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 had a whole pile of snarky comments wrote up here, but I took the time to read all three pdf's before posting. hehe
The first pdf has good info from the FAA in it. It has all the rules and regulations in it that we need (Can you tell I'm a Libertarian?). AC 91-57.
The rest written up by/for the AMA seem largely silly and redundant. I think they have to have SOMETHING written up so they can insure those members who need it.
Thou shalt not fly thine 1/4 scale SR-71 pulse jet via FPV.
No, it's much safer to try and squint at it from the ground.
riiiiiight
To be honest, I think the AMA wants to be applied to "Models" and if what you are doing is outside their scope, then it's not a model. It's a robot or an aircraft. (Arguably, a quad is not a model, though it operates "As a model" in the words of the FAA).
@Project Nadar - The AMA doesn't have "certificates", the way the BMFA does. That leaves "experienced" in a legal gray area...just like VLOS.
@Mark Harrison - If people in the group are interested there are people over at the AMA that are willing to listen. You just have to know how to compromise. I agree that the ability to fly both FPV and "UAVs" in a AMA field is a huge milestone. If you'd like PM me and I can always send over the contacts I have at the AMA the FPV folks worked with.
I think the documents make more sense with the looser definitions of "stabilization system" (e.g. something that might return an aircraft to level flight). I'm encouraged by the direction the new documents are taking, although of course there's still lots of areas where they can be improved.
I think the community owes a debt of gratitude to a couple of guys over at rcgroups (Kevin Hines and PecanPatch aka Mark Murdock) who were early pioneers in FPV flight and have put a lot of time into working with the AMA to educate them on the various issues revolving around FPV.
I know this can be a divisive topic, but my own hope is that the diy drones community can work in an equally constructive way with the people in the AMA to educate them about what we're doing.
update: I agree completely with R.'s idea that (at least for me) I fly better and more safely with an autopilot on board.
Michael, you are in that this was not *intended* for helicopters. But it ends up including them just because it is thought out so poorly. Heck, technically, this also covers flybarred helicopters with tail gyros. You must demonstrate your ability to fly the tail manually every time you adjust the gyro?
Please.
The whole thing is just the continuance of the fear mongering that goes on in these clubs, largely because they are populated and controlled by older men who don't like technology and change.
I do not understand how they think they can justify adding all these extra safety precautions just because the control signal is running through an extra layer of electronics. An autopilot is certainly no more likely to screw up than a Spektrum radio. ;) Do we require buddy boxes for anybody using a Spektrum radio? (we should!)
Do we require flight testing and safety demonstration any time somebody rekits their airplane and glues it back together with 12 oz of epoxy? No.
If this document were really forward thinking, it would applaud the advances in safety due to autopilot systems, and actually allow pilots MORE leeway when they use them. ie: If you have an automatic RTL system, you are now allowed to fly FPV beyond visual range!
well i guess at the time i first started reading this i didnt think a flybarless system would fall under this as heli's are established. was just thinking new multirotors but that is not what was said. i sand corrected or educated now.
guess this is going to take a while.
You are correct about the problems with craft that you hear about on this site, to be fair I suspect that the amount of actual flyaways is extremely small considering the 30,000 plus members all over the world, In my own small RC club last weekend we had 3 wrecked aircraft in one day out of 20 pilots who were flying. One lost a motor, one had a flat tx battery and had not programmed the failsafe the last was a pilot error on landing.
I am not trying to undervalue the good sight and skills of the average RC or drone pilot, If my craft is close to the ground and heading for someone then it goes in the ground face first. the human takes priority.
The point is that it is the last 5/6 feet that causes the danger. a functioning APM keeps the craft out of that danger zone. ( I fly Aircraft not multicopters so I have my own backup systems that I test and they work,)
1, seperate comms through xbee with a joystick to control plane, RTL if needed from mission planner.
2. Failsafe set up on radio system ( futaba- not cheap import)
3, Geo fence set up and used every flight.
4, relay attached to spare channel to be able to cut the motor (opens the wire from the APM to the ESC ).
5. Auto / manual / RTL from mode switch on Tx or mission planner, both work.
Ok, if I choose option 4 above the plane WILL come down under zero power as a last resort. its a pusher so the amount of damage or injury is limited. At least I know where it is from the telemetry which is still functioning (hopefully ).
I believe that this puts my flying system several steps ahead of the average RC flier for safety, even if I cannot see it clearly because it is 3/4 mile away.....
I also respect normal safety rules, (my own) I fly in a remote location, in good weather, no spectators and not over built up areas. I have notified the authorities and provided details of the plane, safety proceedures and contact and flying area details to save them wasting manhours looking for me if I do have a failure and it lands in someones back garden, I work with them not against them. My ID on the plane with telephone etc.
Works for me.
Dwgsparky
I tend to agree on autopilots flying bette rthan humans - when they are working properly. However, this site is full of threads about problems where flyers have seen their devices go sailing away in unexpected directions. The idea of requireing a user to be able to regain manual control when things go bad is just common sense. The human might not be as good a pilot as the computer in terms of control, but he has judgment about whther his or her flying meat chopper is heading for a child or a tree and what the difference is.
MAAC (Candian equivalent of the AMA) issued FPV guidelines this summer. I missed it at the time, but the latest issue of the MAAC magazine had the complete text. You can find them on the MAAC web site (dated March, with "CONFIDENTIAL, Do Not Copy" on the front page, but they posted them publicly on their web site, so can't be that confidential!).
Some similarities with the AMA (spotters), but some differences also:
1. Need to work with a buddy box until you demonstrate your ability to a "club examining committee" (presumably the same principle as clubs typically use already when signing new pilots off for solo flight)
2. No altitude limit identified
3. VLOS is based on the principle that the flight must be within the unaided (i.e. no binoculars) visual range of the spotter. Not sure if that means seeing a little dot in the sky would be O.K., or if he would have to be capable of flying the plane.
4. No weight limits (just a recommendation for beginners to use lighter models)
Nothing on UAV.
I think R_Lefebvre has a good point, I fly RC planes and UAV's in Quebec, My UAV does what its told and has never crashed because of the controller error, and the controller flies my UAV better and smoother than I can fly it which means less stress on the airframe. I am an RC flier of over 40yrs experience, I have my wings in 3 countries so I'm no beginner at RC. The UAV operated correctly and programmed correctly has many advantages over a standard RC plane for safe operation, even out of VLOS (whatever that is supposed to be?)
And Yes, I have crashed a few RC planes due to faircraft failure or pilot error.in my time. I dont make the same mistake twice!
Dwgsparky
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next