RunRyder RC
WATCH
 31 pages [ <<    <     8      9     ( 10 )     11      12     NEXT    >> ] 26942 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterMain Discussion › Lawsuits filed challenging stricter FAA Rules
08-23-2014 03:54 AM  3 years agoPost 181
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

FAA breathing down my neck
usually first they issue a warning & if that won't work then no other choice but court

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 06:06 AM  3 years agoPost 182
M. Fortin

rrApprentice

Orlando, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

And judging from the first 2 lawsuits, the FAA lost.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 07:22 AM  3 years agoPost 183
HREFAB

rrApprentice

Long Island NY

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

...They'd find a way to ban the space shuttle if they could .
Newsflash UncleJane, They already have...

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 09:35 AM  3 years agoPost 184
TaylorDrain

rrApprentice

California

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Lawyer up!!

Taylor Drain
TaylorMadeUAS, Inc.

A.K.A TayloMadeUAS.Inc

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 12:18 PM  3 years agoPost 185
Heli_Splatter

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Keep in mind, the FAA lost on correctable technicalities, not on principles. Once those defects are corrected, the FAA might well assert the rules they see necessary for the NAS to work.
Fortin "And judging from the first 2 lawsuits, the FAA lost."

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 02:07 PM  3 years agoPost 186
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Lawyer up!!
only if acting senselessly & lightweight in the gray matter

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 04:40 PM  3 years agoPost 187
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Keep in mind, the FAA lost on correctable technicalities, not on principles. Once those defects are corrected, the FAA might well assert the rules they see necessary for the NAS to work.
Well.... dunno... Ruling by interpretation rather than by the process they're actually charged with using is a heck of a technicality!

Again, I'm a tree-hugging liberal without a conspiracy theorist bone in my body, but even I am not with the FAA on this. They're dragging and dragging and dragging their feet on their actual rulemaking here, not only for UAS's but in all sorts of other areas too (such as the class III medical exemption situation that EAA petitioned to them several years ago; even Congress is forcing them to act on that by introducing their own legislation on that matter).

So it's becoming a do-it-or-get-off-the-pot situation pretty quickly now. They have an ever-growing pile of stuff they need to do and they're just not doing it.

If they need to be sued to get them off their duffs, then I guess that's what it's going to take....

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 04:56 PM  3 years agoPost 188
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

They have an ever-growing pile of stuff they need to do and they're just not doing it.
5-year roadmap for the introduction of civil unmanned aircraft
systems into the national airspace system, as coordinated by the
Unmanned Aircraft Program Office of the Administration. The
Secretary shall update the roadmap annually.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-1...-112hrpt381.pdf

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 05:35 PM  3 years agoPost 189
HREFAB

rrApprentice

Long Island NY

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Technically, FPV equipment could be considered "Sense and avoid" equipment.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 06:00 PM  3 years agoPost 190
HREFAB

rrApprentice

Long Island NY

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I don't see a lot of issues here. Section 336 5(c)2;

flown within visual line of sight of the person operating
the aircraft

This is the only section that I can see that might have an effect on FPV flights. The Language is open to interpretation, however, as "Visual Line of Sight" may not mean you actually need to "SEE" the model. Example, if I fly on a long beach, I can be in 'Visual Line of Sight" without actually being able to "SEE" the model. I would then still be in compliance and still have control of the vehicle through my FPV equipment. However, were I to lose my FPV link, the I would no longer be in compliance and therefore subject to the STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION clause. (see below).

The other section 336 5(b)
(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall
be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue
enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger
the safety of the national airspace system.

This clearly indicates that the Agency can pursue enforcement on anyone who operated in an irresponsible or dangerous manner. (are you listening Multirotor Pilots?)

Seems like a lot of moaning and wailing and gnashing of teeth for nothing.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 06:07 PM  3 years agoPost 191
1helimech

rrVeteran

NW Fla....

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Whatever

I dream of a better world, A world where a chicken's crossing a road IS NOT questioned

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 06:08 PM  3 years agoPost 192
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

"Sense and avoid"
Collision “Sense and Avoid” capabilities are likely to become an essential feature of an Unmanned Air Vehicle, if it is to operate in commercial air space. Such a system must:
â—¾at least be equivalent to the sense and avoid capabilities of a pilot
â—¾be able to sense other flyingobjects, from hot air balloons to jet fighter planes, in 360 degrees, since a fast flying jet may collide with the slower flying UAV, from any angle
â—¾be capable of operating in diverse environments:
â—¾cloud
â—¾rain
â—¾day and night

http://www.barnardmicrosystems.com/..._and_avoid.html

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 07:33 PM  3 years agoPost 193
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I don't see a lot of issues here. Section 336 5(c)2;
flown within visual line of sight of the person operating
the aircraft
This is the only section that I can see that might have an effect on FPV flights. The Language is open to interpretation, however, as "Visual Line of Sight" may not mean you actually need to "SEE" the model. Example, if I fly on a long beach, I can be in 'Visual Line of Sight" without actually being able to "SEE" the model.
This is how I read that section also and how I've always interpreted it. That is, it can simply describe the spatial situation of the aircraft with respect to the pilot with no implication that the pilot is/must be using his "natural vision" to view the aircraft for purposes of control.

But FAA went specific on us on its reading of this in the interpretation and clarified that they interpret it with this you-must-be-looking-at-it-in-the-sky thingy. That's what has FPV'ers up in arms - FAA sees its interpretation as the only valid one.
However, were I to lose my FPV link, the I would no longer be in compliance and therefore subject to the STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION clause.
I don't buy this one, tho, unfortunately. TMoore tried to use this as an argument with me that FPV is unsafe in principle. Problem is, r/c control in general also uses a radio link hardly different in kind from a video downlink, with the same risks, etc., but there's no prohibition or concern for safety there. So this is an arbitrary argument at best with no principled basis.

The statutory construction clause is a general out for the FAA, but it has always retained the privilege of enforcement action against anything it labels "reckless and dangerous operation". So that's nothing really new and therefore nothing in particular to be concerned about.

But the FAA's rigidity against FPV is a definite concern and one that really does need to be addressed one way or the other.

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 08:40 PM  3 years agoPost 194
TMoore

rrMaster

Cookeville, TN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I don't buy this one, tho, unfortunately. TMoore tried to use this as an argument with me that FPV is unsafe in principle. Problem is, r/c control in general also uses a radio link hardly different in kind from a video downlink, with the same risks, etc., but there's no prohibition or concern for safety there. So this is an arbitrary argument at best with no principled basis.
I don't buy this one either. You don't think you won that argument did you? No worries, you didn't. The argument that RC link is just as bad or as good as the FPV link is specious in nature. The two are in fact very different in application and that's the critical difference. So different in fact that the RC link can be used for flying the aircraft while the FPV link can't. From a purely logical standpoint the FPV link is the weakest one out of the two when combined and inherently dangerous for the reasons that I have stated so many times in the past, so dangerous in fact that at the largest gathering of model rotorcraft in the US and at the primary AMA field in the US, it was banned outright for the duration by the CD's.

That ban flies in the face of the AMA's stance in their latest editorials in Model Aviation Magazine where they are calling on a collective effort by model enthusiasts and FPV'er. In fact that EC voted to use 250K of the members money to investigate sUAS systems over the next 18 months and only passed it by one vote which clearly shows how divided this issue is. The AMA is rapidly going beyond their charter IMHO.

I've stated clearly in the past and I'll state it again. One of the biggest reasons that the FAA is concerned is right here: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...0821-story.html
If the aircraft wasn't stabilized and FPV wasn't involved it would not be flown in this situation. You can't fly what you can't see unless there is an artificial feedback system in place like FPV. When you posted this:
Ages ago, when I flew LOS I preferred doing autos with the FBL unit disabled because I was more accustomed to the flybar response. So I had "NOBAR on a switch" setup with my CGY 750; I'd cut the gyros off before dropping the collective. A NOBAR FBL heli behaves virtually identically to a flybar machine In an auto, so it just felt like home to me.
Ages ago?? Really? As far as that nonsense about doing autos with no stabilization, tell us all how much pitch you were using during those nobar autos. I hope you fly by yourself far away from civilization.

TM

Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Good
Drones = EVIL

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 08:54 PM  3 years agoPost 195
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I don't buy this one either. You don't think you won that argument did you? No worries, you didn't. The argument that RC link is just as bad or as good as the FPV link is specious in nature. The two are in fact very different in application and that's the critical difference. So different in fact that the RC link can be used for flying the aircraft while the FPV link can't.
Wrong. Why you're wrong was already covered in previous threads. You don't fly FPV, you know nothing about it or the equipment and techniques that we use to do so, so there's no need to consider anything you say about it reliable or worth taking seriously at all.

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 11:14 PM  3 years agoPost 196
TMoore

rrMaster

Cookeville, TN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You don't need to be a Doctor to know the Ebola Virus kills people either.

Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Good
Drones = EVIL

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 11:23 PM  3 years agoPost 197
icanfly

rrElite Veteran

ontario

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I just got some news that to fly world wide apv jobs an aerial dp should posses a ground rules flight test, he does and it's all that's needed to cover one's proverbial asssssss.

Good on you who carry on the torch, bravo, sense and avoid, well we have proximity ranges and detectors don't we? huh? fpv can't look behind or side to side, somethings not right about that.

someone will keep testing the friendly skies.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 11:42 PM  3 years agoPost 198
BobOD

rrElite Veteran

New York- USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Problem is, r/c control in general also uses a radio link hardly different in kind from a video downlink, with the same risks, etc., but there's no prohibition or concern for safety there. So this is an arbitrary argument at best with no principled basis.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. There's a ton of fpv stuff on the market right now that people are buying, going out and losing their video link with.
Yes, there has been too much loss of flight control by electronic failures lately and quite frankly, I feel the industry has been way too slow and sloppy to address it.
Two wrongs don't make it right though...rather it makes mayhem. You're adding quite a lot of highly technical equipment to a market that could barely handle the switch to electronic flight stabilization.
Yes, it can be safe when done right, but when is it going to get right and who's going to keep out the low quality stuff people are selling to make a buck?

Team POP Secret

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-23-2014 11:56 PM  3 years agoPost 199
HREFAB

rrApprentice

Long Island NY

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You know, I was going to disagree with that as well, but then I thought "What's the difference if you lose visual or if you lose radio? Either way, you've lost control of the aircraft. Actually, if you have certain flight control systems, losing visual (FPV Link) isn't as bad, as you can simply activate Failsafe and return to home. Losing radio link (Lockout) is always a loss of aircraft and potential property/physical damage

As for sorting out the good from teh bad, forums like this will provide opinion and testing. Will there be accidents? Of course. Will people stop flying? Absolutely not. This is an emerging technology and even were it to be outright banned, people would still be involved in it.
Outright Bans aren't going to happen, they serve no purpose for a government agency. Fines and Civil Forfeitures make more sense as everything is usually based on revenue. Licensing/Permits/Fines/Forfeiture seem more likely.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 12:05 AM  3 years agoPost 200
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Sorry, but I have to disagree. There's a ton of fpv stuff on the market right now that people are buying, going out and losing their video link with.
But there's also a lot of stuff on the market that does work, and works very reliably. I just passed 25 hours of flight time on my trex 800 FPV machine, for example, with not a single loss of the vid downlink ever. Not one.
I've also not had a loss on my 2 F550s, my s800 and my trex 700. No problems.
Yes, it can be safe when done right, but when is it going to get right and who's going to keep out the low quality stuff people are selling to make a buck?
It already is right, but like with anything in aviation you have to learn the right way to do it and avoid the wrong way. There are no short cuts with FPV any more than there are with anything else.

This is what guys like TMoore and the other anti-FPV whiners don't grasp-you can't become an expert on FPV only by watching YouTube videos and I-know-a-guy-who and I-heard-that and so on. He won't do the work of learning about it, so nothing he says or even thinks about it is real or true.

FPV is like anything else - you learn by doing and there's kind of no other way to really learn about it.

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 31 pages [ <<    <     8      9     ( 10 )     11      12     NEXT    >> ] 26942 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterMain Discussion › Lawsuits filed challenging stricter FAA Rules
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 27  Topic Subscribe

Wednesday, July 18 - 4:26 am - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online