Bump. My comments are in. Remember that this is lawmaking - impactful comments are those that point out flaws in the FAA's information or reasoning leading to incorrect conclusions that should be readdressed. For example, in defense of FPV, my comments were (in a nutshell):
1) FPV systems consist of more than just goggles;
2) FPV systems do not necessarily limit field of view (wide angle cameras, gimbals, head trackers);
3) In any case, a limited field of view does not necessarily make an aircraft inherently unsafe or no manned aircraft would be allowed in the air;
4) In any case, the assertion that limited field of view is dangerous might be true for manned aircraft (because you have to see the sky all around the aircraft to be safe) that this is not the case for flying models at a distance since the sky all around your model subtends only a small angle at the remote pilot;
5) In fact, too wide a field of view admits distractions into the model pilot's field of view and so a limited field of view might actually be thought of as advantageous, therefore
6) The FAA should reconsider its incorrect conclusions about vision enhancing devices, particularly FPV.
Please put in your comments, but keep them to facts, not opinions. The goal is to educate the FAA into reason, and use their own thinking to make the point.
Now go and comment!
