The example about police is not appropriate. Of course there are some who are concerned about the abuses of police power and surveillance by the state. I'm not aware of any protests about hobby use of "drones" but this new AMA guideline raises a flag suggesting that we might be skirting a line. I really think that's a disservice to the model community, particularly when the definition is poorly written. I think the better way was to reference intent and/or anti-stalking laws and the like (i.e. don't use your FPV quad to follow your ex-girlfriend's car around town).

Here's an example. I remember FPV planes were used to catch poachers somewhere. They were also used to spot illegal bird traps in Europe. Both of those activities could have been legally spotted by full-scale aircraft, legally, at least in the USA. But it would have been prohibitively expensive. Are they saying we shouldn't use FPV for observational purposes beyond the recreational aspect? If so, they needed an expression of intent to protect people who inadvertently record something "private" and distinguish those who are actively trying to do so. Right now it reads like simply collecting photos, video and data of "property" is a violation of AMA rules. That is too broad, even if you believe the AMA was trying to shield us from negative PR on the privacy issue (which I accept as a reasonable explanation for why this is on the table, but not for why this was written in such an overbroad way).

The AMA privacy rule only applies to aerial surveillance not observation.

The definition of surveillance is “Close watch kept over someone or something (as by a detective)”.

To cover this statement with specific examples isn't practical, as the list would go on forever.

Something that may be getting lost in this discussion is the consequence of not following this rule. The rule is not a law but only a requirement of AMA for the plane to be considered an Amateur model. It is a statement of intent which is their decision that will likely be supported by the vast majority of members.

So what happens if you don't follow it?

Assuming that FAA does allow exemption for amateur models as defined by AMA rules then your plane would not be flying under that exemption and would be subject to the sUAV regulations. Same as if it didn't meet the AMA requirements for weight, speed, use of spotter, altitude limit, etc.
No police will come to your door and your phone will not be tapped nor your neighbors questioned. Enforcement would be the responsibility of FAA. If anything were done they would have to initiate it and what action if any and penalties would be as the regulations provide.

You could take the position that by itself the rule is ok but could lead to something more restrictive. You could also say that about ever one of the AMA rules no matter how they were written so where would that get us?

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.
John Lydgate

I also wonder what everyone wishes would be the case so that we can have both full access to distance and integration safety. If i had my way, it would be as far laterally as you want to go with 400ft ceiling no spotter required. Fpv vehicles should be designated by weight, with the lightest class offered the full unlimited lateral distance and heavier ones restricted to vlos.

Originally Posted by branflakes

I also wonder what everyone wishes would be the case so that we can have both full access to distance and integration safety. If i had my way, it would be as far laterally as you want to go with 400ft ceiling no spotter required. Fpv vehicles should be designated by weight, with the lightest class offered the full unlimited lateral distance and heavier ones restricted to vlos.

If your plane weighs the same as or less than a bird (Canada Goose: 6 to 14 pounds) then I see an argument for no restrictions, other than near airports. No one is trying to remove large birds from the air (other than near airports) even though one could argue the threat posed by birds is the about same (or greater, because they travel in flocks).


http://www.canadageesenewjersey.com/...se%20Facts.htm
On daily feeding flights, geese might fly between 100 to 1,000 feet between feeding areas. Airplane pilots have reported seeing Canada geese at an altitude of 9,000 feet.

Originally Posted by bmschulman

even though one could argue the threat posed by birds is the about same (or greater, because they travel in flocks).

Not to mention that there's several orders of magnitude more birds in the sky than fpv model aircraft.

Well quickly form a group and take your observations to the FAA, I am sure they will be glad you picked that up.

Comparing model planes to birds is a red herring.

Birds are ignorant and stupid.

Model planes are in theory operated by someone who is informed and intelligent.

Originally Posted by scrtsqrl

comparing model planes to birds is a red herring.

Birds are informed and intelligent.

Model planes are in theory operated by someone who is ignorant and stupid .

ftfy.

Originally Posted by gundamnitpete

ftfy.

lols...sure seems like that sometimes...lols...

Originally Posted by branflakes

Its patently amazing to me a 55lb large scale flyer will be considered a model, or a 200 mph jet, but a30 gm parkzone vapor with a cam will not.

This is insane btw.

Well as long as you don't a backup autopilot failsafe on that 55 model! That level of safety would probably upset the AMA.

A 30gm model can be plenty dangerous if inhaled.

Once again though, that's considering the worse possible, and least likely, scenario. Given reasonable precautions to avoid full scale aircraft (especially flying low to the ground where one would almost never be), the chances of actually colluding with an aircraft are slim. Then the chances that you will hit the most critical part of that aircraft (propeller or jet engine intakes), which are only a small portion of the surface area of the plane, are lower still. When the risk is already that low, legislating for the worse case scenario makes no rational sense.

Originally Posted by prelator

When the risk is already that low, legislating for the worse case scenario makes no rational sense.

When human lives are at stake, legislating against the worst case scenario is the only thing that makes sense.

No, not really. If that was the way legislation always worked, no one would be allowed to ever drive cars or fly aircraft period. After all, when human lives are at stake, anything that saves lives, no matter how few, is worth it, right?

You take one crazy extremist viewpoint, I'll take the other