[stegl]

Originally Posted by bcsaltchucker

.

and really, few FPVers have ever had one-on-one training to do FPV. We are self taught, because it is chicken-and-egg situation otherwise, as local pioneers. There was not a single person doing FPV in this city before me, so no trainer for me. The hardest part of being a responsible FPV pilots is that you also need to be competent at flying non FPV .. so they should go through whatever your individual club requires to be a nonFPV pilot first.

And MAAC has to leave a lot of things up to individual clubs. As it should be. They are private old boys clubs, run by themselves for themselves. They rightly choose what goes on in their club and take responsibility for it. Some clubs are hostile to FPV and some have even banned it. Some are nasty to all newcomers or what they consider 'riff raff with foamies.' Other clubs set out to be nice to newcomers, embrace FPV, perhaps less formal. And yet other clubs decide to not be part of MAAC too.

I agree with the first paragraph in that when FPV came there were no guidelines and most were self taught. But that is not the case at present as the use has skyrocketed and MAAC has seen this as an area of concern if everyone thought that "since it flies for recreation we must be covered"......

I disagree with you on the 2nd paragraph, in that, YES, MAAC has to get involved in order to set a standard with which clubs can use as a guideline and this is usually tied in with MAAC's insuring company. Clubs can be more self safety regulating but not less. Those clubs that chose to not be part of MAAC are really putting themselves at financial risk in case of intentional or even non-intentional damage or accident ; as well as potential lawsuit of the executive and members in the case of a accident or misshape . .

[stegl]

Originally Posted by davidmc36

You mean for Amateur Radio License in Canada?

Three different qualifications you can get:

Basic
Morse Code
Advanced

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst...347.html#exam2

Thanks David for the info. It used to be two levels some time ago and code was lumped in with the third level. The first being basic Ham without code and having a restricted ham licence. The concept was that hopefully the Ham radio operator would get his code and become fully qualified but I see that has changed then.

[bcsaltchucker]

Originally Posted by stegl

I disagree with you on the 2nd paragraph, in that, YES, MAAC has to get involved in order to set a standard with which clubs can use as a guideline and this is usually tied in with MAAC's insuring company. Clubs can be more self safety regulating but not less. Those clubs that chose to not be part of MAAC are really putting themselves at financial risk in case of intentional or even non-intentional damage or accident ; as well as potential lawsuit of the executive and members in the case of a accident or misshape . .

Do you do FPV? I think you are making more hey of a problem that does not exist here. Are FPV pilots causing trouble at any club field? I never heard of such a problem so far. And I don't mean MAAC not have any guidelines for FPV. Obviously they do, and the ones they have today are more than sufficient. You may disagree, so then I disagree with you on that so be it.

Other clubs not in MAAC can secure and have secured their own insurance in some cases, as has been discussed on here before. I know of two such RC fields with their own insurance outside MAAC. They do have club regulations, you can be assured. Careful making assumptions. While you are correct that becoming an organizer presents significant risks, it is also possible for RCers to meet informally and fly without zero danger to anyone. Like indoor flyers, micros. Arguably park flyer planes are a minor risk when flown in appropriate fields sans MAAC, without need of insurance or organization. Individual choice, and individual responsibility is a good thing in our free society. And I choose to be a member of MAAC, glad I am not forced to be a member to fly.

[stegl]

hi Scott ; appears you are reading something else into what I have said and sounds like you are agreeing with me. Whether I fly FPV or not is not the question nor the point. My point is that there needs to be some sort of guidelines out there ; as there are flyers that do not use common sense safety and I am not applying that just to FPV flight.
There are flyers that are creating problems in the hobby that tarnish what we as an organised group (MAAC and AMA) are trying to keep from happening both North and South of the 49th.

[bcsaltchucker]

my issue is you are looking for a clampdown on FPV activites at MAAC clubs, by tightening up FPV rules for the clubs. I am saying it seems to me any FPV going on at club fields has not been a problem so I fail to see how tighter rules at club fields will solve any problem.

So you mention that some people are not using common sense safety when doing FPV. I suspect you mean certain small portion of folks whom fly over cities and by airports and such. But these are not MAAC club pilots, it is not occurring at the MAAC clubs. So changing the rules at these private boys clubs has zero effect on the would-be videographers flying over the cities unsafely. They don't fly at clubs, so why should MAAC and its members have to pay a price for these rogue flyers' irresponsibility? Remember MAAC itself is merely a private club of RC flyers just like a private bicycle club or golf and country club. They have no authority over anything outside their club, rightfully so as they only represent their club members' interests and no one else's.

[Midair]

Originally Posted by Max

I think you are reading too much into the document...Given your questions and concerns, I strongly recommend you contact the MAAC FPV chairman and have him address your questions. Maybe he can provide further clarification and guidance to you and your club.

Max you may be right, I'm reading too much into the guideline. My concern is wholly the insurance coverage aspect should an accident occur and how our (MAAC) insurance company would view the guideline as laid out; its been my experience that insurance companies will do everything in their legal power to avoid a payout if it appears that there are loop holes in procedures or indiscretions amongst the insured. As you recommended, I will forward my concern to the FPV Chair as well as our legal representative to get their take. I certainly don't want to complicate the issue or cause undo stress; I simply want to ensure that we're covered.

Thanks,

Peter

[Midair]

......

[bcsaltchucker]

hey no prob. Been a friendly discussion so far I think. I think Stegl's concerns are very valid, but the medicine suggested to be given to the wrong patient.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Max

Funny. Maybe you have an old link? I checked the links in the first post and they still work. At least they worked for me

I also went directly to the MAAC site and I found it in the MAAC documents page.

Here it is again, if you want to check it out:
http://www.maac.ca/docs/2012/maac_fpv_guidelines.pdf

Hey Max
This is one of the first links you get when searching MAAC site for FPV - it includes the bad link and the document that is watermarked confidential ( which is also listed on the FPV committee documents space). Confidential documents posted to the MAAC site?
http://www.maac.ca/view_news.php?itm=491

[foha2012]

Nice work !