FAA CLARIFICATIONS...... What's legal.......What aint ???????

[BarracudaHockey]

Flyin4fun;3423 wrote: Yeah, he would like to fly it up to 2 miles away, the thing is quite big (I don't know much about it, but it is cool) anyway it is not a quad it is about 3 feet in diameter and has 6 or 8 rotors, and has a landing gear that folds up so as not to show on the camera, and from what I understand , it has an attachment on his DX18 to extend the range.

But noo way will you see it at a mile, much less 2 miles. (WLOS)

Let me ask you this.



If you were flying a med-evac heli at 500 feet and 120 knots and this thing starts filling up your windscreen and he has no idea you're there because he can't look around and maintain visual separation, and he and the spotter he's not using can't see his gizmo from where he's flying, how would you feel? Thats the only issue I have with BVLOS

 

[Flyin4fun]

BarracudaHockey;3753 wrote: Let me ask you this.



If you were flying a med-evac heli at 500 feet and 120 knots and this thing starts filling up your windscreen and he has no idea you're there because he can't look around and maintain visual separation, and he and the spotter he's not using can't see his gizmo from where he's flying, how would you feel? Thats the only issue I have with BVLOS

I agree with you, there are probably many situations where BVLOS FPV could get into trouble, but technology is amazing, just last Wednesday there was a guest(former member) that was at our field, he brought his heptacopter (I guess that is what you call it, 6 rotors) anyway he was flying it VLOS and took it out several hundred yards , turned off the radio and set it on the ground, and his copter flew back (on its own) and landed itself within 3 feet from where he took off. amazing technology

 

[rcbobp]

As one who doesn't have a full scale license, I like the idea of seeing what it's like from the cockpit. That said, I recognize that the goggles or even a tablet screen can't give someone the full vantage that I pilot would have. Thus, I'm all in favor of FPV when you have a spotter keeping the aircraft in sight at all times. Otherwise, it's a recipe for disaster. Another reason to support our hobby and AMA's efforts to educate the public. Joe Yuckapuck who buys something from the toy store has no idea the damages that he can cause if/when something goes wrong.

 

[Mikeq]

Flyin4fun;3759 wrote: I agree with you, there are probably many situations where BVLOS FPV could get into trouble, but technology is amazing, just last Wednesday there was a guest(former member) that was at our field, he brought his heptacopter (I guess that is what you call it, 6 rotors) anyway he was flying it VLOS and took it out several hundred yards , turned off the radio and set it on the ground, and his copter flew back (on its own) and landed itself within 3 feet from where he took off. amazing technology

yeah...have a friend with one of those phantoms with NAZA flight control...7 satellite lock, six axis stability and a default come home feature...he has one of those screens instead of the goggles and all he has to do is turn off the transmitter and that baby flies home. His FPV is set up through his GoPro and works really well...I think it has a good peripheral image not tunnel like some people think but that's with a GoPro..not sure with the other cameras ....very impressive...I wanted one to take on my annual motorcycle trips for aerial shots in remote locating and maybe some nat'l parks but the FAA actions has made me rethink before I spend the bucks..

 

[jwilliams]

Flyin4fun said
wecoyote;3436 wrote: According to the FAA, you have to be able to have LOS. I have changed my FPV to using a monitor screen instead of goggles. That should satisfy the FAA requirements of LOS. I also adhere to the AMA rules by having a spotter and keeping the flying vehicle within LOS.

But didn't the FAA clarifications say that you could NOT use anything except corrective lens glasses to VLOS, in that case a monitor screen would be illegal,
 
My interpretation is that a monitor screen would be fine. The reasoning is that it is not replacing LOS and not being used as the sole source for control of the drone. Now that is my interpretation and certainly not the FAA's as I have not seen any commentary or explanation on their broad based ruling(s). As a commercial airline pilot I would benefit from the FAA requiring some sort of airmans certificate to operate UAV's, but I certainly don't think they will end up going that direction. I had an FAA guy in my jumpseat about 2 months ago and he said they (as in the FAA) don't know what to do about all the UAV going on, they basically got caught with their pants down. If the FAA stays in their typical fashion (which they have with their shut it down till we figure out recent ruling) then it will be some time for any regulations and they will prosecute all violators in the meantime. So those of you that intend on doing what you do you are taking a chance. As a 25 year airline pilot and 37 years in this hobby I would not take them on as you will likely lose.......even if you win your court case. 

Jeff

 

[ExtraJohn]

...

 

[Xpress]

ExtraJohn said
In May of this year a NTSB judge ruled the FAA does not have jurisdiction over model aircraft.

Until that ruling is reversed in court, the FAA is blowing smoke and any silly rules they decide to make up are unenforcable.

Some times getting real legal advice is much better then listening to the gov bull spouted on the news.

I was told a long time ago, never ask a cop for legal advice. Letting the FAA define the rules is the same thing, they will tell what they want the rule to mean, not the legal definition.

Precisely. The FAA is not a governing body for model aircraft. They can't write a law that effectively shuts down an ENTIRE industry. 

 

[stangflyer]

That is really great to hear.

 

[BarracudaHockey]

As far as the AMA, as long as you use a spotter that can maintain visual LOS then FPV via goggles is still approved and covered.

 

The FAA issued an interpretation, the AMA and others have asked for a judicial review of the interpretation (it's been called a law suit and I suppose in some ways it is, I'm not a lawyer)

 

I'm sure Mark will tell you the same thing.

 

[CatalinaWOW]

As has been stated before, no one knows what the rules will be, and there is lack of clarity on what they are now.  Lawyers and judges are involved which means the situation is completely unpredictable. 

For your situation with the field owner I would be very open, explaining the fact that rules are under development and will be clarified over time.   Emphasize your clubs commitment to comply with the rules as they are developed.   For now the best clarity is the AMA rules, which allow your member to fly his quad, but not to it's full capabilities.  LOS only, no automatic return to home.  No transmitter mods that are not FCC compliant (This includes the video transmitter on the quad, which probably requires the member to get an amateur radio license and may require him to change frequencies or power level).  Also be sure to investigate and follow any local privacy laws concerning aerial photography.