Pilot Cam
A remote-controlled airplane, a camera, and a pair of goggles can put you in the (virtual) pilot's seat for as little as $500.
- By Mark Betancourt
- Air & Space magazine, July 2011
Raphael Pirker used to fly traditional remote-controlled airplanes, but he can’t remember now what the thrill of it was. He no longer settles for watching model aircraft fly around over his head and thinking how much fun it would be to be up there soaring among the birds.
Now Pirker flies FPV, or First Person Video, using electronic goggles to watch video streaming in real time from a camera mounted on the airplane. In effect, it’s like being in the cockpit. His airplane, a flying-wing-style Zephyr with a 54-inch wingspan, is light and fast, with a top speed of 90 mph—ideal for feeding his addiction to high-speed aerobatics. Thanks to high-power transmitters and other clever gadgetry, Pirker has roamed as far as 27 miles from where he stands.
So where does he fly? Anywhere he wants. “It’s like, you know, you’re traveling,” says the 26-year-old business and IT student. Originally from Switzerland, he now lives in Austria, where he finds some pretty dramatic landscapes to fly over. “I don’t climb mountains. I don’t do a lot of hiking,” he says. “But with FPV I can just go places, and within five minutes I’m up on a 3,000-meter mountain.”
Most FPV pilots record their flights—and post the videos online—sometimes using a second, record-only camera that shoots in high-definition. The videos Pirker puts up are often of thrill rides: The camera shows the nose of his Zephyr as the airplane careens down the face of a cliff or zips between tall alpine trees, rolling its wings at the last possible moment to avoid a crash. Some of the adrenaline comes from knowing he’s got $2,000 worth of equipment rocketing around up there, inches from the rocks and miles out of his reach.
“You’re naturally nervous about losing [the airplane],” he says. “But at the same time you want to push the limits. There’s always the clash between fear and temptation in life.”
Pirker has a strong presence online, where he goes by Trappy. He and a friend, who calls himself RiSCyD (“Risky D”), are an informal flying duo called Team Black Sheep. Last December, Pirker stood in a park near New York City’s East River, put on a pair of goggles, and flew around the Brooklyn Bridge. Later, he guided his airplane to the Statue of Liberty and buzzed her head. Team Black Sheep recorded the whole thing on video and posted it online, stirring up a Web-wide buzz about the legality of the flight (but mostly about how cool the footage is). (Editor's Note: See the comment below from the President of the Academy of Model Aeronautics.)
We’ll get back to that legality question.
First Person Video is growing among RC hobbyists. Although a few pioneers had mounted film cameras to gas-powered aircraft in the 1970s, veteran FPV pilot Scott Sells says the modern hobby dates to the late 1990s, when cheaper and smaller video systems became available. The first rigs required expertise in electronics and radio transmission, but since then have become much cheaper and easier to use. Now, says Sells, an FPV system is simple to set up and straightforward to fly, and can cost as little as $500.
He got into FPV in 2003, when he was having trouble controlling his traditional RC helicopter. It was hard to keep track of the vehicle’s three-axis motion while looking at it from a distance. “I kept thinking, If I could just fly this thing from inside the cockpit, I’d have no problem.”
So, with some guidance from the then-new online FPV forums, Sells strapped a small security-industry camera to his little helicopter and started beaming video to a monitor. In no time he was a pro pilot.
Sells thinks it’s easier and safer to fly an RC aircraft from its own perspective. He likens traditional RC flying to trying to pilot a real airplane from the control tower. “I’ve had people I’ve tried to teach how to fly in the traditional RC view, and they just don’t get it,” he says. “You put the goggles on them and toss the plane for them, and next thing you know they’re flying it all over the place.”
Sells’ day job is fabricating off-road racing trucks for big races like the Baja 500, and his professional skills came in handy when he noticed that vibrations in his helicopter during flight were causing the video chip to separate from his onboard camera. Working in his home garage in Lake Elsinore, California, he started making lightweight, aluminum parts that dampened the vibrations.
Sells (who calls himself Crash9 online) posted about his improvements in the Web forums, and by January 2007 he was receiving so many messages from people wanting to get into the hobby that he decided to start his own site (fpvpilot.com) listing everything he’d learned about FPV. Now he custom-builds systems and ships them to buyers all over the world.
But, according to Sells, most people find they can put together the equipment themselves. “If you understand yellow wire goes to yellow wire, red wire goes to red, you’ll be fine with FPV. If you can hook up a VCR and program the clock on it, you can do this stuff with no problem.”
Both Pirker and Sells say one of the best things about FPV is the fun of exploring places that would otherwise be hard to visit. Pirker’s playgrounds are breathtaking—snow-capped mountains, waterfalls, an alpine ski resort. Sells covers the deserts, sometimes chasing off-road trucks racing around on slippery dunes. He recently flew the Grand Canyon, and like Pirker has posted dozens of FPV videos online.
As for whether stunts like Pirker’s New York flight are legal, Federal Aviation Administration regulations on FPV flying are still a gray area. The only FAA document related to model airplanes dates from 1981, and suggests that they should be flown below 400 feet (which Pirker interprets as 400 feet from the top of the highest structure) and no closer than three miles to an airport. They also should stay away from full-scale aircraft. But these aren’t regulations per se, and people who don’t follow the FAA’s suggestions haven’t technically broken the law.
“They’re violating guidance,” says Les Dorr, a spokesman at FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C. “It’s not mandatory, but we expect them to follow it.”
According to Dorr, a recent increase in model aircraft activity has prompted the FAA to form an Aviation Rulemaking Committee to take a look at Unmanned Aircraft Systems, particularly small ones like those flown by Pirker and Sells. The committee will produce a set of regulations addressing those aircraft later this year.
Fans of FPV insist that in the right hands, the hobby is safe. According to Pirker, Team Black Sheep has never had a single technical failure. That’s because he and RiSCyD check their equipment thoroughly every time they fly, and replace systems twice as often as the manufacturers recommend. FPV fliers have their own strict code of safety (like no flights in airspace that can’t be monitored by a spotter), which, Pirker admits, he follows more faithfully than official Austrian government rules. European regulators “are very uptight about FPV,” he says. “As soon as we take off, it’s already a gray zone.” Besides, permits in Austria are prohibitively expensive for hobbyists.
On the online forums, some commenters say that Pirker’s free-roaming New York flight suggests that FPV could be used by terrorists. Sells dismisses the worry. Building a remote-controlled aircraft large enough to carry a harmful payload would be more trouble than it’s worth, he says. Building a full-size airplane would be easier.
During his New York flights, Pirker was approached several times by the National Park Service and New York police, but they just ushered him somewhere else. “We were told we were not allowed to fly in Liberty State Park, so we flew from a different location,” he says. One officer even admitted that he was an avid RC pilot himself, and was excited to see Pirker’s cool setup. Pirker thinks that stroke of luck may have saved him the headache of trying to explain why his airplane didn’t pose a threat to the city.
Judging by the number of visitors to Sells’ Web site—500 to 700 a day—interest in flying by video is already robust. Hits on the site have tripled in the past two years, and the traffic is still growing. According to Sells, the majority of FPV enthusiasts live in the United States and Australia, but there are sizable communities in Europe as well. As for whether there’s real money to be made, Sells thinks the movie industry, for one, could become a big user of FPV footage. “I mean, if you could fly a camera through a room, out the window, up a high-rise, and come back…” He trails off in mid-sentence, just thinking about the possibilities. “You can’t do that with a crane or anything else.”
Pirker plans to keep pushing the envelope of high-speed, spectacular FPV flying. He and RiSCyD want to perfect the art of tandem flights: standing side by side on the ground, with each (virtually) flying his own airplane. They also have two ambitious FPV goals for this year. “The first is going to space…with a balloon,” Pirker says. “The second one is, we’re actually looking for funding to go to the Himalayas and fly Mount Everest.” For that they’ll need a bigger Zephyr, with more wing surface to create lift in the thin air above 29,000 feet.
As for Sells, he seems to have an endless list of potential uses for FPV. Geologists could use it to study land formations. Lost hikers could use it to orient themselves. Anyone could see the massive ancient designs on the desert floor in Nazca, Peru, without having to buy a seat on an airplane. Sells himself is content just to take his helicopters to the lake with his family, or explore the desert near his home.
The biggest advantage of flying from the ground may be just that: staying on solid ground. Sells tried to get a pilot’s license in 2002, but had to give up lessons due to motion sickness. Pirker, the FPV mountain surfer, has never flown a full-scale airplane either. Would he want to? “Never,” he says. “I’m afraid of heights.”
WHAT YOU’LL NEED
The gear for First Person Video is pretty simple. First you need an aircraft, something large and sturdy enough to house a small camera. Most mid-size remote-controlled airplanes with a wingspan of a few feet can handle the payload (which can include an extra battery to extend flight time). Then you need a transmitter to send the video signal from the airplane and a receiver on the ground. And you need a wireless controller to fly the airplane.
To display the video, you can use either goggles (for a virtual reality feel) or a flat monitor with a sun visor to cut the glare. The advantage of the monitor is that you can easily look up and locate the aircraft in the sky.
Everything you need for FPV is available through several online sites, some of which are listed at right. After you have the necessities, you may want to upgrade with a few add-ons. For instance, head-tracker goggles sense the movement of your head and translate that motion to the airplane’s camera, so you can “look around” while flying. There’s also OSD, or on-screen display, which overlays information like battery life, signal strength, and GPS coordinates on your video image. A cheaper way to monitor this information is to mount a small LCD battery-life indicator on the airplane itself, within view of the camera.
Another option is the “return home” capability. If the airplane accidentally flies out of range and you lose signal, an onboard processor reads the GPS location and flies the airplane back toward you until you can take control again. Pretty sweet.
For the most part, FPV systems are still do-it-yourself, with the pilots assembling the parts. If you have no previous experience, don’t expect to jump right in; you might have to do some soldering, and it wouldn’t hurt to get a ham radio license so you know how to get the most out of your transmitter frequencies. Team Black Sheep is now offering an almost-ready-to-fly FPV Zephyr kit on its Web site for $1,999, with no soldering required (team-blacksheep.com/products/product:3). But big RC manufacturers are likely to catch up in this market soon, so keep an eye out for all-in-one, pre-made FPV aircraft that you will be able to fly right out of the box.
-
A good introduction to FPV:
- fpvpilot.com/GettingStarted.aspx
Places to buy FPV gear online: - eagletreesystems.com
- dpcav.com
- readymaderc.com
Online FPV and RC forums: - rcgroups.com
- fpv-community.com
Mark Betancourt is a writer and filmmaker in New York City.
Comments (34)
A ham radio license is required to operate on the frequencies most FPV equipment use. The US FCC may fine you $7000 if you are using the ham bands without a license.
Posted by B. Lee on May 22,2011 | 09:11 AM
On behalf of the Academy of Model Aeronautics and its members, I take issue with the reporting on model aviation and safety in “Pilot Cam.”
AMA is the national body for aeromodeling and has established its National Model Aircraft Safety Code as a guide to safe model aircraft activities. AMA’s safety code encompasses principles in FAA’s “Model Aircraft Operating Standards” (AC 91-57) and has served as the standard for model aviation safety for 75 years. Through AMA’s program of voluntary compliance and a responsible approach to model aviation, the aeromodeling community has a safety record that exceeds that of any other form of aviation.
AMA recognizes the ingenuity of the First Person Video endeavor but believes the suggestion that the FPV pilot fly “anywhere he wants” is dangerous. As one of our members, a commercial air carrier captain, says: “I for one don’t relish the idea of ingesting [an FPV aircraft] and destroying an engine while at altitude.”
The AMA does not consider the FPV operations touted by Raphael Pirker an aeromodeling activity. It is more a commercial Unmanned Aircraft System activity as defined by the FAA, and likely violates the FAA’s Feb. 6, 2007 clarification of AC 91-57. Mr. Pirker’s adrenaline rush from flying his UAS “miles out of his reach” defies his contention that “FPV fliers have their own strict code of safety.” Mr. Pirker’s stunt shows his indifference for public safety and nearly cost aeromodelers the privilege of enjoying the hobby in New York City. His admission that he violates the flight restrictions of Austria and his exploitation of the National Airspace System (NAS) of the United States shows his disregard for aviation safety.
Mr. Betancourt did not question FPV’s risk to public safety. He didn’t mention safety or direct readers to resources for learning to fly responsibly.
Mark Smith, President, Academy of Model Aeronautics
Posted by Mark Smith, President, Academy of Model Aeronautics on May 25,2011 | 03:27 PM
Flying at telephone pole height (as shown in the Austrian video) above public and private property is a lot like terrorism if you asked me. Is it okay for full-size aircraft to buzz homes and city parks? NO! But it's okay for a small aircraft? Again, NO! I have to admit that the videos made and edited to music does convey the freedom of flight. They commercial videos make the skill of piloting an aircraft look easy. However it also speaks loudly of the insensitivity they have regarding bystanders they happen upon. This sort of flying is what gave birth to the FAA (then CAA) in the first place: pilots acting stupid aggravated citizens.
Gentlemen, I'm glad that you're having fun with a model airplane, really. But with all due respect I don't want your airplanes strafing the roads or parks in my neighborhood. Learn from the lessons of the Academy of Model Aeronautics and find a location to practice FPV in a controlled environment away from historic landmarks and the peaceful general public.
Posted by Michael Ramsey on May 26,2011 | 09:29 AM
Keeping in mind the Federal Regulations regarding usage of this technology AND SIMPLE APPLICATION OF COMMON SENSE during deployment of these aircraft, the Emergency Management uses for this technology abounds. Think about the recent storms in Missouri and other states in our Midwest. This technology would be perfect for conduction of rapid damage assessment in the affected areas. I can see local EMA’s putting this valuable technology in their toolboxes. It would likely take less time to get one of these aircraft up and running than a UAV or a conventional aircraft. In addition, local Aeromodelers can act as trainers for the EMA Staff, or become the operators for these aircraft themselves as part of the EMA staff. What an opportunity for a great public/private partnership!
Amateur Radio Operators have been installing Amateur Television Transmitters (ATV) into similar model aircraft for years with excellent results. In the past, many Ham Radio Operators got their licenses so they could use designated frequencies within the Amateur Radio spectrum for control of their RC aircraft. The Ham frequencies designated for RC modeling are less congested than the other frequencies typically used. I would like to see Ham Radio Operators who also enjoy Aeromodeling as a hobby play a role in refining this technology for the benefit of the public. In addition, I challenge other readers of this article to come up with new and innovative ways to utilize this technology.
Posted by Walt Bilous on May 26,2011 | 01:15 PM
@ Mark Smith "Mr. Betancourt did not question FPV’s risk to public safety. He didn’t mention safety or direct readers to resources for learning to fly responsibly." He did not question the safety aspect of FPV because he understands that the risks posed by a 2-3 lb foam airplane are nill. Having crashed my airplane into many objects I can tell you that a typical FPV airplane can't do any more damage than a baseball.
I wouldn't have thought that president of the AMA would be so foolish as to worry more about FPV airplanes than the giant scale 50lb monsters that inhabit AMA airfields today.
Posted by Keegan Millard on May 29,2011 | 02:54 PM
This activity is within FAA regulations (AC 91-57).
Why does the AMA, an organization that has ignored FAA guidance for 30 years, have a problem with this? The AMA has no problem with 125 pound turbine powered model airplanes going at 200 MPH with no altitude limits at and near airports.
The AMA has a poor safety record, paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in liabilty claims each year for members' accidents.
Maybe the AMA needs to look in the mirror before putting others under the microscope.
Posted by Duane Brocious on May 29,2011 | 11:58 PM
Having followed the online discussions about FPV flying for a while now, I've noticed nothing seems to bring the most risk-averse people out of the woodwork like positive coverage this activity. Every new technology has its opponents, and the greatest innovations always elicit one of two responses. Either people embrace innovation and the benefits it brings, or they are afraid of it and attempt to suppress it. Just like the recording industry has spent more than a decade trying to undo the progress brought by the Internet, so now the AMA would do the same with FPV.
For many of us, FPV represents the exciting future of RC aviation, being just the first of many heretofore unimaginable possibilities for our hobby enabled by 21st century technology. To others like Mark Smith and the AMA, it is nothing but a threat to the status quo, which is all they have known and is what they consider safe. But what else can you expect from an insurance company, which somehow purports to represent the RC community? In truth, FPV is no more dangerous than any other aspect of RC flying, and can be done responsibly far beyond the confines of the AMA's overly cautious rules.
I myself recently started RC flying as a direct result of watching Trappy's videos, and plan to dive into FPV within the next few months as soon as I can afford the equipment. I suspect there are many other young people like me who will enter this hobby for similar reasons.
By setting itself in opposition to FPV (or at least, any version of FPV beyond the AMA's limited vision of flying a plane in circles around a field in strict line of sight), the AMA risks alienating all of us who are the future of this hobby. As it grows increasingly out of touch with what people actually want to do with RC aviation, RC flyers will increasingly pass the AMA by, and it will become yet another dinosaur to fall due to its inability to adapt and embrace change. After all, with friends like Mark Smith, who needs enemies?
Posted by Patrick McKay on May 30,2011 | 03:32 AM
I am a long-time AMA member and I find it interesting that it is perfectly acceptable to have a full scale airplane "race" in the bay of a large city with thousands of people present, but not acceptable by some to fly a proportionally tiny foam airplane with a camera on it. You read that right - the plane flown by Mr. Pirker is a piece of foam. As an AMA member I am disappointed that the leadership is not doing more to embrace and encourage this aspect of our sport.
Posted by Eddie James on May 30,2011 | 09:15 AM
I have been flying RC for 15 years and considered FPV flying at least 10 years ago. And I came to the same conclusion that many of my fellow RCers came to. It is stupid, dangerous and causes needless attention by regulation agencies like the FAA which can do nothing but harm the general RC community. Sadly it only takes a few idiots like these guys to ruin it for everyone else.
RC is great fun. Having a camera to record your flight is also great fun. But to fly based solely on a camera and out of sight like these clowns is inviting disaster no matter how often you change your equipment. This is NOT RC, it is no different than flying a drone and should be completely regulated with all the flight control safety features such as triple redundancy as drone flying.
Posted by Bob Burrill on June 7,2011 | 03:09 PM
I have been in Aviation my entire adult life. I have flown general aviation, business aviation, military jets, commercial airliners, and RC. So I appreciate the advances and passion people bring to this. I also appreciate the concerns many people would have over safety and security. The truth is, everyone is right.
It seems to me that FPV flying is an evolution in RC and I embrace it. I feel that it is part of our basic freedoms to be able to enjoy this if we choose. However, freedom is not free. I agree that AMA establishes standards that promotes responsible conduct for traditional RC activity. However, the AMA has the opportunity to reconsider their position and should play a role in resolving the forthcoming issue of FPV regulation. I believe that there will and perhaps be some rules regarding how to operate FPV. If they don't do it, someone else will. Who then? the FAA, TSA, some new government agency?
The bottom-line is that in America, we have an open and honest discussion about these issues and we try to protect our freedoms while addressing our concerns. In the end, I am confident that we will and should have the ability to fly full scale and FPV in a manner that is both fun and safe. Lets be part of the solution and not expect someone else to solve it for us. I feel that the AMA should take the lead on behalf of hobby enthusiasts and not blame its own members for doing what humankind is meant to do. FPV is a gift and should not be a threat.
Posted by Bob Walker on June 8,2011 | 03:25 PM
Bob says the same rhetoric that the AMA said about RC models 40 years ago. It is different so it must be dangerous and has no place in model aviation.
The facts show that the AMA (a small minority of the model aviation enthusiasts) cause hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal and property damage, yet there is no record of ANY damages as the result of FPV. Even autonomous and semiautonomous recreational aviation has a perfect record although the AMA bans both.
Stop spreading AMA propaganda. The facts and truth prove them wrong, despite the misinformation their leadership has already posted here and elsewhere.
Posted by Duane Brocious on June 8,2011 | 08:55 PM
I believe that FPV takes a RC model out of the realm of hobby and into that of sUAS.
The contention that the FPV models are foam and do not cause severe injury shows a lack of appreciation of physics - and I doubt that the person making the claim has been hit by a prop while it is spinning.
Flying over populated areas such as the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty show his disregard for safety. Safe operation realizes the potential for accidents, as well as the reality of accidents. It is not that something has not happened, but that it could happen.
FPV can be fun, and it is enticing, but it is not model aviation and should not be treated as such.
Posted by Jeff Whitney on June 10,2011 | 12:21 PM
As a A.M.A member and RC flier i am horrified at these people's blatant disregard for safety. to fly 27 miles from were you are is questionable. To fly over a populated area is absolutely foolish. Like many other hobbies people like this will bring about fewer places we can fly and cause government regulations that will restrict this activity for RESPONSIBLE fliers. Condoning this blatant self centered lack of responsibility does a disservice to all of us.
Posted by James P Wood on June 10,2011 | 12:55 PM
The AMA does not speak for all R/C modelers. However, the AMA is the only organization going to bat for the hobby in a meaningful way while the FAA formulates their new rules. You had better believe the FAA, commercial aviation, and pilot associations are concerned about models (small "foamies" and the inevitably larger ones to follow) being flown beyond line of sight in shared airspace, and the new rules will reflect that concern. If you think the AMA and their "outdated" guidelines are the problem, wait until you read the new FAA rules. The cavalier attitude of the FPV crowd and some other R/C modelers will be in some part responsible for the result. But it probably won't be the typical AMA member who's crying, it will be those who feel they have a right to fly however and wherever they please.
Posted by Brian R Adams on June 10,2011 | 01:41 PM
Old farts scared of new cool tech. They ruled the sandbox for so long and now a new kid comes with a new shiny toy. Being afraid that kids will go to the new guy, AMA stamps its feet and screams that the new toy is illegal.
It's about time that AMA be disbanded.
Posted by Axure on June 10,2011 | 02:05 PM
If you want to fly this way, buy a real airplane, go thru the FAA testing and certifications. By the way, If this plane should do some property damage or hit a helicopter, low flying plane or a ultra lite, who is responsible?
When flying a model aircraft we are not only aware of where the plane/helicopter is headed but also what is around the plane. This awareness is something you will not get from just looking forward.
Posted by stephen woods on June 10,2011 | 03:47 PM
As an AMA member I strongly support the the AMA administration and the stance they are taking on this issue. Mr Pirker, while a capable rc pilot and technically ingenious individual, utilizes these skills to "violate the flight restrictions of Austria" which is a criminal act in his own country. His FPV flights in this country, while only the actions of one man, have highlighted the need by some in the aviation regulatory community to take action to severely limit the pursuit of my hobby. I also challenge Mr Brocious to produce data showing "that the AMA (a small minority of the model aviation enthusiasts) cause hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal and property damage.
Posted by Jim Wilson on June 10,2011 | 04:25 PM
The only difference between a so called Drone and Model Aviation is the Drone carries weapons, that could easily kill a lot of people, the model aviation hobby does not allow carrying of any weapons on board the model's flight. Triple redundancy or not, it is possible for all 3 systems to fail and cause a catastrophe of far greater magnitude than any model aircraft. Notice that these people flying these type of models are very professional and serious about their hobby type.
Posted by Dale Simmons on June 11,2011 | 04:24 AM
Keep in mind that one of the biggest injury settlements by the AMA was 1.3 million dollars for an injury caused by a control line aircraft that was distressed by the AMA's own "safety test" according to the judge.
FPV is a part of model aviation and has a better safety record than the AMA whether you like it or not.
Posted by on June 11,2011 | 10:23 PM
FPV is a part of model aviation whether you or the AMA likes it or not.
FPV has a better safety record than the AMA; that is a fact. EDITORS' REPLY: Readers' comments need to provide statistics to substantiate claims like this.
Posted by Duane Brocious on June 11,2011 | 10:26 PM
I've been flying models for most of 45 years in one form or another. I have never wanted to fly FPV and I really don't think I'd enjoy it anyway due to being quite fearful of an accident. I'm no adrenalin junkie by any means so maybe that's a part of it as well.
My concern is for the accidents that will begin to happen eventually as more & more of these types of aircraft begin to fill the air by those who Won't fly Responsibly. Have any of you FPV pilots seen what a Goose or a smaller Crane can do to a plane? Smaller bird strikes have brought down everything from small private planes to airliners. I saw first hand in 1974 a T-38 Talon ingest a Sandhill Crane and received several bird strikes on the wing & V-stab just as it lifted off the runway. That plane went down hard but luckily both the Instructor & Student bailed out but very low, both survived but with some bad injuries.
I'm sure that the Military Drones & other Radio Controlled aircraft they use have a whole slew of backup equipment & pilots in the area know where those drones are at.
What about the Crop Duster that is paying total attention to his job trying to complete it & get home safely and he never sees your FPV model zipping along and unless the FPV pilot is the luckiest model pilot on earth he stands a good chance of Not Seeing that Crop Duster either! How much does a 54" ws model weigh in at with everything on-board to travel 54 miles round trip? I'm gonna guess upwards of 12~15 lbs. or maybe more. What happens when that Crop Duster & that FPV model collide?
I am a AMA Member & I'm not in favor of Banning FPV flights. However I do feel than there does need to be a good hard look at them and Maybe some rules set forth governing irresponsible flying of them.
Fly Safe & Have Fun
Posted by John Bassett on June 12,2011 | 03:32 PM
The issue of FPV safety keeps being touted by several folks here so here's my response. You FPV pilots are a relatively new bunch in the FPV Hobby/Sport/Business nor are there near as many FPV pilots as there are AMA members and those that fly without belonging to the AMA or a club. I really would appreciate you putting it into perspective please and it'd be nice to see some cold hard factual numbers to support your seemingly wild claims. How many are there of you FPV pilots & just how long have these FPV planes been flying consistently outside of the Drones that the Military flies?
Like I stated earlier, I'm not in favor of Banning FPV. It's my opinion that the beginner thrill seekers or the "Outlaw" flyer's of FPV aircraft most likely will be the ones that'll cause the most trouble. Maybe not but we'll just have to wait & see.
What happens when one of those FPV planes does finally hit a full sized aircraft or a person? Will there be enough left of that FPV plane for the authorities to determine who was responsible for the crash? Why chase a racing truck in the desert & perhaps take his attention away from his duties? What if...and why?
What I'm Not in favor of is the FAA or any other Government Agency lumping the regular everyday "Line Of Sight" flown RC models in with the legislation they're looking at for the FPV's. Again, it is my opinion that these FPV "Out of Sight" flown planes do need a good hard looking at and perhaps some type of regulation. I'm fearful it's only a matter of time before something really bad does happen with a FPV aircraft but at the same time I sure hope & pray it doesn't happen.
Fly Safe & Have Fun!
Posted by John Bassett on June 13,2011 | 05:13 PM
I am an electrical engineer, an RC'er, and an AMA member. I LOVE technology and fully embrace it. I'm also a HUGE fan of Lessons Learned. We not only can learn from our own successes and mistakes, but we must learn from others as well. Over time I have acquired a HEALTHY respect for what often goes wrong when people unwittingly or flippantly over-rely on technology.
Having flown full-scale aircraft as well as FPV RC, I can categorically state that FPV IS DEFINITELY NOT like being in the cockpit. Even using a head tracker with pan and tilt, there IS NO comparison.
A "Foamie" FPV vehicle is not only as dangerous as a baseball, but both can be deadly if either hits someone in the right place. Try explaining your actions to loved ones of a deceased individual when your FPV slams into a moving auto and causes a pileup, goes through the windshield of another aircraft, or is ingested by an Airbus A-380.
There is an often fatal heuristic that people fall prey to which can be stated as follows: If an event hasn't happened to me, yet, it's probably never going to happen to me!
The Law of Large Numbers imposes just the opposite.
My brother and I experimented with FPV years ago. We analyzed our FPV system with a fine-tooth comb and quickly realized the system was loaded with failure modes. Even with redundancy, diversity receivers and high-gain antennae, it didn't take a rocket scientist to realize this endeavor was dangerous. As such, we never took the plane outside the line-of-sight range that a typical spotter standing aside the pilot would be capable of. We flew in a sparsely populated area, but COMMON SENSE told us this was a moot point, as risks were still too high.
I challenge the FPV'ers to read "Inviting Disaster" by James R. Chiles. After this, have fun with your FPV - just don't be so flippant about it. Use common sense, follow AMA guidelines, don't scare people, and for heaven's sake, don't be so full of yourselves or your piloting skills.
Posted by George Farmer on June 15,2011 | 10:27 PM
My comments are based on the AMA's own insurance claims and an NTSB search of incidents regarding FPV.
Example: http://home.roadrunner.com/~phup/files/AMA2008.pdf
AMA approx. 20 injury claims per year.
AMA pays approx. $500,000 per year in injury claims. A considerable amount considering they are a secondary insurer picking up only what home-owners and private medical coverage doesn't. Actual cost of injuries are undisclosed.
FPV no evidence of injuries or damages. EDITORS' REPLY: Thank you. Would the AMA pay on injuries incurred by FPVs?
Posted by Duane Brocious on June 17,2011 | 12:44 PM
Imagine someone physically challenged and not able to fly, and hooking the FPV aircraft up to a multiscreen display with the joystick on the chair used not to steer the chair, but to guide the aircraft. What an experience that would be!
Posted by Derek Bernett on June 24,2011 | 03:20 PM
Thanks very much for bringing this issue to light. I'm a new AMA member, and I'm definitely on the side of safety first. I don't want people to get hurt, and I definitely don't want unnecessary restrictions on the safe flying that I do. Maybe we are at a point where what was traditionally a rather challenging hobby has now crossed over to something far more people can do. Instead of expensive, complex, and noisy planes we have electrics. Instead of hard-to-fly RC perspectives (which is part of why I love flying my RC helicopter), we have FPV. Exciting times.
Posted by Matthew Cornell on July 7,2011 | 09:24 AM
As a long-time RC pilot, I am highly fascinated by FPV, and do feel line-of-sight rules limit the enjoyment of the sport. I also fully agree that there is an arrogant disregard for safety displayed by the tales of this article.
Claiming there are no injury claims from long-distance FPV needs to be clarified with the fact that there is typically no insurance to make such a claim against, thus no records available, in contrast with the fact that any AMA member has 2.5 million dollars of liability coverage. AMA membership count is nearly six digits(and includes responsible FPV usage), while no real data even exists about the number of people flying FPV outside of AMA guidelines. It can be assumed the number is currently much lower, and certainly has a much shorter history to build data on. Stop trying to mislead people into thinking that your irresponsible actions are safe by distorting 75 years of AMA history!
I don't think any FPV should be illegal, nor do I think line-of-site FPV should be regulated. I do think NON-line-of-site FPV needs to be regulated. IMHO, non-LOS FPV should follow FAA rules for flight including ATC comms. and airspace restrictions; with a modified pilot license. Irresponsible flight as outlined in this article should result in loss of license, just as would happen to any full-scale pilot for such stunts.
The claim that an FPV aircraft is only 2-3lbs of foam is false. These do exist, but nothing tech. or legal prevents a 50lb 150mph FPV. I own & fly an 8lb, 70mph RC A/C; installing FPV equip. in it would be a 1 evening project. A weight/size/power limit should be imposed.
What should not be a regulation is the current 400' ceiling. That would encourage risky overflight of human occupied vehicles, national monuments and other risks at less than safe altitudes.
Argue for rights as any American, but refrain from making claims that you are part of/safer than the responsible model aviation community.
Posted by Dennis Tokarzewski on August 3,2011 | 08:50 PM
@Dennis Tokarzewski
Ummm what would more regulation do besides make the hobby of many Americans illegal. It amazes me how much freedom people like you are willing to give up just to try and make peoples lives .000000000000000000001% safer. This kind of talk really scares me. Regulation cannot be the future of America.
Posted by Keegan Millard on August 16,2011 | 01:43 AM
I am 53 years old. I have been flying since I was 12 starting with control line.I moved up to RC around age 14.
I now have my sport pilots license but still love RC.
I have embraced several on-line flight sims and played head to head with friends on Red-Baron 2 and aces High.
I also have always loved photography and even making movies going back to the days of Super 8. Im also a big music fan.
So now I love to fly FPV... At the same time shoot HD video and then produce the movies to some of my favorite tunes.
FPV is sort of like a flight sim , but your really flying.
For me the end result is the video. So FPV is a culmination of so many other things I love to do...it brings them altogether. There is nothing like it. Get on board or get left behind.
Posted by Mark Murdock on August 24,2011 | 11:32 AM
I read every word of the article and every comment made. Lots of good points made. Still, Keegan Millard's response resonates the loudest with me.
There are already laws in place that would allow me to sue an FPV pilot who flew his plane into my living room. We don't need a passel of new laws or a new bureaucracy to further trample our freedoms, especially since the problem remains NON-EXISTENT.
Posted by David Jensen on September 24,2011 | 12:13 PM
I am thinking of getting into FPV flying and have been looking at the posts here.
My question is have many of you been to Pylon races with regular RC planes traveling in excess of 100 MPH and 500 or 1000 people standing in close proximity watching? I have and it bothered me enough that left the area .
I have also seen a regular RC plane with the radio jammed and in a loop this plane continued to loop until it ran out of fuel and buried itself in the dirt. This was at our clubs yearly Air Show again with hundreds watching.
I guess what I am saying is that FPV flying is probably dangerous. But in no way is it any more dangerous than some of the events sanctioned by the modeling associations.
Some of the long range equipment has built in fail safe functions on the radio and some even have return to home GPS auto pilot functions. How many regular RC aircraft have these capabilities?
I’m sure most have heard of the farmer that has found an RC aircraft in his field miles from any populated area. (It’s a good thing it didn’t hit the windshield on his truck, tractor or his living room window )
Just because someone belongs to an association doesn’t mean they won’t have an accident and maybe regular RC aircraft should have some redundancy built into them especially when there are crowds of people in the area .
Posted by Bob Jackson on November 30,2011 | 12:07 AM
People can be so touchy. Flying FPV is fun. It can and should be done safely. There are idiots in every sport. I love paragliding. There are bad paragliding pilots that cause problems. There are base jumpers that give parachutists a bad name. There are people who give drivers a bad name. Does the existence of stupid people mean FPV is bad (as indicated in some, not all, of the above posts)? No. I live in the middle of nowhere and am no danger to anyone. As mentioned, it can and should be done safely. For those being arrogant and snooty... grow up a bit.
Posted by Bill on December 7,2011 | 11:46 PM
Dear Mr Mark Smith,
Please cancel my AMA membership.
The AMA's lack of future vision and hostility towards
pilots that don't fall into your insurance underwriter's
mold of 'Low Risk' has me worried about the AMA's future.
I feel it's time to get off this sinking ship.
My homeowner's policy now has liability coverage
for my hobbies without all the political attachments.
Sincerely,
Paul Anderson. EDITORS' REPLY: To cancel your membership, you'll need to contact that organization directly.
Posted by Paul Anderson on January 13,2012 | 12:49 PM
As an AMA member and active FPVer I've personally reached out to the AMA multiple times to be part of the safety dialog with them. There has been no active interest in my/others that I know of attempts to find some middle ground that updates the outdated the existing guidelines. There is NO involvement from the AMA on any public forums that I know of.
It is very sad to see an organization continue to push back against something that's happening with or without them, and they could with a more open position gain more members as opposed to almost not losing members each year.
We all know for decades now other facets of the hobby have been exceeding 400' and all this has been part of the safety record they clam over the years. Gliders, nitro and lots of different RC parties have been safe for years constantly exceeding guidelines in that document.
The fact of the matter is if you're not actively involved with FPV then you don't really know what's going on and how safe things are and can be, and the AMA is no where in FPV so how can they begin to structure safety guidelines for it? How can they gain more members and have a larger influence when they turn off FPVers with unfair and illogical positions? They can't, and until that changes there will be a disconnect and they might lose an edge on keeping FPV part of the world they govern.
Yes, FPV needs to be done safely, but there is no need to attempt to castrate the hobby when it can be done safely with guidelines that are adaptive to each area with regard to local air traffic and the populations that might be below. Blanket statements are ridiculous across a country like the US. We have more than enough room to share in this skies. Please be open to finding ways we can all do this. Look up... even if you see something in the sky I bet you see a lot more open space. How can we share?
Posted by David Urrutia on May 23,2012 | 02:03 PM