FAA attempts to ban FPV Goggles

MombasaFlash

Heli's & Tele's bloke
... So they are playing by a very involved and stringent set of rules that hobbyists and modelers want to be exempted from. Therein lies the problem ...

succinct


And in line with my own oft stated view:

"... You have to hand it to DJI, their Phantom and the people it was sold to have largely been the ones to create the issues were are now experiencing. Anyone can buy it, anyone can fly it, and nobody receives any advice on the right way to go about doing things ..."


Sometimes I get so peed-off by the antics of the 'FPV/Phantom' crowd, and the ensuing official interference, I sort of wish that MR's could simply be banished, full stop, and that AP would have to be re-assumed by single-rotor helicopters. THAT would really clear the airspace, since I would not be at all surprised if 95% of MR 'pilots' simply wouldn't have the balls to have to really fly a machine.
 

dmetz

Member
As another that is Commercial ASMEL, instrument, instructor I have to completely agree with Bart. The FAA has always been tasked with maintaining air safety and promoting commerce using the sky as a transport medium. The commercial sUAS industry, in which field I'm employed, has obtained COA's in which to operate their aircraft. Some have gone so far as to obtain experimental type certificates, as is the case with one of the aircraft involved with the Alaska operations. So they are playing by a very involved and stringent set of rules that hobbyists and modelers want to be exempted from. Therein lies the problem.

When you combine a large group of people that insist they can do anything they want, any time they want, with hundreds of videos depicting the lack of regard they extend to anyone else and/or the law, be they in the air or on the ground, you have the stage set for a terrible event. It just hasn't happened yet. Yes, there has to be rules and limits, but those need to be fair, realistic, and enforceable. As it stands what the FAA has written does not have the strength of law, and it violates the tenants laid upon the FAA by Congress. One cannot break a law to make a law, especially at the federal level. The AMA spotter rule is not a law recognized by the FAA. AMA rules are in no way enforceable under the law. The AMA was trying to get the FAA to accept their form of rules to set the basis for the national organization concept, but we, meaning FPV and MR people, to a great extent, have ignored those operational guidelines. You have to hand it to DJI, their Phantom, and the people it was sold to have largely been the ones to create the issues were are now experiencing. Anyone can buy it, anyone can fly it, and nobody receives any advice on the right way to go about doing things. It's not just DJI really, it's the industry in general. Take the money and run. How many on line vendors provide any kind of operational advice in their sales documentation? Most of the MR forums provide the same amount but their hands are out for the advertising dollar.

This site is one of the few that views our activities in the long term instead of the short and took the steps necessary to be a good leader.

Good information and great points!
 

dmetz

Member
Can anyone comment on how this does not violate the new rule
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Features/2013/09/bds_qf16_09_23_13.page

Clearly NOT a model aircraft....different rules entirely.

Not sure you were serious with the question but, there will be many things the military and commercial aviators/operators will be able to do with UAS that hobbiest will likely be excluded from because of the lack of equipment certification and lack of regulatory oversight. Some of those limitations will probably be more restrictive than necessary because there are just people flying with little experience and in some cases a lack of common sense.
 

Ronan

Member
Clearly NOT a model aircraft....different rules entirely.

Not sure you were serious with the question but, there will be many things the military and commercial aviators/operators will be able to do with UAS that hobbiest will likely be excluded from because of the lack of equipment certification and lack of regulatory oversight. Some of those limitations will probably be more restrictive than necessary because there are just people flying with little experience and in some cases a lack of common sense.

Exactly, it's like comparing your little Ford F150 hauling a few concrete bags in the trunk VS. a giant double trailer pulling flammable material. Yet the FAA claims it's the same thing or something like that... durp durp durp...
 

kloner

Aerial DP
by the same thought process, as soon as you charge for installing them bags of concrete for hire, your required at least in Cali to get a CA number for the truck and are succeptable to the same rules as the semi truck is,,, same with the taxes they cost are by the ton you can carry....
 

Ronan

Member
by the same thought process, as soon as you charge for installing them bags of concrete for hire, your required at least in Cali to get a CA number for the truck and are succeptable to the same rules as the semi truck is,,, same with the taxes they cost are by the ton you can carry....

Registering the truck and having insurance is normal, but the certificates/permits/etc are very different for a heavy hauler vs SUV.
 


Ronan

Member
Looks like this horse is dead guys. Give it break

Gene

Huh? The horse isn't dead, just a few days ago the FAA put up some crap that we are suppose to accept as law biding. It's actually open for 'comment' right now. Now is the time to talk about this and do something about it.

I know i contributed money to the cause to spread the word like many other's + myself and colleagues/friends/family have posted comments for the FAA to review.
 

dmetz

Member
Exactly, it's like comparing your little Ford F150 hauling a few concrete bags in the trunk VS. a giant double trailer pulling flammable material. Yet the FAA claims it's the same thing or something like that... durp durp durp...

Valid point Ronan!
 

genesc

Member
Huh! It looks talked out. Now is the time to answer some of the questions people are asking in other posts. The posts with zero post backs.

Gene
 

genesc

Member
Maybe it would be more constructive if you would answer some of the posts with 0 feedback. I am sure they would appreciate that. Instead of beating this horse to death.

Gene

Huh? The horse isn't dead, just a few days ago the FAA put up some crap that we are suppose to accept as law biding. It's actually open for 'comment' right now. Now is the time to talk about this and do something about it.

I know i contributed money to the cause to spread the word like many other's + myself and colleagues/friends/family have posted comments for the FAA to review.
 

Ronan

Member
Maybe it would be more constructive if you would answer some of the posts with 0 feedback. I am sure they would appreciate that. Instead of beating this horse to death.

Gene

I'm not sure what answering posts with 0 comments have anything to do with the sUAV situation in the US for hobbyist and commercial users (which is what this thread is about, not the activity of this forum).

Valid point Ronan!

Thanks, that's what different classes are for. In this case a simple system of different weight/size could be implemented, but then again, most countries already have something setup that simply works with no drama/headache for sUAV's, which is what we are interested in.
 

Bartman

Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
here's another example of what we're up against. i don't recall ever seeing anyone flying RC planes up and down Times Square


i'd expect the video to be pulled before too long
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Motopreserve

Drone Enthusiast
I really hope someone starts putting together a campaign of responsibly, well flown MRs taking gorgeous and/or productive, non-privacy invading videos.

The videos by these putz's will now start popping up even more since now is the EXACT time we don't need it.
 

gtranquilla

RadioActive
FAA and other agencies took notice of Model rocketry back in the mid sixties.... but Vernon Estes - President of Estes Model Rocketry established it as a safe alternative to the hundreds of individuals already trying to build their own rocket motors in their basements with loss of eyes, limbs etc. due to experimentation with unsafe chemicals. He eventually established a safe and very positive foothold that resolved almost all issues....... and part of it was the introduction of a model rocketeer's safety code, proudly displayed in every Hobby Shop in North America and included in every model rocket kit. http://www.nar.org/NARmrsc.html

Is it too late to introduce a MultiRotor Safety code? Or are too many people just total idiots now in the 21st millenium?
 



genesc

Member
I would think that this forum would support removing any videos posts depicting unsafe flying.
Gene
 

Old Man

Active Member
Would that help? Those doing it would be obscured from view and exempted from the public ostracizing they deserve. If we can see the link we can go and make appropriate public comments more widely viewed than what is viewed here.
 

Ronan

Member
I would think that this forum would support removing any videos posts depicting unsafe flying.
Gene

Hiding it doesn't resolve anything.

I'm up for people being active in preventing accidents by educating users & people. That's how it's done in most hobbies.
 

Top