Fixed wing

Fixed-wing aircraft are generally medium-sized with sufficient payload space for the video equipment and large wings capable of supporting the extra weight. Most have a pusher propeller, allowing a "prop free" image on either the live video feed or the high-definition recording. Examples of these aircraft include the Multiplex EasyStar, Skyhunter 1800, Skywalker 1680 (and subsequent variants thereof), Hobbyking Bixler (and subsequent variants thereof) and Ritewing Zephyr "flying wing" style aircraft. Flying wing designs are popular for FPV, as many pilots believe they provide the best combination of large wing surface area, speed, maneuverability, and gliding ability.

Multi-rotor

Multicopters, especially quadcopters, have fast been gaining popularity as agile camera platforms that can take high-quality video while hovering and maneuvering in tight spaces. This increase in popularity has come about mainly due to new manufacturing techniques and a reduction in component costs, making this side of the FPV hobby more accessible to a wider audience. In recent years, FPV Multirotor racing has become a very fast growing branch of the RC hobby, along with larger quads built for long range flight.^[5]

Federal Aviation Administration

The legal status of FPV and model aircraft in general under federal aviation law is currently unclear. In March 2014 in the case Huerta v. Pirker, an administrative law judge with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) dismissed an FAA enforcement action against a model aircraft operator under 14 CFR 91.13 (prohibiting careless and reckless operation of an aircraft), ruling that model aircraft are not legally classified as "aircraft" and that they are not subject to any current Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).^[13] This decision was appealed to the full NTSB. On November 17, 2014, the NTSB issued a ruling reversing the administrative law judge's decision and holding that model aircraft are legally considered "aircraft" at least for the purposes of 14 CFR 91.13, and remanded the case to the administrative judge to determine whether Raphael Pirker's actions constituted reckless operation.^[14] It remains unclear what other provisions of the Federal Aviation Regulations are applicable to model aircraft, but it is likely that every regulation applicable to "aircraft" generally would potentially apply under this standard.

On June 18, 2014, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a notice of interpretation regarding the Special Rule for Model Aircraft in Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act passed by Congress in February 2012, which exempted model aircraft meeting certain criteria from future FAA rule making.^[15] In this document, the FAA stated its position that model aircraft flown using FPV video goggles do not satisfy the definitional requirement in Sec. 336 that model aircraft be "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft," and that, "Model aircraft that do not meet these statutory requirements are nonetheless unmanned aircraft, and as such, are subject to all existing FAA regulations, as well as future rule making action, and the FAA intends to apply its regulations to such unmanned aircraft."^[15] In the long term, the FAA is developing regulations for small unmanned aircraft systems which may or may not impact FPV flight.

The notice of interpretation further stated that even model aircraft that do qualify for the Sec. 336 exemption are legally considered aircraft, and the FAA has authority to pursue enforcement actions against model aircraft operators who do not comply with certain provisions of Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, including 14 CFR 91.113, which requires that "vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft." Because the FAA has not yet sought to enforce this regulation against unmanned aircraft operators, whether it applies to model aircraft and what actions are necessary for compliance are currently unknown. However, the FAA has stated numerous times that it does not believe video-piloted unmanned aircraft are capable of "seeing and avoiding" other aircraft as required by this regulation, implying that the FAA views FPV operations as a violation of this regulation and therefore subject to potential enforcement action.

Federal Communications Commission

There are additional legal implications related to the use of radio frequencies for command and control of FPV aircraft. Licensed amateur radio operators are expressly allowed to use amateur radio frequencies for telecommand of model aircraft. However, the Federal Communications Commission prohibits using amateur radio frequencies for commercial activity (generally any form of economic gain or for-profit activity). The FCC has not yet addressed the issue of creating designated command and control frequencies for commercial unmanned aircraft, and most civilian unmanned aircraft continue to use amateur radio frequencies, even when used for commercial purposes. Though it has not so far pursued any enforcement actions related to use of amateur radio frequencies for commercial unmanned aircraft, the FCC has the authority to levy civil forfeitures and fines into the tens of thousands of dollars for violations of its regulations.

National Park Service

Under a 2014 edict from the National Park Service, model aircraft and other unmanned aircraft operations are prohibited on all land administered by the National Park Service, with some exceptions for preexisting model aircraft fields that were established prior to the adoption of this rule. Because the National Park Service does not have jurisdiction over airspace, which is exclusively governed by the FAA, this rule only applies to unmanned aircraft flown from National Park Service land. It does not apply to overflight of National Park Service land by unmanned aircraft operated elsewhere.

State and local governments

There are a wide variety of state and local laws and ordinances affecting model aircraft in general and FPV specifically. Many state and local governments restrict or prohibit model aircraft from being flown at local parks. Some state laws purport to restrict or prohibit aerial photography using unmanned aircraft, though such laws would likely be found invalid if challenged in court due to federal preemption, as the FAA has exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over all aircraft and airspace from the surface up.

Academy of Model Aeronautics

The Academy of Model Aeronautics' (AMA) official Safety Code's rules (which governs flying at AMA affiliated fields) allows FPV flight under the parameters of AMA Document #550 Archived 2013-08-15 at the Wayback Machine, which requires that FPV aircraft be kept within visual line of sight with a spotter maintaining unaided visual contact with the model at all times.^[16] Because these restrictions prohibit flying beyond the visual range of the pilot (an ability which many view as the most attractive aspect of FPV), most hobbyists that fly FPV do so outside of regular sanctioned RC clubs' membership and those clubs' flying fields.

Practical considerations

• The MAAA (Model Aeronautical Association of Australia) has published a "First Person View (FPV) Policy". In order to comply with the CASR rules they require that the pilot using FPV is not the actual pilot in charge of the model and that a second pilot must have the model in sight at all times, being capable of taking control of the aircraft without any action from the FPV pilot.^[19] This has the effect of making the FPV pilot a "guest pilot" for the flight, with all responsibility for the safety and operation of the flight resting with the line-of-sight pilot. An update to this document says that "it is acceptable that a Return to Home system is fitted and functional, and the model then controlled by a single transmitter. The Return to Home system shall conform to the requirements of MOP067"
• While holding an amateur radio license will allow an FPV operator to use transmitter power levels sufficient for flights beyond a few hundred metres, the CASR 101-3 requirement for the model to be in direct sight of the pilot remains a legal stumbling block for the hobby.