Originally Posted by branflakes

Additionally, the wording/stance is ridiculous in that privacy standards from the air have nothing to do with modeling, they're overstepping (surprise)

Google earth is worse than 480 non zoom fpv cam
There is precedent for reasonable expectation of privacy, private property doesn't cut it. In Denver, I'm allowed to set up hi res cam on top of mountain outside city and film all your back yards etc

Hypocrisy galore imo.

Goggle earth isn't a surveillance tool unless you are interested in historical images. The quality varies but at my house the pixels are about a foot wide.

As was correctly suggested earlier AMA's interest in this regard is to get ahead of it before it becomes a issue and it will become one. The public is paying close attention to UAV's and the hot button is aerial surveillance. This is what happened when the authorities tried to show them how it was going to be used by the local police.


As reported by Central District News…

SPD’s public display of their Draganflyer X6 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (AKA “drone”) Thursday at Garfield Community Center was supposed to give people a chance to see the camera-toting remote-piloted helicopter in person and give residents the chance to ask questions about how it would be used.
However, a group of protesters had other ideas for the meeting, shouting down the officers with chants and disruption for much of the meeting time. Many people have concerns about increasing the police department’s surveillance tools, while others see it as the start of dystopian worlds depicted in novels like 1984.
A handful of residents yelled back at the irate protesters, calling for civil discourse. Their efforts didn’t stop the interruptions; however, some did get their questions answered over the chaos caused by the demonstrators.

We are not about surveillance and do not think we would want to get tied to anyone who is.

Originally Posted by Gary Evans

We are not about surveillance and do not think we would want to get tied to anyone who is.

Speak for yourself. Quite a few of us on here have commercial aspirations. I'm working with an optics guy at the office to build a commercial UAV demonstrator, and my brother is going to help get investors. We're not in a hurry because the law is in flux, but we are very interested in where the lines get drawn.

We build satellites that can photograph your watch from space, and read the time. With that kind of technology on a plane, it could be VERY intrusive. We have object trackers that could keep the camera trained on you from thousands of feet in the air, or look in your windows if the angle was right. Go look at some of the ads in "Vision Systems Design" and see where we're headed. The technology for some pretty advanced UAV functions is COTS stuff now (commercial off the shelf).

This is a magazine for optics engineers...
http://www.vision-systems.com/index.html

Well.. that doesn't quite work. We are talking here about Amateur Model Aviation - not commercial projects.

For the commercial site, the law is pretty clear defined nowadays. You need to follow the FAA guidelines to get a airworthiness certificate etc. It's a lot of work but the proper way.

See that's the problem - you are mixing commercial with amateur aviation. Two different worlds - even we use the same planes. You can't do that.

And that's the main problem - we are trying to leave the backdoor open for commercial projects under amateur law - something that the AMA doesn't want and the FAA neither. No worries, you are not the only one. Even Boeing, NG, etc are doing the same..

Just a nit.. but AMA = Academy of Model Aeronautics.. not Amateur Model Aviation..
But yes, I see little value in talking about commercial operations here other
than where the safety aspects overlap with amateur FPV. Judging by what I've
seen personally, commercial operations often require flying much closer to
people/property than we normally would.

ian

The commerical oriented posts that appear on this board can easily cause confusion unless the poster makes it clear that the comments are not in regard to amatuer models which is what this FPV RcGroup is about. The people who have followed this closely will know the differance but many others wil not and their understanding of whats happening on the amatuer side will suffer.
As long as the differance is explained the information is appreciated.

But what you guys are taking about is using commercial style stuff, for fun. It matters to the amateur because we need to know where the line is. That is, what do you have to be doing before the law says you're not doing hobby aviation anymore. That's why it's important to us... not because we're planning to do it for profit, but because we could accidentally cross the line and suddenly you're doing commercial FPV by the legal definition and you don't know it. And that's important because these new safety rules are going to be used to define that.

The line is real clear. If you are given money for the product of your flying (be it photos, video,
a report of what you saw, or even paid to chase birds away from a landfill or crops), it's commercial.
There's no ambiguity here (although many have wished there was some).

I'm not anti-commercial operations at all. In fact, quite the contrary. However there's
no risk that you'll just accidentally wander into the commercial realm without knowing it.

ian

Sure there is... if you're not following the AMA safety rules, you aren't doing model aviation, and any exceptions to the law concerning model operations don't apply to you. We are all doing commercial FPV by the AMA definition and the fact that we aren't making a profit doesn't matter. The courts will say what you were doing does not fit the definition of model aviation because you weren't following the AMA safety code. Why is it so hard to follow this reasoning? I don't think I'm being unclear in any way.

I understand the link between FAA and AMA just fine (been making it myself a lot) but
your argument is still flawed. Just because it is not one thing, doesn't automatically make it another.
Not following one of the AMA's rules doesn't make it commercial operation (in your words)
"by the AMA definition", any more than breaking the speed limit as a private citizen
on the highway makes you a commercial truck operator. Yes, following or not
following AMA rules may ultimately have legal consequences in the future if AMA is
the only "community based organization" recognized by the amateur modeling exemption
but not because you suddenly become a commercial operator but simply because
you're not following the regs.

ian

Its a lost case here .. that's why we will not be able to get a FPV representation together.

Originally Posted by jasmine2501

Sure there is... if you're not following the AMA safety rules, you aren't doing model aviation, and any exceptions to the law concerning model operations don't apply to you. We are all doing commercial FPV by the AMA definition and the fact that we aren't making a profit doesn't matter. The courts will say what you were doing does not fit the definition of model aviation because you weren't following the AMA safety code. Why is it so hard to follow this reasoning? I don't think I'm being unclear in any way.

At this time there is no law against amatuer models and/or FPV even if AMA rules are not followed. The only offical FAA position on amateur models is AC 91-57 and they have made it clear that commercial operations are not allowed under it. The only definition of commercial that I know of is being paid for your services and is that is not currently allowed without FAA approval.
What will be allowed under the new regs remains to be seen but our best guess it that it will be AMA rules.

Originally Posted by flyandi

Its a lost case here .. that's why we will not be able to get a FPV representation together.

If you wanted to get into cat herding this would be good practice.

Doesn't driving a school bus make you a commercial driver regardless of whether it has passengers or not? Please note I'm not taking about current laws, I'm thinking about the future of FPV. It won't be protected as amateur model aviation activity, if you aren't following the AMA safety rules

Originally Posted by jasmine2501

Doesn't driving a school buys make you a commercial driver regardless of whether it has passengers or not? Please note I'm not taking about current laws, I'm thinking about the future of FPV. It won't be protected as amateur model aviation activity, if you aren't following the AMA safety rules

Not following your point about school buses but yes it very well could be that amateur models will be required to abide by AMA rules which is exactly what I stated a few posts back. This has been the expected outcome for years and still appears to be the best case future course for FPV. Commercial sUAV and all else that doesn't fit into those requirements will be subject to licensing, certification and permits which is why we (the FPV community) would not want the two mixed together. We have nothing to gain and a lot to lose my doing so.

Originally Posted by Gary Evans

Not following your point about school buses but yes it very well could be that amateur models will be required to abide by AMA rules which is exactly what I stated a few posts back. This has been the expected outcome for years and still appears to be the best case future course for FPV. Commercial sUAV and all else that doesn't fit into those requirements will be subject to licensing, certification and permits which is why we (the FPV community) would not want the two mixed together. We have nothing to gain and a lot to lose my doing so.

Yes, You say it better than I can. It's very possible that people doing what most of us are doing now may be subject to commercial regulations and therefore we have an interest in making sure those regulations are reasonable. My personal interest in commercial stuff is just personal fuel on the fire, and i didn't bring it up to confuse the point, just to add to it. We all know of people who have turned the hobby into a business and I think we have an interest in making sure that remains possible for people who may want to do that.