Thread Tools
Aug 29, 2016, 08:45 AM
Launch the drones ...
Quote:
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.
I just read the actual FAA docs - and confusing as the many cross refs are, I think you are right - so long as we have a visual observer maintaining VLOS, we can fly FPV - but can't fly round the barn no more - the wife can't run that fast.

This is still as stupid as stupid gets. Thanks to the FAA for revealing gov't to be what it is - the BEAST in our lives.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Aug 29, 2016, 08:45 AM
Registered User
From the AMA site:

Academy of Model Aeronautics
“AMA Advanced Flight Systems Committee” [email protected]
Radio Controlled Model Aircraft Operation Utilizing “First Person View” Systems
1. DEFINITION OF TERMS:
Please refer to Page 5 section 7 which contains an alphabetical listing of the definitions of the terms in italics that are used in this document.
2. GENERAL:
FPV flying of radio control model aircraft by AMA members is allowed only for noncommercial purposes as a hobby/recreational and/or competition activity and must be conducted in accordance with AMA’s current National Model Aircraft Safety Code and any additional rules specific to a flying site/location.
3. OPERATIONS – REQUIREMENTS – LIMITATIONS:
a) FPV novice pilots undergoing training at low altitude must use a buddy-box system with
an FPV spotter, or must go to a safer altitude if no buddy-box system is used.
b) All FPV flights require an AMA FPV pilot to have an AMA FPV spotter next to him/her
maintaining VLOS with the FPV aircraft throughout its flight.
c) The FPV pilot must brief the FPV spotter on the FPV spotter’s duties, communications and
hand-over control procedures before FPV flight.
d) The AMA FPV spotter must communicate with the FPV pilot to ensure the FPV aircraft remains within VLOS, warning the FPV pilot of approaching aircraft, and when avoidance techniques are necessary.
e) During an FPV flight, the FPV spotter must be prepared to acquire the transmitter/control from the FPV pilot and assume VLOS control of the model aircraft at any time safe operation of the flight is in question.
f) If an FPV pilot experiences a safety issue that does not appear to be a brief glitch, they must abandon FPV mode and fly VLOS.
g) Before the initial FPV flight of an FPV model aircraft and/or after any changes or repairs to essential flight systems, the FPV model aircraft must have an R/C test flight by conventional VLOS.
h) FPV model aircraft must use frequencies approved by the FCC for both the RC system and the wireless video system. Pilots must meet applicable FCC licensing requirements if they choose to operate the RC flight control system or the wireless video system on Amateur Band frequencies.
i) AMA FPV pilots must first be capable of flying their FPV model aircraft manually before utilizing FPV flight.
Aug 29, 2016, 08:48 AM
Launch the drones ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renoone
From the AMA site:

Academy of Model Aeronautics
“AMA Advanced Flight Systems Committee” [email protected]
Radio Controlled Model Aircraft Operation Utilizing “First Person View” Systems
1. DEFINITION OF TERMS:
Please refer to Page 5 section 7 which contains an alphabetical listing of the definitions of the terms in italics that are used in this document.
2. GENERAL:
FPV flying of radio control model aircraft by AMA members is allowed only for noncommercial purposes as a hobby/recreational and/or competition activity and must be conducted in accordance with AMA’s current National Model Aircraft Safety Code and any additional rules specific to a flying site/location.
3. OPERATIONS – REQUIREMENTS – LIMITATIONS:
a) FPV novice pilots undergoing training at low altitude must use a buddy-box system with
an FPV spotter, or must go to a safer altitude if no buddy-box system is used.
b) All FPV flights require an AMA FPV pilot to have an AMA FPV spotter next to him/her
maintaining VLOS with the FPV aircraft throughout its flight.
c) The FPV pilot must brief the FPV spotter on the FPV spotter’s duties, communications and
hand-over control procedures before FPV flight.
d) The AMA FPV spotter must communicate with the FPV pilot to ensure the FPV aircraft remains within VLOS, warning the FPV pilot of approaching aircraft, and when avoidance techniques are necessary.
e) During an FPV flight, the FPV spotter must be prepared to acquire the transmitter/control from the FPV pilot and assume VLOS control of the model aircraft at any time safe operation of the flight is in question.
f) If an FPV pilot experiences a safety issue that does not appear to be a brief glitch, they must abandon FPV mode and fly VLOS.
g) Before the initial FPV flight of an FPV model aircraft and/or after any changes or repairs to essential flight systems, the FPV model aircraft must have an R/C test flight by conventional VLOS.
h) FPV model aircraft must use frequencies approved by the FCC for both the RC system and the wireless video system. Pilots must meet applicable FCC licensing requirements if they choose to operate the RC flight control system or the wireless video system on Amateur Band frequencies.
i) AMA FPV pilots must first be capable of flying their FPV model aircraft manually before utilizing FPV flight.
If I ever get a warning from my wife of an approaching aircraft - the folk in that craft have already sliced through my treetops, and are a split second from slamming into my hill.

Geeze the FAA is full of it.
Aug 29, 2016, 08:55 AM
Registered User
Don't leave the FCC out! How many pilots using FPV have a HAM radio license? Or even know they need one to operate most FPV video transmitters? Yes even the one on your low flying quad around the barn!

Just thought I would add that since everyone seems to be worried about being legal!
Aug 29, 2016, 11:34 AM
400' + is where fun starts.
Martin Y's Avatar
I'd like to see a full size Cessna navigate around my maple trees at 15 feet or through windows and doors of an empty abandoned building. The FCC haven't made a stink about FPV so why do people keep bringing it up. May as well get a big lit up sign with waving flags saying FPV flyier below. Everything we use is within ISM bands and are not interfering with any critical systems.
Last edited by Martin Y; Aug 29, 2016 at 11:41 AM.
Aug 29, 2016, 12:14 PM
A man with too many toys
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renoone
Don't leave the FCC out! How many pilots using FPV have a HAM radio license? Or even know they need one to operate most FPV video transmitters? Yes even the one on your low flying quad around the barn!

Just thought I would add that since everyone seems to be worried about being legal!
There are several FOV systems on the market that have FCC certification so that's not really true. You can buy a RTF FPV parkflyer and fly it unlicensed.

Problem 1: You buy a legal FPV setup but want a little more range so you just order a higher powered VTX from china. None of the new FPV flyers I have talked to realize that you need a license to do that.

Problem 2: The FCC seams to have no interest in regulating or licensing FPV transmitters. They are not getting the word out like the FAA does. Just like speeding on the highway - if no one ever says anything you won't slow down. Maybe they should add that to the Know Before You Fly information http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/


.
Aug 29, 2016, 12:19 PM
A man with too many toys
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Y
I'd like to see a full size Cessna navigate around my maple trees at 15 feet or through windows and doors of an empty abandoned building. The FCC haven't made a stink about FPV so why do people keep bringing it up. May as well get a big lit up sign with waving flags saying FPV flyier below. Everything we use is within ISM bands and are not interfering with any critical systems.

That's not navigable airspace so it is not under FAA jurisdiction.

According to Federal Aviation Regulations, “navigable airspace” is defined as “airspace at and above the minimum flight altitudes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights
Aug 29, 2016, 02:13 PM
Launch the drones ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC Man
There are several FOV systems on the market that have FCC certification so that's not really true. You can buy a RTF FPV parkflyer and fly it unlicensed.

Problem 1: You buy a legal FPV setup but want a little more range so you just order a higher powered VTX from china. None of the new FPV flyers I have talked to realize that you need a license to do that.

Problem 2: The FCC seams to have no interest in regulating or licensing FPV transmitters. They are not getting the word out like the FAA does. Just like speeding on the highway - if no one ever says anything you won't slow down. Maybe they should add that to the Know Before You Fly information http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/


.
The FCC goes into action, when someone calls in about someone interfering with their signal. And that's only after the folk directly involved can't sort it out themselves. Which they usually do - which is why we're suppose to put our call signs into our transmissions every 10 min.

RC vTx modelers can put a pic of their call sign up, every 10 min. And at the end of the transmission.

And - I've searched the 5.8 bands around here - and no one but me is using them. Randomly from time to time (even drove around once wth my vRx/LCD combo out the window). And every time before I fly. Nada. Zip. Unused. Of course, I'm out here in the sticks.

Safety considerations of the FCC are largely confined to making sure people don't hurt themselves using those large antennae necessary for the lower bandwidths most ham transmissions are on (and no one electrocutes themselves on their equipment) - but I only know the amateur FCC rules - not the commercial ones.
Last edited by Tim Green; Aug 29, 2016 at 02:20 PM.
Aug 29, 2016, 04:06 PM
A man with too many toys
My analyzer only goes to 3g. I wouldn't expect that you would see much except WiFi noise on 5.8 as video on that frequency does not travel very far.



.
Aug 29, 2016, 08:55 PM
Internet Pilot
fATAL's Avatar
THIS OP arTICLE wAS A FAKE!
Aug 29, 2016, 09:08 PM
Launch the drones ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by fATAL
THIS OP arTICLE wAS A FAKE!
Proof?
Aug 29, 2016, 09:24 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
The Forbes article is not fake nor the Drone Law Journal article it references .
There is nothing actually new about what the FAA is doing here. In fact, part of the
problem is that their interpretation of what a model aircraft is (originally spelled out in PL112
Sec 336 and then quietly incorporated into Part 101) flat out excluded FPV piloting
back in 2014, but the world of FPV has changed quite a lot since then.

I wrote a Blog post about it back in 2014 https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show....php?t=2209217
That was shortly after the FAA released their interpretation of the special rule (PL112 Sec 336)
and they made it clear in that and later press releases that FPV pilots could not satisfy
their interpretation. At that time, they stated that anything that couldn't qualify
for Sec 336 was expressly prohibited without specific authorization from the FAA, which
meant obtaining a COA (very rarely granted), or a Sec 333 exemption (was rare in 2014 but
many granted since then).

Now that Part 107 is on the books, there is an alternative to Sec 333 exemption if
you can't meet the FAA's interpretation of what a model aircraft is under Sec 336 and Part 101,
but that interpretation hasn't changed at all. As far as FAA is concerned FPV piloted
aircraft are not model aircraft.

When FAA released their interpretation in 2014 they asked for public comment, and got it. They received over
30,000 comments, which they have yet to start reviewing. They've built pretty much
everything they've done since then, on that shaky foundation. There are court cases pending,
that hinge on the interpretation, and FAA claims they can't proceed with those cases *because*
they haven't reviewed the comments.
Aug 30, 2016, 04:18 AM
Launch the drones ...
Daemon, your info looks solid. As usual. Always trusted, and learned from, your posts. Thx.

But at the same time, AMA has FPV drone racing scheduled in Sep. Maybe it's a massive sting op

But seriously, wouldn't be the first time the AMA has missed (been hit by) the FAA bus.

Leaving this hobbyist pretty darn confused.

And no longer flying FPV.

The FAA is the beast that walks among us.

I'm guessing that the AMA assumes that the spotters at the FPV drone races satisfy the FAAs model aircraft definition. Remains to be seen, how Tha FAA responds to those races.

Also, been assuming they're being held outdoors. If not ...

The two things I've taken away from this are that the AMA is out of its league, in regard to dealing with the FAA. And second, the FAAs a self serving political animal, driven by full scale pilots fearful of drones impacting their livelihoods. Their ag pilots being specially vocal, noting that Japan's been using RC gear, aka drones, to spray crops for over two decades now.

It's gonna take a few years maybe, and a few court cases, before the politics subsides, and some sane regulations come into play. For instance, the livery interests enacted laws limiting the use of cars, as they started to become popular, back in the day. And, much like the FAA, they lied, and claimed they were doing it for reasons of safety
Last edited by Tim Green; Aug 30, 2016 at 04:53 AM.
Aug 30, 2016, 05:30 AM
A man with too many toys
I think you guys are worried about nothing. Only Congress can change the law and they elected to not make any changes this session.

My guess is that nothing will change and 99.99999999999% of FPV pilots will continue as usual.


.
Aug 30, 2016, 07:36 AM
Internet Pilot
fATAL's Avatar
PROOF is in the latest 107 news on FAA.gov/news


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools