foam plane drifting around at a couple of hundred feet be of any risk. When I hear this story I am reminded of a fairytale with pretty harmless butterflies floating aimlessly along. Itís such a beautiful story but it must make a lot of pilots feel alienated since it doesn't really describe their plane or how they fly. Perhaps it could pass the sniff test for the masses if there were not message boards like this one with tons of posts and videos about long range high altitude flights with relatively high speed planes weighing closer to 10 lbs or multi-rotors with enough blades and power to slice beef for Carl Junior just waiting for the gift of a hand or face.
Guys this one isn't going to get past first base anymore with the authorities but if you think otherwise knock yourself out or maybe instead push for only allowing little foam planes with windup rubber band power.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2012, 07:37 AM
DX5e fatal flaw- PM me!!!!
United States, NY, Cortland
Joined Sep 2010
2,839 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by pathloss View Post
Can you explain your position? Perhaps I am missing something.
Who, and which position?
CNY_Dave is offline Find More Posts by CNY_Dave
Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2012, 07:44 AM
DX5e fatal flaw- PM me!!!!
United States, NY, Cortland
Joined Sep 2010
2,839 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by vangvace View Post
I suspect that's a doppler radar, which presents some problems for airborne use.

Now, if you are suggesting personal GBSAA systems for FPV fliers (or one for the club) that's another thing...
CNY_Dave is offline Find More Posts by CNY_Dave
Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2012, 08:49 AM
Just trying to get a nut.
scrtsqrl's Avatar
United States, VA, McLean
Joined Oct 2006
6,428 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by pathloss View Post
If you can see a plane at five miles, it must be a B747. No one said flying of any kind is without risk, so the question becomes what is reasonable for a toy airplane. Sounds like you have done some GA flying perhaps. Ever have a plane come close to you in the air? I have, even with radar service from either ARTCC or ASR. The best of efforts available do not eliminate risk. Now I ask you to compare this with a foam toy bobbing along at 200 to 300 FT that weighs a few pounds. Still think you need two "official" AMA dues paying pilots to guide this menace to society? Really....?

You have just made my point.

And, yes, I know the risks associated with flight. It's my living.

It is easy to do risk management if you're safely on the ground.

I assure you a piece of metal as small as blue wonder motor will take down turbine engines. It wouldn't be cool to run into one of these whilst I'm flying a low level route at high speed.

To be clear, I never said you need 2 AMA members to fly FPV...All you need is a spotter...buddy box optional.

Mind your tone. Forgo the drama. We will get no where this way.

Thanks.

scrtsqrl is offline Find More Posts by scrtsqrl
Last edited by scrtsqrl; May 29, 2012 at 12:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2012, 09:59 AM
Nakelp
nakelp86's Avatar
United States, NJ, Union
Joined Sep 2004
6,794 Posts
Spotter is very helpful regardless where and how you fly FPV but not the buddy box.
This is why I dont like to fly alone, anytime I hear big guy flying I just dive to 100-150 feet.
If I fly alone I make sure there is no air traffic at least in couple miles area.
I recal one instance last year where I was flying at the shore and there was this guy flying full size not higher than 50 feet at the edge of the water and beach. Was he cracking safety rules? I think well kicked beach ball could have take him down.
nakelp86 is offline Find More Posts by nakelp86
Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2012, 01:20 PM
Tight is Right
Darren Hintze's Avatar
Lehi, Utah, United States
Joined Dec 2001
7,668 Posts
I think it would be very helpful if this community adopted safety standards akin to the AMA's and really pushed FPV pilots hard to follow those standards.

And it should really come down hard on people who do not follow those standards... rhetorically if nothing else.

It seems to me the FAA and AMA are willing to listen to organized modelers who can present rational compliance with guidelines.

So my question is, what should those guidelines be that this group would agree to?

For me there are a couple very simple ones:
1) Do not fly over 400' AGL because doings so risks encountering Full Scale aircraft in operation.

2) Do not fly over populated areas.

Given that frankly even these simple things seem to be "up for debate" leaves me little hope we will get model-level waivers.

I personally would add a VLOS rule which pretty much removes flying greater than about 1-2 mile. And a required spotter. This to ensure no dangerous situation arises outside the very limited view of the model's video feed.

I think something like that would have a chance to be included in a model waiver.

As it is, I'm very skeptical.
Darren Hintze is offline Find More Posts by Darren Hintze
Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2012, 01:27 PM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,432 Posts
Look at the first post in this thread but note that pushing FPV pilots is like herding cats.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2012, 01:30 PM
Better then Sliced Bread!
NorCalMatCat's Avatar
United States, CA, Arcata
Joined Oct 2011
2,650 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Hintze View Post
I think it would be very helpful if this community adopted safety standards akin to the AMA's and really pushed FPV pilots hard to follow those standards.

And it should really come down hard on people who do not follow those standards... rhetorically if nothing else.

It seems to me the FAA and AMA are willing to listen to organized modelers who can present rational compliance with guidelines.

So my question is, what should those guidelines be that this group would agree to?

For me there are a couple very simple ones:
1) Do not fly over 400' AGL because doings so risks encountering Full Scale aircraft in operation.

2) Do not fly over populated areas.

Given that frankly even these simple things seem to be "up for debate" leaves me little hope we will get model-level waivers.

I personally would add a VLOS rule which pretty much removes flying greater than about 1-2 mile. And a required spotter. This to ensure no dangerous situation arises outside the very limited view of the model's video feed.

I think something like that would have a chance to be included in a model waiver.

As it is, I'm very skeptical.
That's what the AMA rules are NOW for FPV, 400 feet AGL is not very high, and I like doing longer range, though I doubt anyone is going to see a model beyond a few hundred meters unless it is super large.

I do not believe 400' AGL or VLOS is really adding much to the safety factor at all. I understand 400' if you are close to an airport with a lot of approach / take off planes at low altitude, but somewhere like I am where there might only ever be 10 planes that fly over in a single day, and it's mostly rural area.
NorCalMatCat is offline Find More Posts by NorCalMatCat
Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2012, 01:55 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,641 Posts
Actually, AMA rules do *not* restrict model aircraft to 400ft AGL, except within 3 miles of an airport.
A typical 3+ meter sailplane comes off the winch at over 500 ft, and then soars much higher.
That happens at AMA fields and events all over the country all the time.

A high visibility coloring scheme on a plane like the Skywalker makes it visible at ranges
well over a mile.

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old May 29, 2012, 02:00 PM
Registered User
branflakes's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
2,310 Posts
I also debate the populated areas issue. Park flying breaks this rule, so it should be adjusted to say flying the perimeter of populated areas is acceptable. If I add a camera to a slow stick its still a park flyer, cam doesn't make it more dangerous.
branflakes is offline Find More Posts by branflakes
Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2012, 02:01 PM
Registered User
Joined Aug 2010
913 Posts
I'm kind of surprised that the FPV equipment manufacturers aren't trying to organize some kind of "resistance" to the new regulations we know are coming. This will cripple their business.
thekubiaks is online now Find More Posts by thekubiaks
Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2012, 02:45 PM
Better then Sliced Bread!
NorCalMatCat's Avatar
United States, CA, Arcata
Joined Oct 2011
2,650 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by branflakes View Post
I also debate the populated areas issue. Park flying breaks this rule, so it should be adjusted to say flying the perimeter of populated areas is acceptable. If I add a camera to a slow stick its still a park flyer, cam doesn't make it more dangerous.
I fly FPV on the south perimeter of my town, granted I don't go over the town, but I do scoot along the edge of it.
NorCalMatCat is offline Find More Posts by NorCalMatCat
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