View Poll Results: A poll
Voters: 520. You may not vote on this poll
Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
#276
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
#277
My Feedback: (49)
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: AugerDawger
Plenty of youtubes of flyers fpv waaaaay away from home and LOS.
Take a look.
One private fpv just found a river of blood at a meatpacking plant recon far from his FOB as reported on yahoo yesterday and turned footage he captured over to epa types
Plenty of youtubes of flyers fpv waaaaay away from home and LOS.
Take a look.
One private fpv just found a river of blood at a meatpacking plant recon far from his FOB as reported on yahoo yesterday and turned footage he captured over to epa types
#278
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: HoundDog
Most are idiots that fly with no regard to anyone's safety or regard to property including their own ... They should all be locked up for their own safety ...
Most are idiots that fly with no regard to anyone's safety or regard to property including their own ... They should all be locked up for their own safety ...
That's kind of an extreme statement don't you think?
Harvey
#279
My Feedback: (49)
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
Nope ... Been there and I've seen it a lot ... you can tell when one of these guys shows up at an AMA field ... it's all in how they present them selves and how they fly. As for the Ultraliters most I've seen ar just a bunch of HOT DOGGERs.
#281
My Feedback: (49)
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: H5487
With an attitude like that, I don't see how can you call yourself a liberal!
Harvey
With an attitude like that, I don't see how can you call yourself a liberal!
Harvey
#282
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
H5487
The short answer-
The fellow aeromodelers that Hound is insulting,
are the aeromodelers that Hound & the AMA have already abandoned,
yet it was Hound that brought up trusting that folks wont get abandoned.
The extended answer-
"recreational non-commercial autonomous aeromodeling hobbyists":
Folks that play with toy airplanes, "aeromodeling hobbyists"
not for any commercial or public (aka gov) use, "recreational non-commecial"
that use FPV/Goggles/Autonomous/OnbardNav/BeyondLoS, "autonomous"
like the infamous hobby modeler Maynard Hill and his TransAtlanticModel toy airplane,
aka Our Aeromodeling Hobby Brethren (that some folks in the hobby have disowned/abandoned not long ago).
ORIGINAL: H5487
Kid-E,
That lable's quite a mouthful and I'm not sure who these guys are or what/how they're flying. Would you mind filling me in?
Harvey
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Now, can we say the same about recreational non-commercial autonomous aeromodeling hobbyists?
Now, can we say the same about recreational non-commercial autonomous aeromodeling hobbyists?
That lable's quite a mouthful and I'm not sure who these guys are or what/how they're flying. Would you mind filling me in?
Harvey
The short answer-
The fellow aeromodelers that Hound is insulting,
are the aeromodelers that Hound & the AMA have already abandoned,
yet it was Hound that brought up trusting that folks wont get abandoned.
The extended answer-
"recreational non-commercial autonomous aeromodeling hobbyists":
Folks that play with toy airplanes, "aeromodeling hobbyists"
not for any commercial or public (aka gov) use, "recreational non-commecial"
that use FPV/Goggles/Autonomous/OnbardNav/BeyondLoS, "autonomous"
like the infamous hobby modeler Maynard Hill and his TransAtlanticModel toy airplane,
aka Our Aeromodeling Hobby Brethren (that some folks in the hobby have disowned/abandoned not long ago).
#283
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
The extended answer-
''recreational non-commercial autonomous aeromodeling hobbyists'':
Folks that play with toy airplanes, ''aeromodeling hobbyists''
not for any commercial or public (aka gov) use, ''recreational non-commecial''
that use FPV/Goggles/Autonomous/OnbardNav/BeyondLoS, ''autonomous''
like the infamous hobby modeler Maynard Hill and his TransAtlanticModel toy airplane,
aka Our Aeromodeling Hobby Brethren (that some folks in the hobby have disowned/abandoned not long ago).
The extended answer-
''recreational non-commercial autonomous aeromodeling hobbyists'':
Folks that play with toy airplanes, ''aeromodeling hobbyists''
not for any commercial or public (aka gov) use, ''recreational non-commecial''
that use FPV/Goggles/Autonomous/OnbardNav/BeyondLoS, ''autonomous''
like the infamous hobby modeler Maynard Hill and his TransAtlanticModel toy airplane,
aka Our Aeromodeling Hobby Brethren (that some folks in the hobby have disowned/abandoned not long ago).
Harvey
#284
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
Sounds like they could also be classified as "Non-commercial sUAVs"
which is why (as SilentAv keep having to remind folks) the FAA has to specificly grant NonCommercial NonPublic sUAS aka "ModelAircraft" exemption from the sUAS regulation.... because we in AMA do indeed fly sUAS- a particular type of sUAS with purpose as part of defining type. Recall the LA Sheriffs trying to use a model with a camera and claiming they were flying under AC91-57? It was perfectly legal for Hobby Use, but forbidden when used for Public(gov) or Commercial..... that one particular model was legal or illegal depending on WHY you fly it.
#286
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
Score?
idk, maybe thats the number of times I quoted AMA leaders or cited ama documents to support what I say.
of course, the better question about the user score is not 'What is score', but
How is pointing at another users score even close to being on topic for the thread?
idk, maybe thats the number of times I quoted AMA leaders or cited ama documents to support what I say.
of course, the better question about the user score is not 'What is score', but
How is pointing at another users score even close to being on topic for the thread?
#287
My Feedback: (49)
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
Sorry bout that ... thought right after I posted it mine is 140 but was just wondering where it comes from and what it means ... Hope i didn't offend you. Do U have any idea what it is?
osts: 311
Score: 140
Joined: 10/31/2003
Last Login: 1/26/2012
From: Apache Junction, AZ, USA
osts: 311
Score: 140
Joined: 10/31/2003
Last Login: 1/26/2012
From: Apache Junction, AZ, USA
#288
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
It was perfectly legal for Hobby Use, but forbidden when used for Public(gov) or Commercial..... that one particular model was legal or illegal depending on WHY you fly it.
It was perfectly legal for Hobby Use, but forbidden when used for Public(gov) or Commercial..... that one particular model was legal or illegal depending on WHY you fly it.
Differing regulations based on how or why we do something is acceptable throughout our society. A Chevrolet SUV is classified as non-commercial when driven by a housewife but an otherwise-identical vehicle, and its driver, are regulated quite differently when operated as a taxicab. Same with a full-scale Cessna 210 that is flown privately vs flown as a Part 135 Air Taxi. Your dad can teach you how to drive the family car without special training, additional insurance, or recordkeeping but a driver training school is regulated quite differently. Your wife can fix your family's meals without the government getting involved but operating a restaurant is an entirely different matter. And there are many other examples of products or services that are regulated according to how or why they're used.
Our own model airplane hobby is presently expanding and morphing in ways that our fathers and grandfathers never imagined. The dividing line between models and small commercial airplanes isn't nearly as clear as it used to be and those who control our airspace (the FAA) are trying to figure it out right now. And I imagine that the AMA is just as confused as the rest of us. I'm glad that I'm not being relied upon as the one to sort it all out!
Harvey
#289
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: HoundDog
Harvey what's Liberal, conseritive or any thing else got to do with weather some one has the comon sence to fly RC or anything else in a safe prescribed manor and not indanger them selves or others. I really have no tollerance for these types.
ORIGINAL: H5487
With an attitude like that, I don't see how can you call yourself a liberal!
Harvey
With an attitude like that, I don't see how can you call yourself a liberal!
Harvey
Harvey
#290
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: H5487
Kid E,
Differing regulations based on how or why we do something is acceptable throughout our society. A Chevrolet SUV is classified as non-commercial when driven by a housewife but an otherwise-identical vehicle, and its driver, are regulated quite differently when operated as a taxicab. Same with a full-scale Cessna 210 that is flown privately vs flown as a Part 135 Air Taxi. Your dad can teach you how to drive the family car without special training, additional insurance, or recordkeeping but a driver training school is regulated quite differently. Your wife can fix your family's meals without the government getting involved but operating a restaurant is an entirely different matter. And there are many other examples of products or services that are regulated according to how or why they're used.
Our own model airplane hobby is expanding and morphing into things that our fathers and grandfathers never imagined. The dividing line between models and small commercial airplanes isn't nearly as clear as it used to be and those who control our airspace (the FAA) are trying to figure it out right now. And I imagine that the AMA is just as confused as the rest of us. I'm glad that I'm not being relied upon as the one to sort it all out!
Harvey
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
It was perfectly legal for Hobby Use, but forbidden when used for Public(gov) or Commercial..... that one particular model was legal or illegal depending on WHY you fly it.
It was perfectly legal for Hobby Use, but forbidden when used for Public(gov) or Commercial..... that one particular model was legal or illegal depending on WHY you fly it.
Differing regulations based on how or why we do something is acceptable throughout our society. A Chevrolet SUV is classified as non-commercial when driven by a housewife but an otherwise-identical vehicle, and its driver, are regulated quite differently when operated as a taxicab. Same with a full-scale Cessna 210 that is flown privately vs flown as a Part 135 Air Taxi. Your dad can teach you how to drive the family car without special training, additional insurance, or recordkeeping but a driver training school is regulated quite differently. Your wife can fix your family's meals without the government getting involved but operating a restaurant is an entirely different matter. And there are many other examples of products or services that are regulated according to how or why they're used.
Our own model airplane hobby is expanding and morphing into things that our fathers and grandfathers never imagined. The dividing line between models and small commercial airplanes isn't nearly as clear as it used to be and those who control our airspace (the FAA) are trying to figure it out right now. And I imagine that the AMA is just as confused as the rest of us. I'm glad that I'm not being relied upon as the one to sort it all out!
Harvey
you fly in a very limited area and only overfly areas that are intended for that use. IMO anyone that is operating a model outside of those parameters should be
looked at by the FAA but if it's determined they aren't causing any harm or breaking any laws they should be left alone. AlsoI think the FAA needs to come up
with some guide lines for all modelers butnot one set of rules for AMA members and another set for for non members.
#291
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: ira d
The dividing line between models for recreation and uas systems for commercial use is very clear and very easy to define, quite simply put with reacation use
you fly in a very limited area and only overfly areas that are intended for that use. IMO anyone that is operating a model outside of those parameters should be
looked at by the FAA but if it's determined they aren't causing any harm or breaking any laws they should be left alone.
The dividing line between models for recreation and uas systems for commercial use is very clear and very easy to define, quite simply put with reacation use
you fly in a very limited area and only overfly areas that are intended for that use. IMO anyone that is operating a model outside of those parameters should be
looked at by the FAA but if it's determined they aren't causing any harm or breaking any laws they should be left alone.
Are you saying that the ONLY defining criteria between recreational and commercial aircraft is WHERE the plane is flown? Also, by your statement above, a 3oz Air Hogs foamie being flown in a school gym by a sixth grader should be investigated by the FAA.
Harvey
#292
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: ira d
Also I think the FAA needs to come up with some guide lines for all modelers but not one set of rules for AMA members and another set for for non members.
Also I think the FAA needs to come up with some guide lines for all modelers but not one set of rules for AMA members and another set for for non members.
Any and all alternative standards will be generated outside the FAA, so they are not forming multiple paths for compliance. But they will allow for more than one path. That is an important difference.
#294
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: H5487
Ira,
It looks like you're saying that modelers who are not flying at an approved R/C field (an "area that is intended for that use") should be investigated by the FAA. (Or put another way, only members of R/C clubs qualify as recreational operators.) What about those of us who live out in the country and fly our models on our own land? Are you saying that we won't qualify as recreational and will fall under commercial rules just because our property isn't "intended for (R/C) use"? And does it matter if the plane is only a 3oz Air Hogs foamie with a motor that develops the thrust equivalent of fourteen butterfly sneezes?
On the other hand, what about getting paid to fly a 200mph 400lb aircraft equipped with sophisticated cameras and sensors? According to your "easy to define" statement, as long as these planes stay over areas intended for recreational models, then they're not commercial.
So, as you can see, this stuff isn't that easy to define.
Harvey
ORIGINAL: ira d
The dividing line between models for recreation and uas systems for commercial use is very clear and very easy to define, quite simply put with reacation use
you fly in a very limited area and only overfly areas that are intended for that use. IMO anyone that is operating a model outside of those parameters should be
looked at by the FAA but if it's determined they aren't causing any harm or breaking any laws they should be left alone.
The dividing line between models for recreation and uas systems for commercial use is very clear and very easy to define, quite simply put with reacation use
you fly in a very limited area and only overfly areas that are intended for that use. IMO anyone that is operating a model outside of those parameters should be
looked at by the FAA but if it's determined they aren't causing any harm or breaking any laws they should be left alone.
It looks like you're saying that modelers who are not flying at an approved R/C field (an "area that is intended for that use") should be investigated by the FAA. (Or put another way, only members of R/C clubs qualify as recreational operators.) What about those of us who live out in the country and fly our models on our own land? Are you saying that we won't qualify as recreational and will fall under commercial rules just because our property isn't "intended for (R/C) use"? And does it matter if the plane is only a 3oz Air Hogs foamie with a motor that develops the thrust equivalent of fourteen butterfly sneezes?
On the other hand, what about getting paid to fly a 200mph 400lb aircraft equipped with sophisticated cameras and sensors? According to your "easy to define" statement, as long as these planes stay over areas intended for recreational models, then they're not commercial.
So, as you can see, this stuff isn't that easy to define.
Harvey
of course you should be allowed to operate your models there as long as you aren't a safety threat to anyone such as workers or your neighbors.
What I ment was if the FAA should become aware of rc plane activity outside of what would be a normal place for such activity they should look into it I also said
if the rc flying was not breaking any laws or a threat to anyone then the person should be left alone.
#295
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: H5487
Ira,
Are you saying that the ONLY defining criteria between recreational and commercial aircraft is WHERE the plane is flown? Also, by your statement above, a 3oz Air Hogs foamie being flown in a school gym should be investigated by the FAA.
Harvey
ORIGINAL: ira d
The dividing line between models for recreation and uas systems for commercial use is very clear and very easy to define, quite simply put with reacation use
you fly in a very limited area and only overfly areas that are intended for that use. IMO anyone that is operating a model outside of those parameters should be
looked at by the FAA but if it's determined they aren't causing any harm or breaking any laws they should be left alone.
The dividing line between models for recreation and uas systems for commercial use is very clear and very easy to define, quite simply put with reacation use
you fly in a very limited area and only overfly areas that are intended for that use. IMO anyone that is operating a model outside of those parameters should be
looked at by the FAA but if it's determined they aren't causing any harm or breaking any laws they should be left alone.
Are you saying that the ONLY defining criteria between recreational and commercial aircraft is WHERE the plane is flown? Also, by your statement above, a 3oz Air Hogs foamie being flown in a school gym should be investigated by the FAA.
Harvey
#296
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: ira d
What I ment was if the FAA should become aware of rc plane activity outside of what would be a normal place for such activity they should look into it I also said
if the rc flying was not breaking any laws or a threat to anyone then the person should be left alone.
What I ment was if the FAA should become aware of rc plane activity outside of what would be a normal place for such activity they should look into it I also said
if the rc flying was not breaking any laws or a threat to anyone then the person should be left alone.
(I can do this all day! )
Again, my point is that this stuff isn't all that easy to define because not all R/C flying can easily be classified into a few convenient bins.
Harvey
#297
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
They are coming up with but a single set that any and all modelers can follow in order to comply with the Rule. However, they are also allowing CBOs to propose alternative operating standards that may also be used as a means of compliance with the Rule. They have clearly stated that they cannot force anyone to join the AMA in order to use the AMA standard (assuming it actually gets accepted by the FAA). In fact, there can in theory be a virtually unlimited number of alternative standards and there will always be the default path as defined by the FAA.
Any and all alternative standards will be generated outside the FAA, so they are not forming multiple paths for compliance. But they will allow for more than one path. That is an important difference.
ORIGINAL: ira d
AlsoI think the FAA needs to come up with some guide lines for all modelers butnot one set of rules for AMA members and another set for for non members.
AlsoI think the FAA needs to come up with some guide lines for all modelers butnot one set of rules for AMA members and another set for for non members.
Any and all alternative standards will be generated outside the FAA, so they are not forming multiple paths for compliance. But they will allow for more than one path. That is an important difference.
they will put many modelers out of business like maybe 70 to 80%
#298
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: H5487
So, by your statement above, a 3oz Air Hogs foamie being flown in a school gym by a sixth grader without permission should be investigated by the FAA?
(I can do this all day! )
Again, my point is that this stuff isn't all that easy to define because not all R/C flying can easily be classified into a few convenient sets of criteria.
Harvey
ORIGINAL: ira d
What I ment was if the FAA should become aware of rc plane activity outside of what would be a normal place for such activity they should look into it I also said
if the rc flying was not breaking any laws or a threat to anyone then the person should be left alone.
What I ment was if the FAA should become aware of rc plane activity outside of what would be a normal place for such activity they should look into it I also said
if the rc flying was not breaking any laws or a threat to anyone then the person should be left alone.
(I can do this all day! )
Again, my point is that this stuff isn't all that easy to define because not all R/C flying can easily be classified into a few convenient sets of criteria.
Harvey
#299
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: H5487
Again, my point is that this stuff isn't all that easy to define because not all R/C flying can easily be classified into a few convenient bins.
Harvey
ORIGINAL: ira d
What I ment was if the FAA should become aware of rc plane activity outside of what would be a normal place for such activity they should look into it I also said
if the rc flying was not breaking any laws or a threat to anyone then the person should be left alone.
What I ment was if the FAA should become aware of rc plane activity outside of what would be a normal place for such activity they should look into it I also said
if the rc flying was not breaking any laws or a threat to anyone then the person should be left alone.
Again, my point is that this stuff isn't all that easy to define because not all R/C flying can easily be classified into a few convenient bins.
Harvey
#300
RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
They are coming up with but a single set that any and all modelers can follow in order to comply with the Rule. However, they are also allowing CBOs to propose alternative operating standards that may also be used as a means of compliance with the Rule. They have clearly stated that they cannot force anyone to join the AMA in order to use the AMA standard (assuming it actually gets accepted by the FAA). In fact, there can in theory be a virtually unlimited number of alternative standards and there will always be the default path as defined by the FAA.
Any and all alternative standards will be generated outside the FAA, so they are not forming multiple paths for compliance. But they will allow for more than one path. That is an important difference.
ORIGINAL: ira d
AlsoI think the FAA needs to come up with some guide lines for all modelers butnot one set of rules for AMA members and another set for for non members.
AlsoI think the FAA needs to come up with some guide lines for all modelers butnot one set of rules for AMA members and another set for for non members.
Any and all alternative standards will be generated outside the FAA, so they are not forming multiple paths for compliance. But they will allow for more than one path. That is an important difference.
that anyone comes up with will have to beapproved by the FAA anyhowand modelers will have to follow one or more of them.