AMA News From the Copilot's Seat - 2012/10

Most of you are
aware of what
first-person view
(FPV) is. This is
a rapidly growing
and changing
segment of the
hobby where the
pilot flies his or
her aircraft using a set of goggles with
a video screen, or a separate screen
that one looks into. The aircraft has a
video camera that transmits live feed
to the pilot, providing the view of
being in the aircraft. This is an exciting
segment of the hobby.
In 2008 and 2009, the Executive
Council (EC) recognized this and
developed Document 550, allowing
our members to fly FPV providing
the FPV pilot was buddy-boxed and
the spotter could take control of
the aircraft at any time. The aircraft
always has to be flown within visual
line of sight and within the designated
flying site and approved overfly area.
The aircraft’s maximum weight is
10 pounds and its maximum speed
is 60 mph. We felt that these basic
rules were a good place to start, and
in fact, similar rules were adopted by
the British, Australian, and Canadian
model aviation organizations.
This past May, EC members felt
that we had some experience under
our belts and we knew that the FPV
community wanted to see our rules
relaxed. We decided that we would
take a look at the existing rules and
we invited a few members of the FPV
community to participate because we
wanted their input. We felt this was
a logical approach since we want the
FPV hobbyists to be a welcome part of
our organization.
The FPV community became aware
of the model aircraft provision in the
FAA Reauthorization Bill passed by
Congress in February, providing some
protection from onerous regulation to
members of a national communitybased
model aviation organization
such as AMA. They also learned that
the EC was again looking at our FPV
rules.
Some of them decided to develop an
online petition requesting that AMA
work to include the FPV community
in that protection and they sent this
petition to all EC members. They
invited FPV pilots from around the
world to petition us to eliminate or
modify nearly all of the rules of our
Document 550.
I don’t believe this petition had any
impact in the council’s considerations,
and it wasn’t even mentioned during
the FPV discussions at the July EC
meeting. The FPV hobbyists who
worked with us influenced the
outcome.
As a sidebar, I want to mention that
as of this writing, we received 435 FPV
petitions. Of those, 122 were from
foreigners and 313 from Americans;
approximately 48% of those are AMA
members.
The foreign petitioners had no
influence in our decision, especially
after the serious issues one Raphael
Pirker from Switzerland caused two
years ago when he flew FPV over
landmarks, buildings, people, vehicles,
and bridges of our nation’s largest
city. The result of these actions nearly
caused the shutdown of all model
flying sites in the five boroughs of New
York City.
This certainly didn’t help the FPV
cause in this country. Interestingly,
Mr. Pirker had the audacity to sign and
send the FPV petition to AMA.
We reviewed the petition the
Americans signed and from this
we realized that many of these
people want to be part of AMA, and
we would like to see this as well.
However, one sentence of the FPV
petition that all 435 people signed is
particularly disturbing. It specifically
states, “We can say with certainty that
virtually no FPV flyer in the United
States follows the AMA’s rules.”
This is concerning because they are
asking us to intervene on their behalf,
providing the same protection and
benefits as our other members enjoy,
but will they agree to follow our rules?
Each AMA member agrees to abide
by our Safety Code and other related
safety and operational documents.
To do otherwise, an AMA member
risks the loss of those protections and
expulsion from membership.
We work with the FAA, which
has been tasked with regulating our
National Air Space, and its reach
goes far beyond what other countries
experience. The FPV petition demands
we relax or remove the visual lineof-
sight rule, so they can fly several
thousand feet to a mile or more from
the flying field.
This is unrealistic for the FPV
hobbyist in today’s real-world
environment. The visual line-ofsight
criteria is a key component in
the FAA’s requirement to “See and
Avoid” other airborne traffic and is
unlikely to change. What many in the
FPV community seek falls under the
commercial side of the sUAS, which
will likely require licensing and other
safety requirements.
These rules are expected to be
released when the FAA publishes its
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It
is logical that the FPV community
would like to avoid licensing, and
become part of the community-based
organization, which is AMA, but it
can’t be unfettered without rules and
some restrictions.
The EC has rewritten the FPV
rules for hobbyists, which are being
reviewed by our legal counsel before
being adopted. We hope that the
pilots, who are true hobbyists and not
looking to use FPV for commercial
application, will be pleased with our
efforts because we have reduced the
restrictions, actually making our rules
more liberal than most countries. One
of those changes is the elimination
of the buddy-box requirement for
experienced FPV pilots.
Look for an announcement about
AMA Document 550 soon. We want
our members to experience and enjoy
new technologies, but they need to
do so in a safe manner and one that
doesn’t jeopardize the rest of model
aviation or full-scale aviation. We can’t
and we won’t allow that to happen!
I want to acknowledge John Steele
of Homer, New York, for having the
confidence to allow me to take off, fly,
and land in a crosswind, his marvelous,
18-pound, electric-powered 1/4-scale
Tigermoth. Great-flying airplane,
John, and thanks for the flights! The
photo was taken after I landed.
Until next month, help secure our
future and take a youngster flying.