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
I dont think I took anything out of context
This tells me that UAV operation uncluding waypoints , GPS etc is OK?
AUTOPILOT FLIGHT SYSTEMS often incorporate the programmable flight stabilization
described above with an altitude sensor and a GPS receiver for accurate positioning and to
navigate/control a radio controlled model aircraft’s flight path. Advanced systems offer software
for entering navigable waypoints. The flight data waypoints may be saved to autopilot’s/GPS
memory for programed flight.
This is a UAV operated in VLOS in my opinion.
My issue is more related to what happens in the real worrld when something hapens and the comparision to standard RC planes ( I fly both)
Michael, I fail to see your point.
A flybarless controller is a stabilization system. Most of them only stabilize the attitude *rate* rather than attitude *position*. Attitude position is simply attitude rate integrated over time. It is electronic stabilization, which does make use of gyros and accelerometers.
The AMA paper does not differentiate between attitude rate stabilizers, and attitude position stabilizers.
Therefore, it would be hard to draw a legal distinction between the intent of the rule. Anybody could make a case where somebody flying a FBL heli broke the AMA rules, since they had not test flown it "manually". The AMA have put themselves in an untenable position.
The whole paper is written based on the assumption that a human pilot can control a model aircraft LOS better than an autopilot could. This is obvious because it is written with this presumption that the pilot must be able to take over LOS control at any time.
I find it really disappointing that the AMA is still stuck in this mindset. If I were a betting man (and that's what insurance is) I would bet on an autopilot flying safely before I would most novice pilots (ie: just got their "wings" and no longer require a buddy-box) who *are* covered by insurance. It's just stuck in the past.
Case in point: I have quite a few flights on my quadcopter. Probably split half and half between autopilot flying and "manual" flying. I have crashed twice in manual, and never while flying on autopilot. Yet manual flying is covered. Whether or not the automatic flying is within LOS or not should be immaterial. In fact, maybe we should be encouraged to fly beyond LOS so we will never take over control, that would reduce my risk of crashing. ;)
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)
@R_Lefebvre - The idea here is the "stabilization/autopilot" is directed more toward a Autopilot system. They're not trying to hamper *copters, or other standard stabilization systems. I actually read it as you can fly Waypoints at a permitting AMA field.. As long as you can flip the switch and take it over.
Define Expirienced? I don't recall there are diplomas for different levels of skills.....
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next