http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/blog/2012/11/01/ama-revising-fpv-policy/
The AMA is excited to announce the completion of revisions to its policies for R/C model aircraft operations utilizing First Person View (FPV) systems (AMA document # 550) and Failsafe, Stabilization and Autopilot Systems (AMA document #560).
The AMA Advanced Flight Systems Committee (AFSC) in a collaborative effort with leading members of the hobby industry and FPV community developed comprehensive guidelines to enable AMA members to utilize these systems within the parameters of AMA’s and FAA’s operational requirements. The AFSC Guidelines for these systems were presented, reviewed and adopted by the Executive Council during the October 20, 2012 council meeting.
Click on the above document images to view the complete AMA Advanced Flight Systems Report or the individual operational documents for FPV Systems #550 or Failsafe, Stabilization & Autopilot Systems #560.
Comments
if we take things out of context we can make them sound anyway we want. make sure you read everything.
ATTITUDE FLIGHT STABILIZATION SYSTEMS
are designed to maintain intended model
aircraft flight attitudes. The pilot can program and activate a system to stabilize yaw, pitch, or roll or any one attitude or combination of attitudes. Systems are often based on inertial motion sensors utilizing 3-axis gyros and 3-axis accelerometers for attitude stabilization.
While I applaud this move by the AMA as a positive step for the USA I do see a few issues.
1.This is a CODE of the AMA and in no way is it a law.
2.If the prinicple of the AMA code now allows UAV operation (within LOS) for members, then the LAW that allows this operation for AMA members must also allow the same freedom for non-members without the AMA restrictions, I realise that the insurance provided by the AMA would not be in place for a non-member but the code also refers to the validity of coverage for a member depending on the circumstances of an accident.
3. So assume I am a responsible flier and that I take the AMA code and fly to it (now covered by the insurance) and there is an incident where the plane crashes and does damage. I see 2 ways this will work badly for the flier.
a) If my transmitter fails and my pure RC plane loses signal and crashes 5 miles away the claim is paid.
b) If the transmitter fails and my UAV crashes 1 mile away then the investigation checkes my UAV mission plan and determines that the waypoint at 1/2 mile is out of LOS then the claim is refused? What exactly is LOS.is there a legal definition? Am I obliged to produce my flight plan and if so who has the right to ask for it?
It seems to me that there is very little point to this code as it is not a legal requirement.
I'm speaking as an outsider from Canada where we have our own rules,
Just my thoughts,
Dwgsparky
Justin, that was exactly my interpretation of it as well. A flybarless system is a stabilizer. The reference to "stabilization system" and "manual control" is broad. Their exact meaning is undefined, therefore I think it would commonly be interpreted in it's strictest sense, if challenged.
While they now at least have some regulations, I think they have misworded something in a bad way. The current wording of this means that every helicopter with a flybarless unit on it falls under these rules. According to this you should have to fly the helicopter without flybarless assistance after every change to the flybarless system or settings. Also if your helicopter is over 15 lbs you are not allowed to fly it. Good luck finding someone willing to try to fly their helicopter with 1:1 stick to swash inputs.
Also, if your receiver has a fail safe function built in, does it fall under these rules as well? I am guessing like turbines fpv / autopilots will take some time to soak into the AMA, hopefully before the technology has passed them by.
The Australian' s version of AMA has had policies regarding FPV for a while now, pretty much the same stuff. My observations in real life..... not many people keep the aircraft within AMA's definition of VLOS (AMA definition is wrong, ICAO definition "Visual line-of-sight operation - an operation in which the remote crew maintains direct visual contact with the aircraft to manage its flight and meet separation and collision avoidance responsibilities.")
Ultimately there needs to be model aircraft flying fields large enough so that beyond VLOS, for FPV flights, because seriously when flying FPV in the circuit, it only takes 2-3 seconds to get to beyond AMA's definition of VLOS (requiring that you still have orientation)
Define Expirienced? I don't recall there are diplomas for different levels of skills.....
I agree that the reasoning for the 15lbs weight limit is somewhat dubious. Like a terrorist would bother with following AMA rules?
But at least there are some sparks of inteligence in there. Like the exclution of a buddy box for "experienced" FPV pilots. And this one is my favorite and says a lot.
Yeah, the VLOS thing... as if. Who's flying FPV within 100m of themselves? Because that's about all you can do to be truly VLOS by their definition (as in, being able to fly 3rd person).
Good job 100lb jets are safe.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next