http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngogl.../#2da000a36743
This claims if someone wants to fly fpv they have to have the small uav pilot certificate even if you are non commercial...
Does anyone have any knowledge as to whether this is accurate? Or can one be an ama member and fly fpv according to thier rules?
Also, there is mention of being required to be a part of an orgination such as the ama and follow it's rules. If this is the case can one be an ama member and fly at a random location, such as an abandoned building or something, if they have a spotter, establish a temporary flight line, etc, or must one only fly at an ama sanctioned field to be compliant with ama rules?

The more I look into this the more it seems to me that none of part 107 applies to anybody in the Hobby World. Part 107 covers commercial use there for anything found in there doesn't apply to non-commercial use.

No such requirement here for a license:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/

Wow! If this quote from the article is an actual FAA response it totally stinks and, like the registration requirement, is another example of the FAA bending the intent of 336.

So for example, if you’ve gotten into drone racing, whether you fly for hobby or not, the FAA confirmed to me today that if you fly FPV – first person view – you will be required to get a drone pilot’s license and comply with the new Part 107. Below is my question and the FAA’s response:

Q: Could you confirm whether hobby FPV flyers will have to get a Part 107 remote pilot certificate after August 29 when the new drone rules go into effect?

A: Under the FAA’s current interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, modelers who want to fly their drones using first-person-view systems must operate under Part 107, which requires a Remote Pilot Certificate. The operator also would need to comply with any other applicable Part 107 requirement.

The FAA’s response indicates that it may review this requirement in the future, but starting Monday Part 107 is the law applicable to FPV flyers. According to the FAA: “The FAA solicited comments to its interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft and received over 33,000 comments, including comments on the use of FPV. The FAA is considering the issues raised by those comments and plans to issue a final interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft that reflects its consideration of the comments.”

I count on reporters getting things wrong, but this appears to be a quote from someone in the FAA, and I don't put it past them to take this stance.

Originally Posted by Ionfreefly

No such requirement here for a license:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/

True. But the FAA appears to be saying once you go FPV you need to Part 107.

I'm going to guess that they may allow FPV under AMA rules for FPV flight (observer, LOS, etc.)

It appears it all comes down to the use of "within line of sight" which this particular person may be applying it to mean you must be looking at it whereas this is the only case I have found of this and it appears the usage by the faa and ama is within, meaning it stays "within" a distance and area that it can be visible observed or not go outside or behind something where it cannot be seen... but doesn't mean you must have eyes on it constantly and thus the requirement for an observer.

Look into proposed FAA rules 101 subpart E

Here is a thread on this subject
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show....php?t=2718398

Originally Posted by Skidman

True. But the FAA appears to be saying once you go FPV you need to Part 107.

I'm going to guess that they may allow FPV under AMA rules for FPV flight (observer, LOS, etc.)

No two people come away with the same reading. I'm guessing this is done on purpose, by the FAA. They get to decide, in court, what it means. And the defendant is stuck paying the fines, or spending really big bucks defending them self. Against the Feds no less. And, good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Tim Green

No two people come away with the same reading. I'm guessing this is done on purpose, by the FAA. They get to decide, in court, what it means. And the defendant is stuck paying the fines, or spending really big bucks defending them self. Against the Feds no less. And, good luck with that.

What I read in the FAA Q&A is that they clearly interpret it to mean that FPV, of any flavor, requires Part 107 compliance, but that they will review the comments that they received and possibly revise their interpretation.

In my mind, if a law is not clear and its meaning is not overwhelmingly agreed upon, it is junk and is only good for attorneys to making money.

But even that hasn't slowed down the FAA yet. 336 said that they couldn't make new rules, so they decided to start a new requirement for model airplane fliers to register and mark their aircraft, because, they said, they have always been in the aircraft registration business - requiring modelers to register isn't anything new.

Part 107 Problems for AMA fliers (23 min 50 sec)

Hey folks, with this new regulation coming in effect today finally checked FAA statement myself - only the summary part, but this is what they have as a clear statement:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf
Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must
remain within VLOS of the remote pilot in command and the
person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS.
Alternatively, the unmanned aircraft must remain within
VLOS of the visual observer.

On any FPV race that's going to be true - since there will be lots of observers to observe the flight when pilot has no direct line of sight - right?

This all looks a little OTT to me

Originally Posted by kosmodrom

Hey folks, with this new regulation coming in effect today finally checked FAA statement myself - only the summary part, but this is what they have as a clear statement:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf
Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must
remain within VLOS of the remote pilot in command and the
person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS.
Alternatively, the unmanned aircraft must remain within
VLOS of the visual observer.

On any FPV race that's going to be true - since there will be lots of observers to observe the flight when pilot has no direct line of sight - right?

If that's the case, I guess I can keep dragging my wife out with me, every time I fly FPV under my willow trees.

The FAA's so stupid (or corrupt - take your pick). Flying tiny quads FPV under trees in ones own yard endangers no full scale aircraft.

And if you say well what if the craft gets away from you - goes way high up, and blah blah blah - well - that silly scenario could happen with a spotter, or without one.

The FAA's the beast - and it's running loose in our streets and cities. Making up stupid, onerous, idiotic laws. Unto itself.

Not true at all. As long as you fly within the recommendations of a CBO (AMA) you can fly FPV within LOS and an observer. This is nothing new. Just read the AMA guidelines and follow them and you will be fine. I wish people would stop spreading information they know nothing about. I have discussed this with the AMA many times over the past year. 107 is for non-hobby use ONLY.

Originally Posted by BFM1

this means any and all FPV usage and racing falls under 107 and everyone has to have a 107.

Also look closely at the under 16s bit.

As from today your in breach of you fly any fpv with out a 107.

Originally Posted by Renoone

Not true at all. As long as you fly within the recommendations of a CBO (AMA) you can fly FPV within LOS and an observer. This is nothing new. Just read the AMA guidelines and follow them and you will be fine. I wish people would stop spreading information they know nothing about. I have discussed this with the AMA many times over the past year. 107 is for non-hobby use ONLY.

Is there any link or something you can refer to for these recommendations? Summary from FAA site is good enough for me, but I would like to have several print outs that I would be able to present to anybody who might be hesitant - better safe than sorry.