Changes in FPV restrictions
From the Copilot's Seat — Gary Fitch, Executive Vice President
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 provided 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 community-based 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.
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 airspace, and its reach goes far beyond what other countries experience. The FPV petition demands we relax or remove the visual line-of-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-of-sight 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 in 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.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
