New Products Flash Sale
Thread Tools
Old Aug 15, 2009, 12:54 AM
Mr.Pibb is offline
Find More Posts by Mr.Pibb
Mr.Pibb's Avatar
Just because "Homeland Security" thinks it's illegal, doesn't mean it is.

Wow...just....wow...

like this hasn't been discussed to death.
Site Sponsor
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Aug 15, 2009, 01:03 AM
FPVExtremer is offline
Find More Posts by FPVExtremer
Putting FPV to Business
FPVExtremer's Avatar
Yes Pibb,

Great point, very big WOW factor here.

And this is for Jim,

I would not want to troll in, but now that's just really absurd...come on, foam planes are subject of homeland security? Come on, go play xbox live spy games or else...

Also can't wait to see JettPilot's optinion here...really.

Cheers,

Ernani
Last edited by FPVExtremer; Aug 15, 2009 at 11:56 AM.
Old Aug 15, 2009, 01:17 AM
Mel Duval is offline
Find More Posts by Mel Duval
Missileer Extraordinaire
Mel Duval's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Evans
I understand that the FAA's ARC has basically completed its task which was to pull together information for the preparation of proposed UAS regulations. Next step will be the drafting of proposed rules which may be completed this year with adoption and enforcement to follow.
No details on exactly what the ARC has provided have been disclosed yet.

Here you go. Note sections 2 and 3 and the visual line of sight rule...........
Old Aug 15, 2009, 12:46 PM
JimDrew is online now
Find More Posts by JimDrew
Xtreme Power Systems
Interesting my post was deleted. If anyone thinks that Homeland Security does not have the final say, even over the FAA, they are fooling themselves. Homeland Security got greatly involved with this ordeal after the guy was flying his FPV equipped plane over top airliners on approach into McCarren Airport in Las Vegas, NV.
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by JimDrew; Aug 15, 2009 at 12:57 PM.
Old Aug 15, 2009, 10:50 PM
gundamnitpete is offline
Find More Posts by gundamnitpete
Team White Llama!
gundamnitpete's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDrew
Interesting my post was deleted. If anyone thinks that Homeland Security does not have the final say, even over the FAA, they are fooling themselves. Homeland Security got greatly involved with this ordeal after the guy was flying his FPV equipped plane over top airliners on approach into McCarren Airport in Las Vegas, NV.

thank you for your input....
Old Aug 16, 2009, 12:01 AM
Martin Y is offline
Find More Posts by Martin Y
400' ..... NOT
Martin Y's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDrew
Homeland Security got greatly involved with this ordeal after the guy was flying his FPV equipped plane over top airliners on approach into McCarren Airport in Las Vegas, NV.

Funny that, couldn't find anything about that on the net. Or is it just me, Or was that deleted.
Old Aug 16, 2009, 12:23 AM
pratorian is offline
Find More Posts by pratorian
No guts no glory
pratorian's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Y
Funny that, couldn't find anything about that on the net. Or is it just me, Or was that deleted.

Obama calls Jim every morning so he knows better, listen to him and dont ask questions.
Old Aug 16, 2009, 01:34 AM
David22 is offline
Find More Posts by David22
Suspended Account
I find it really sad that his post WAS deleted

it would be interesting if someone had info about what he was and is talking about

or is this post going to be deleted?
Old Aug 16, 2009, 04:47 AM
VRflyer is offline
Find More Posts by VRflyer
Live FPV or Die
VRflyer's Avatar
I read his post, I was to answer yesterday.

I already discuss the subject with the preseident of our association, the MAAC. In Canada it exist no clear law that restrict us to do FPV. The only rule that write somewhere, it is the plane must remain in visual contact. But that need to be discuss in court with lawyer. it's not a law as i know.

Presently the rule is a no sens. To be cover inside MAAC club, the plane weight must remain under 35Kg. No size limitation. So you are allow to build a plane with giant wings. The visual range depend on the size of the wing and the good eyes of the pilot who kept visual contact. So it's possible to go easily beyond one km inside rc club. I don't think it is require to have double receiver. I think you can buy the cheapest stuff to build your plane. So if you lost contac and your plane fly severals km and fall on highway, the MAAC insurer is covering you...

But when I fly whit my Fox with my goggle, the insurer is not covering me. It will cover the 20 pound turbine plane that fly beyonf 200kmh, no problem, no need a co-pilot for those toy. But for the Fox, I need an experience pilot who will take the control.

Imagine receivig a Fox in the eye...
Last edited by VRflyer; Aug 16, 2009 at 04:54 AM.
Old Aug 16, 2009, 04:53 AM
gundamnitpete is offline
Find More Posts by gundamnitpete
Team White Llama!
gundamnitpete's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by David22
I find it really sad that his post WAS deleted

it would be interesting if someone had info about what he was and is talking about

or is this post going to be deleted?

he stated he heard from some poeple it was illegal. your up to date.
Old Sep 02, 2009, 01:15 PM
SoMoney is offline
Find More Posts by SoMoney
Registered User
SoMoney's Avatar
1. Maximum flight altitude of 400ft AGL as per FAA guideline AC 91-57.

91-57 says model aircraft "should" be kept under 400ft. But later in that document The FAA state "UAV's" operating over 18,000 feet SHOULD have transponders and open an IFR flight plan. I get it though, let them all THINK we fly under 400, good plan, but broken by EVERY FPV pilot to date.

2. Flights are not permitted over densely populated areas of cities, towns or over any open-air assembly of persons.

So Parks and "non densely populate" areas of cities, towns are fine.

3. Flights within 3 statute miles of an airport require prior approval of the airport manager.

Like that's gonna happen...Airport manager isn't going to...

4. Maximum operating range shall be limited to AMA safety rules and FAA guidelines.

Why are UHF TX/RX recommended for FPV again? 1st step to make the UHF RC System illegal in around AMA sanctioned flying fields? Or eventually illegal in the US?

5. Flights shall be conducted in such a way as to prevent harm to full-scale aircraft, people, animals or property.

See Rule 1

6. Flights should be only conducted under VFR weather conditions.
a. Day = 1 statute mile of visibility
b. Night = 3 statute miles of visibility
7. Night flights require on-board aircraft lights that show the aircraft’s attitude visible from 1000 ft.

I guess for other fpv aircraft can spot me.


8. Fully autonomous aerial vehicles that lack the ability to be totally controlled by the pilot in command are not considered to be FPV aircraft and as such are not covered by these guidelines.

Yay, OSD with RTH FTW! We can ignore the rest..

9. Aircraft will be flown by regular visual line-of-sight method during initial testing and/or testing of any flight system changes that could affect performance and/or handling.

Thats not FPV. Thats from the standard RC Model flight rules. Who let this guy in? I guess when making rules that resemble the 10 commandments of FPV you need Filler.

10. Aircraft will contain contact information for the pilot, including but not limited to, the pilots full name, address, and phone number.

FPV rules should compliment AMA rules as an addition, not a repeat of. This is already in AMA guidelines.
Last edited by SoMoney; Sep 02, 2009 at 01:32 PM.
Old Sep 02, 2009, 02:10 PM
scrtsqrl is offline
Find More Posts by scrtsqrl
Just trying to get a nut.
scrtsqrl's Avatar
FWIW...In the full scale aviation world...

Should = "The Standards use the word "should" where conformance is expected unless, when applying professional judgment, circumstances justify deviation."

Shall = Compliance is Mandatory
Old Sep 02, 2009, 04:52 PM
PeteSchug is offline
Find More Posts by PeteSchug
Registered User
PeteSchug's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoMoney
1. Maximum flight altitude of 400ft AGL as per FAA guideline AC 91-57.

91-57 says model aircraft "should" be kept under 400ft. But later in that document The FAA state "UAV's" operating over 18,000 feet SHOULD have transponders and open an IFR flight plan. I get it though, let them all THINK we fly under 400, good plan, but broken by EVERY FPV pilot to date.

2. Flights are not permitted over densely populated areas of cities, towns or over any open-air assembly of persons.

So Parks and "non densely populate" areas of cities, towns are fine.

3. Flights within 3 statute miles of an airport require prior approval of the airport manager.

Like that's gonna happen...Airport manager isn't going to...

4. Maximum operating range shall be limited to AMA safety rules and FAA guidelines.

Why are UHF TX/RX recommended for FPV again? 1st step to make the UHF RC System illegal in around AMA sanctioned flying fields? Or eventually illegal in the US?

5. Flights shall be conducted in such a way as to prevent harm to full-scale aircraft, people, animals or property.

See Rule 1

6. Flights should be only conducted under VFR weather conditions.
a. Day = 1 statute mile of visibility
b. Night = 3 statute miles of visibility
7. Night flights require on-board aircraft lights that show the aircraft’s attitude visible from 1000 ft.

I guess for other fpv aircraft can spot me.


8. Fully autonomous aerial vehicles that lack the ability to be totally controlled by the pilot in command are not considered to be FPV aircraft and as such are not covered by these guidelines.

Yay, OSD with RTH FTW! We can ignore the rest..

9. Aircraft will be flown by regular visual line-of-sight method during initial testing and/or testing of any flight system changes that could affect performance and/or handling.

Thats not FPV. Thats from the standard RC Model flight rules. Who let this guy in? I guess when making rules that resemble the 10 commandments of FPV you need Filler.

10. Aircraft will contain contact information for the pilot, including but not limited to, the pilots full name, address, and phone number.

FPV rules should compliment AMA rules as an addition, not a repeat of. This is already in AMA guidelines.
Your criticism of (9) misses the point.

The wording is: "during initial testing and/or testing of any flight system changes that could affect performance and/or handling."

Read before you babble. It makes good sense to anyone who reads and thinks.

Pete
Old Sep 02, 2009, 06:34 PM
SoMoney is offline
Find More Posts by SoMoney
Registered User
SoMoney's Avatar
I got the point and summarized at the end.

YESTERDAYS DODGER GAME, SOME ONE DECIDED TO DIVE BOMB THE PLAYERS.
I guess he was applying rule 9 and skipping the 1st one.
9/1/09 ANOTHER LOOK AT REMOTE CONTROL AIRPLANE AT DODGERS BASEBALL GAME (0 min 38 sec)
Old Sep 07, 2009, 04:04 PM
outngo is offline
Find More Posts by outngo
E-Gliders
outngo's Avatar
What about FPV flying for non-AMA members?


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Petition the FAA to revise the restrictive laws placed on model aircraft! Decroxx Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 18 Apr 03, 2015 04:38 PM
Discussion New Forum Suggestion - Model Aircraft Regulations mjgravina New Forum Requests 0 Feb 04, 2015 07:10 PM
Alert New FAA TFR prohibits model aircraft/RPAS flight within 3nm of large sporting events Ronan87 Multirotor Talk 8 Nov 05, 2014 01:46 AM
Discussion Deadline to have your say in FAA guidlines for Model aircraft is today Sept 23 bravetiger73 Multirotor Talk 0 Sep 23, 2014 08:18 PM
Discussion The AMA / FAA model aircraft and sUAS regulation struggle continues in the USA RolandS888 UAV - Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 49 Mar 02, 2011 10:29 AM