AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

View Poll Results: A poll
Yes, our self-policing efforts (i.e. AMA Safety Codes) aren''t working.
4.81%
Yes, the world has changed considerably since 9/11.
15.96%
I''m not sure.
5.58%
No, the FAA has no business regulating "hobby" airplanes.
34.62%
No, we are fully capable of policing ourselves.
12.69%
No, the perceived threat to society doesn't exist!
13.85%
I hate polls like this!
12.50%
Voters: 520. You may not vote on this poll

Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Reply
Old 01-27-2012, 12:47 AM
  #301
beepee
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,301
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

"recreational non-commercial autonomous aeromodeling hobbyists"

This gets into an area that is of concern to the FAA, and it is one that they are grappling with as it applies to both commercial and non-commercial use. The safety of the airspace is maintained on the principal of "see and avoid." What the FAA has a hard time accepting is that ANY autonomous unmanned air vehicle can effectively see and avoid. Sophisticated instrumentation to mitigate the problem may be installed in a commercial autonomous flyer, but I highly doubt any hobbyist is considering such. If you cannot see it, you cannot avoid traffic in the area. You may say that the AMA is throwing this segment of the hobby under the bus, but if it cannot comply with the fundamental definition of the means of maintaining safety in the air, it does not belong.

Bedford
beepee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 01:42 AM
  #302
AugerDawger
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 154
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: HoundDog
you can tell when one of these guys shows up at an AMA field ... it's all in how they present them selves

What is the proper protocol for presenting oneself to the modelerilluminati ?

AugerDawger is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 03:36 AM
  #303
MAX HEADSPEED
 
MAX HEADSPEED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 341
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: beepee

"recreational non-commercial autonomous aeromodeling hobbyists"

This gets into an area that is of concern to the FAA, and it is one that they are grappling with as it applies to both commercial and non-commercial use. The safety of the airspace is maintained on the principal of "see and avoid."....If you cannot see it, you cannot avoid traffic in the area....if it cannot comply with the fundamental definition of the means of maintaining safety in the air, it does not belong.

Bedford
That's exactly what this is really all about.
MAX HEADSPEED is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 05:15 AM
  #304
HoundDog
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,456
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: AugerDawger

Quote:
ORIGINAL: HoundDog
you can tell when one of these guys shows up at an AMA field ... it's all in how they present them selves

What is the proper protocol for presenting oneself to the modelerilluminati ?

Knowing that U must be an AMA member to fly at an AMA sanctioned field. Knowing how to use a frequency board. Putting your AMA or club card in the proper channel or pin (72 Mhz) other options for 2.4 radios. Knowing that one should fly a pattern and stay on the proper side of the flight line, not fly in a circle around them selves . That you call out when taxiing out and take offs and landings. Common sense things like you don't see how close you can get to your self and others on the flight line, with High Speed passes. You don't arm Electrics or start engines or taxi in the pits. More or less like the undisciplined Park Flyer Types do. I could go on and on but that's pretty much what I ment. OK Do u or do u not agree?
HoundDog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 05:51 AM
  #305
BarracudaHockey
Community Moderators
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 21,466
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

I don't agree that there's any such thing as an AMA sanctioned field..

Bedford nailed it, its about see and avoid.
BarracudaHockey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 06:14 AM
  #306
HoundDog
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,456
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: BarracudaHockey

I don't agree that there's any such thing as an AMA sanctioned field.. Then what would you call an R/C Field where you have to be a member of the AMA in order to be allowed to fly at such facilitys?

Bedford nailed it, its about see and avoid.Want to be a billionare? Invent a device that can allow a person to see and call attention of an aircraft Day or Night in all weather conditions at a distance of at least 5 miles with the unaided human eye.

HoundDog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 06:22 AM
  #307
BarracudaHockey
Community Moderators
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 21,466
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: BarracudaHockey

I don't agree that there's any such thing as an AMA sanctioned field.. Then what would you call an R/C Field where you have to be a member of the AMA in order to be allowed to fly at such facilitys?
AMA sanctions clubs, not fields. So many fail to realize that.

For example, I fly at a sanctioned club, but the field is city owned. You have to be an AMA member to fly there because our lease agreement with the city stipulates that we over see the facility and that persons using the facility will have insurance such as the AMA (and SFA when they were around). You don't have to be a club member to fly there.
BarracudaHockey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 06:35 AM
  #308
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
Bedford nailed it, its about see and avoid.
Quote:
If you cannot see it, you cannot avoid traffic in the area. You may say that the AMA is throwing this segment of the hobby under the bus, but if it cannot comply with the fundamental definition of the means of maintaining safety in the air, it does not belong.
guys guys guys, why?
Why would you try to use "See & Avoid" as an argument against non-LOS flying,
when that line only hurts AMA more than it helps?

You guy say 'See and Avoid' determines if an entire type of hobby flying can be done?
As is so frequent in these discussions, you fail to realize your broadbrush condemnation will kill something embraced by the ama along with your intended target. FREE FLIGHT cannot use 'see&avoid' cause for 100% of the entire flight it is absolutely physically impossible for the pilot to 'Avoid" what the pilots 'See's. So, by your standard, AMA-OK FreeFlight deserves to be cast as Verboten by FAA.

On the other hand,
when we look at Google/FPV we can see a pilot that does have vision (them goggles DO something) during the flight,
and it is very obvious by the stunts and pattern that the GogglePilot does have control to "Avoid" anything he sees.
That sounds like the GogglePilot can both See & Avoid, but there may be some restriction/limits to what he can see.
Yet folks are catagorizing 'See&Avoid With Limited Sight' as undoable and horrible,
while having no problem with 'ZERO See&Avoid During Entire FreeFlight'

From the moment the craft leaves the ground, until it touches back down, Freeflight pilots cannot Avoid at all
... ZERO See&Avoid entire flight for FreeFlight pilots.
The entire flight of a GogglePilot has Seeing and Avoiding, but perhaps sight may be restricted/limited.

When we hear the AMA-OK way is to just do some See&Avoid BEFORE the flight that ends when the flight starts,
then it stands to reason it must be OK for Goggleguys to just do some See&Avoid that ends with takeoff just like the FreeFlight guys do.
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 06:43 AM
  #309
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Come on Kid...just do a proper range check before flying FF and everything will be OK.
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 07:09 AM
  #310
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

H5487
Quote:
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.
of course,
and the 'how or why they're used" is pretty darn obvious in the term
"recreational non-commercial autonomous aeromodeling hobbyists".
That is the Dad teaching kid to drive rather than a driving school employee.
That is the Chevy used for personal stuff rather than a commercial driver.
That is a $100 Hamburger in a c152 rather than a c152 AirTAxi.
That is playing with a Toy Airplane rather than getting $40 for realestate property arial photography.
That is having a Goggley-GoodTime with a FPV Model rather than a commercial sales demo that AMA wont clearly insure.

Yes, we agree that the reason for operation can and does change its legal status.
And its hard to say "recreational non-commercial autonomous aeromodeling hobbyists"
is somehow not reacreational hobby noncommercial or public(gov) use.
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 07:45 AM
  #311
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 3,030
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

One thingsome people seem to miss is that it's impossible to make a law that will 100% cover every possible thing someone may do. the FAA
will have no way of knowing about the guy who may use his camera euip model to help someone look for a downed model and may receive
twenty bucks for doing so. But we all know the example Igave should not be considered commerical use and no one should really care.
ira d is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 08:27 AM
  #312
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
will have no way of knowing about the guy who may use his camera euip model to help someone look for a downed model and may receive
twenty bucks for doing so. But we all know the example I gave should not be considered commerical use and no one should really care.
really? lets try that again-
will have no way of knowing about the guy who may use his c172 to fly folks to Vegas and may receive
$X00 bucks for doing so. But we all know the example I gave should not be considered commerical use and no one should really care.


uh, actually the FAA is VERY clear on recovering more than costs is indeed commercial operation and required a commercial pilots license. How is this relevant to models? Because the regulations that make fullscale flying ops illegal are being writ by the same folks that are writing the regs that make model flying ops illegal.

We know how the FAA writes regs, and their view of 'commercial' fullscale planes is not forgiving at all,
and THAT faa is the same faa writing the regs about 'commercial' model planes


What you and I considers commercial is not important, its what the FAA considers commercial.
What the IRS considers commercial is not important, its what the FAA considers commercial.
What some guys accountant considers commercial is not important, its what the FAA considers commercial.
What the AMA considers commercial is not important, its what the FAA considers commercial.
and we have a sample of what faa has considered commercial in the current regs for fullscale
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 08:36 AM
  #313
H5487
Thread Starter
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

I'm pretty sure that the FAA is starting to stick its nose into our hobby for just two main reasons...

First, "See and Avoid" is a major concern when air traffic (both big and small) share the same airspace, and those full-scale users of the airspace are counting on the FAA to keep blind or limited-sight aircraft from creating collision hazards. While the airliners and most high-end private/corporate aircraft are equipped with electronic boxes to detect other aircraft, the equipment is so expensive that most private aircraft owners cannot afford it. Hence, it is easy to predict that modelers will not be equipping their aircraft either. Therefore, "See and Avoid" is still the primary way to avoid collisions. Of course, we're talking about aircraft operating in controlled airspace (which is usually 1200ft AGL and up) so FF R/C isn't much of an issue unless the activity is close to a full-scale airport (where full-scale operates under 1200ft). This is where the FAA is likely going to introduce new rules on how close model activity can be to full-scale airports.

Second, the FAA is grappling with how to classify "model airplanes" that are now being used for commercial purposes. Like I mentioned earlier, the FARs are quite different between regulating commercially operated aircraft and those used for fun. Unfortunately, it’s no longer easy to define what is a recreational-use “toy” airplane and what isn’t. A park flyer foamie undoubtedly is, but a 400lb 200mph airplane packed with $150,000 worth of sophisticated cameras and sensors more than likely isn’t. So what about those aircraft in between? That is where the FAA is trying to determine where to draw the line. Once the FAA makes that determination, it will likely get involved with those aircraft that AREN’T recreationally used and leave those that are, alone (other than some new proximity-to-full-scale regulations).

What the FAA is NOT going to do is get involved with model airplane crashes or injuries resulting from model airplanes when full-scale aircraft aren’t involved. Anything serious will still fall to the local police to investigate. (The FAA doesn’t have the manpower to do so and the police already handle such things. The FAA and NTSB already investigate model vs full-scale near-misses and collisions and that’s not likely to change.) Nor is the FAA going to dictate our safety codes. Believe it or not, the FAA could really care less about frequency board management or arming an electric in the pits.

Also, the FAA isn't going to get involved with the issue of potential terrorist use of model airplanes. That is the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security and no telling what those Gestapo Stormtroopers would like to do with our hobby!

And in closing, Kid-E, my take on how or why the AMA (and many individual modelers) are having a tough time trying to figure out what to do with "recreational non-commercial autonomous aeromodeling hobbyists" is because this segment of model aviation is new and very different than what we’re used to. Flying a model airplane from inside a van while watching a laptop doesn’t fit in with how most of us think of flying model airplanes. While these guys may still be our “aeromodeling brethren”, how they fly is very non-traditional. Time will tell how we, and the AMA, accept this new form of flying models. Not unlike 3-D was not too long ago.

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 08:50 AM
  #314
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
Of course, we're talking about aircraft operating in controlled airspace (which is usually 1200ft AGL and up) so FF R/C isn't much of an issue
uh, no
We ARE talking about See&Avoid for ALL operation including down on the deck with the CL and FF you mention.
We have seen no indication that HeadsDown/Goggle/Autonomous/FF will be left S&A unregulated below a certain ceiling,
as you are trying to imply by you bringing up "1200ft" as an excuse for not requiring See&Avoid for FF/CL

But even if we accept your 1200ft No-S&A-Required idea,
that still kinda blows the "Goggles/Autonomous Cant S&A" argument out of the water because S&A wouldnt be a requirement
(just as it wouldnt be a requirement for CL/FF)
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 09:04 AM
  #315
H5487
Thread Starter
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

Quote:
Of course, we're talking about aircraft operating in controlled airspace (which is usually 1200ft AGL and up) so FF R/C isn't much of an issue
uh, no
We ARE talking about See&Avoid for ALL operation including down on the deck with the CL and FF you mention.
We have seen no indication that HeadsDown/Goggle/Autonomous/FF will be left S&A unregulated below a certain ceiling,
as you are trying to imply by you bringing up ''1200ft'' as an excuse for not requiring See&Avoid for FF/CL

But even if we accept your 1200ft No-S&A-Required idea,
that still kinda blows the ''Goggles/Autonomous Cant S&A'' argument out of the water because S&A wouldnt be a requirement
(just as it wouldnt be a requirement for CL/FF)
I'm sorry, Kid, but I don't understand your arguement. With the exception of some instrument approaches that take controlled airspace lower than 1200ft, the FAA views the airspace under 1200ft as an area where full-scale flight is unprotected as this is a region where "anything goes". This is where model airplanes, model rockets, and even high-arcing baseballs can pose a threat to full-scale operations when operating close to the ground. The FAA acknowledges that flight under 1200ft is risky because of the FAA's inability to control what happens here. Therefore, for those full-scale aircraft operating out of controlled airspace (below 1200ft), as far as the FAA is concerned, they're doing so at their own risk.

I guess what I'm saying is that the FAA isn't going to push S&A on models (including Goggles/Autonomous) under 1200ft because the FAA already discourages full-scale flight under 1200ft. And the FAA doesn't get involved in model-to-model collisions or model-to-bystander injuries.

However, how the AMA deals with Goggles/Autonomous is a separate matter and, thus, a separate debate. Is it possible that AMA's stance against Goggles/Autonomous was dictated by AMA's underwriter and not necessarily by the AMA itself?

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 10:17 AM
  #316
Bird of Paradise
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ft. Collins , CO
Posts: 121
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

In spite of all of this, I would bet my house that the FAA will impose strict controls on FVP and autonomous flight regardless of altitude whether within the AMA Standards or the default path. All of the issues that folks would like to gloss over here and in other forums are likely to be issues - aircraft size, altitude, speed, BLOS, see and avoid, night flights, etc., etc. are elephants in the room. The FAA will need to be convinced that any of these can be done safely, which will likely be a tall task... The guy from Europe who flew FPV all over Manhattan last year did not do the cause any favors. [&o].

One other point made at the recent AMA Convention in Ontario, and not to be overlooked, is that this is not a negotiation with the FAA..... The AMA Standards must satisfy FAA safety concerns and meet their expectations. As mentioned by others previously, the default path will be very restrictive.
Bird of Paradise is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 10:47 AM
  #317
H5487
Thread Starter
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Bird of Paradise
In spite of all of this, I would bet my house that the FAA will impose strict controls on FVP and autonomous flight regardless of altitude
Why do you feel this way when the FAA's concern is keeping models from interferring with full-scale ops in controlled airspace? Are you saying that the FAA is worried about FVP and autonomous aircraft as low a 10ft (per your statement of "regardless of altitude ")? I suspect that the FAA will leave low altitude non-commercial FVP and autonomous flying up to the AMA since full-scale ops aren't threatened.



Quote:
The AMA Standards must satisfy FAA safety concerns and meet their expectations.
If you're talking about all of AMA's safety standards, I cannot agree. Again, the FAA isn't concerned about non-commercial model-to-model or model-to-bystander conflicts because the FAA is only concerned with how we threaten full-scale ops. Therefore, any AMA standards that the FAA is interested in are those that are intended to prevent models from inadvertently mixing with full-scale aircraft (i.e altitude limits, night flying, etc). The rest of AMA's standards (i.e. flying too close to the pits, etc) doesn't interest the FAA because full-scale isn't threatened.


To all...
Look guys, there's a matter of economics that comes into play here. Any regulations that the FAA enacts, obligates the FAA into enforcing, and the FAA doesn't have the manpower to investigate all of the little stupid things that we modelers often do. The FAA is already overloaded with just keeping the airlines and general aviation adhering to the current FARs. Therefore, it's doubtful that the FAA will want to increase its workload by creating a bunch of new rules that do nothing to protect full-scale aircraft.

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 11:46 AM
  #318
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 3,030
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

Quote:
will have no way of knowing about the guy who may use his camera euip model to help someone look for a downed model and may receive
twenty bucks for doing so. But we all know the example I gave should not be considered commerical use and no one should really care.
really? lets try that again-
will have no way of knowing about the guy who may use his c172 to fly folks to Vegas and may receive
$X00 bucks for doing so. But we all know the example I gave should not be considered commerical use and no one should really care.


uh, actually the FAA is VERY clear on recovering more than costs is indeed commercial operation and required a commercial pilots license. How is this relevant to models? Because the regulations that make fullscale flying ops illegal are being writ by the same folks that are writing the regs that make model flying ops illegal.

We know how the FAA writes regs, and their view of 'commercial' fullscale planes is not forgiving at all,
and THAT faa is the same faa writing the regs about 'commercial' model planes


What you and I considers commercial is not important, its what the FAA considers commercial.
What the IRS considers commercial is not important, its what the FAA considers commercial.
What some guys accountant considers commercial is not important, its what the FAA considers commercial.
What the AMA considers commercial is not important, its what the FAA considers commercial.
and we have a sample of what faa has considered commercial in the current regs for fullscale

I dont know what the FAA will consider commercial I just said what they SHOULD NOT consider commericaland inthe exampleI gave
they would not know that one guy gave another twenty bucks and why anyway .Not sure what your point is.
ira d is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 11:53 AM
  #319
tms261
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 180
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

You certainly hit a bunch of nails squarely on the head. Government wants to regulate everything. Guns, cars, safety belts, food, religion, and now our hobby are in the sights. The list goes on. The Constitution itself is ignored, changed, and misused. The government as it has become, is more dangerous to all of us than any hobby. The government try many ridiculous things. Prohibition comes to mind. Anyone who had un-doctored history in school knows how that turned out. Its the truly important stuff they frequently miss the boat on.

There are a few exceptions, but by and large, its always people killing or injuring themselves or others. The gun usually does not pull its own trigger!

The world has changed yes. More folks want to do harm. Sure, some laws are necessary and should be enforced. Unfortunately, laws only affect those that will follow them. Just like guns. Its a silly notion to outlaw them as only law abiding citizens will be affected. However, when laws are broken, there should be stiff penalties. The laws themselves just need to be justified.

Someone on this thread, perhaps several, has stated that we should wait and see what the FAA says. I agree. But we should ALL be d@#mn well ready to speak our minds as constructively as possible if the rules are unrealistic or unjust.

Our hobby has been very safe with the rules that AMA has set. This hobby has been partly or wholly responsible for many folks getting into science, engineering etc... Thats exactly what this country needs. It should not be sacrificed over some folks paranoia.

Lets see what the FAA says. Hopefully as some have stated, the majority if not all of us will be unaffected.
tms261 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 11:57 AM
  #320
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 3,030
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: tms261

You certainly hit a bunch of nails squarely on the head. Government wants to regulate everything. Guns, cars, safety belts, food, religion, and now our hobby are in the sights. The list goes on. The Constitution itself is ignored, changed, and misused. The government as it has become, is more dangerous to all of us than any hobby. The government try many ridiculous things. Prohibition comes to mind. Anyone who had un-doctored history in school knows how that turned out. Its the truly important stuff they frequently miss the boat on.

There are a few exceptions, but by and large, its always people killing or injuring themselves or others. The gun usually does not pull its own trigger!

The world has changed yes. More folks want to do harm. Sure, some laws are necessary and should be enforced. Unfortunately, laws only affect those that will follow them. Just like guns. Its a silly notion to outlaw them as only law abiding citizens will be affected. However, when laws are broken, there should be stiff penalties. The laws themselves just need to be justified.

Someone on this thread, perhaps several, has stated that we should wait and see what the FAA says. I agree. But we should ALL be d@#mn well ready to speak our minds as constructively as possible if the rules are unrealistic or unjust.

Our hobby has been very safe with the rules that AMA has set. This hobby has been partly or wholly responsible for many folks getting into science, engineering etc... Thats exactly what this country needs. It should not be sacrificed over some folks paranoia.

Lets see what the FAA says. Hopefully as some have stated, the majority if not all of us will be unaffected.

Good point.
ira d is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 11:57 AM
  #321
tms261
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 180
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Harvey your points make a lot of sense. Unfortunately the government frequently does not. Lets hope you are correct.
tms261 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 11:59 AM
  #322
Bird of Paradise
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ft. Collins , CO
Posts: 121
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: H5487

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Bird of Paradise
In spite of all of this, I would bet my house that the FAA will impose strict controls on FVP and autonomous flight regardless of altitude
Why do you feel this way when the FAA's concern is keeping models from interferring with full-scale ops in controlled airspace? Are you saying that the FAA is worried about FVP and autonomous aircraft as low a 10ft (per your statement of ''regardless of altitude '')? I suspect that the FAA will leave this matter up to the AMA since full-scale ops aren't threatened.



Quote:
The AMA Standards must satisfy FAA safety concerns and meet their expectations.
If you're talking about all of AMA's safety standards, I cannot agree. Again, the FAA isn't concerned about model-to-model or model-to-bystander conflicts because the FAA is only concerned with how we threaten full-scale ops. Therefore, any AMA standards that the FAA is interested in are those that are intended to prevent models from inadvertently mixing with full-scale aircraft (i.e altitude limits, night flying, etc). The rest of AMA's standards (i.e. flying too close to the pits, etc) doesn't interest the FAA because full-scale isn't threatened.


To all...
Look guys, there's a matter of economics that comes into play here. Any regulations that the FAA enacts, obligates the FAA into enforcing, and the FAA doesn't have the manpower to investigate all of the little stupid things that we modelers often do. The FAA is already overloaded with just keeping the airlines and general aviation adhering to the current FARs. Therefore, despite some modelers fears, the FAA isn't likely going to enact any new rules that do nothing to protect full-scale aircraft.

Harvey
H:


You are absolutely wrong in several instances and at times you have been more than just bit absurd!! Come on 10'!! Really? I am certain that the FAA that we are working with would take issue with your statement "FAA views the airspace under 1200ft as an area where full-scale flight is unprotected as this is a region where "anything goes". We all need to cease the uninformed misinformation and trying to read meaning into everyone's' words. It does not serve us well.

Yes, there are concerns about how models may affect full scale ops. But, there are also very broad concerns with all parts of what we do as RC modelers. Sorry, but you are kidding yourself if you are thinking the level of detail required by the FAA in the AMA Standards will be superficial. Unfortunately, I know better based on participation as member of the AMA Standards Work Group for the last 3 years

Mike Harrington
Recording Secretary
AMA Standards Work Group
Bird of Paradise is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 12:05 PM
  #323
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 3,030
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: H5487

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Bird of Paradise
In spite of all of this, I would bet my house that the FAA will impose strict controls on FVP and autonomous flight regardless of altitude
Why do you feel this way when the FAA's concern is keeping models from interferring with full-scale ops in controlled airspace? Are you saying that the FAA is worried about FVP and autonomous aircraft as low a 10ft (per your statement of "regardless of altitude ")? I suspect that the FAA will leave low altitude non-commercial FVP and autonomous flying up to the AMA since full-scale ops aren't threatened.



Quote:
The AMA Standards must satisfy FAA safety concerns and meet their expectations.
If you're talking about all of AMA's safety standards, I cannot agree. Again, the FAA isn't concerned about non-commercial model-to-model or model-to-bystander conflicts because the FAA is only concerned with how we threaten full-scale ops. Therefore, any AMA standards that the FAA is interested in are those that are intended to prevent models from inadvertently mixing with full-scale aircraft (i.e altitude limits, night flying, etc). The rest of AMA's standards (i.e. flying too close to the pits, etc) doesn't interest the FAA because full-scale isn't threatened.


To all...
Look guys, there's a matter of economics that comes into play here. Any regulations that the FAA enacts, obligates the FAA into enforcing, and the FAA doesn't have the manpower to investigate all of the little stupid things that we modelers often do. The FAA is already overloaded with just keeping the airlines and general aviation adhering to the current FARs. Therefore, it's doubtful that the FAA will want to increase its workload by creating a bunch of new rules that do nothing to protect full-scale aircraft.

Harvey

Harvey you hit on some good points although I dont totally agree with some of them, Later today when I have more time I will share what
I think the real deal is with the FAA and AMA and then I am going to take break from these discussions Stay tuned.
ira d is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 02:31 PM
  #324
H5487
Thread Starter
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Bird of Paradise
...I would bet my house that the FAA will impose strict controls on FVP and autonomous flight regardless of altitude...

Quote:
H:

You are absolutely wrong in several instances and at times you have been more than just bit absurd!! Come on 10'!! Really?

Mike,

When I asked if your prediction that the FAA will impose strict controls on FVP and autonomous flight includes an altitude too low to be considered a hazard to full-scale aircraft, you got indignant and said I was being more than a bit absurd. Maybe I misunderstood when you said regardless of altitude that you really don't mean to include ALL altitudes.

Perhaps you could avoid these misunderstangs in the future by posting a disclaimer that says that you don't always mean what you say.

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 02:50 PM
  #325
H5487
Thread Starter
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Bird of Paradise
I am certain that the FAA that we are working with would take issue with your statement ''FAA views the airspace under 1200ft as an area where full-scale flight is unprotected as this is a region where ''anything goes''.
Mike,

Okay, I'll concede that my words were poorly chosen when describing airspace below 1200ft. "Where anything goes" is not correct because it sounds like I'm saying that nobody is obligated to follow any rules between 1200ft and the ground. That's not true. What I was saying in a flippant way is that the airspace below 1200ft can be hazardous territory to full-scale operations due to the many variables that can occur this close to the ground. For this reason, you will find that many FARs apply only to controlled airspace (i.e. 1200ft and up.) Of course, you and I know that 1200ft is not always the floor of controlled airspace. It often drops down to 700ft to allow for instrument approaches and can go all the way to the ground in Class B, C, or D airspace.

Nonetheless, the FAA will tell you that the area between ground and 1200ft is uncontrolled airspace due to all of the things that they CAN'T control (i.e. that high-arcing fly ball ).

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:06 PM.