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 01-22-2012, 06:43 PM
  #101
chuckk2
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Warner Robins, GA
Posts: 1,247
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Given the current state of things, the FAA has no choice but to issue regulations. I'd like to see model specifically aviation exempted. The problem is that currently, UAVs are basically outlawed for commercial use in the US, and the result is that other countries are far ahead of us, since they do permit commercial use.

Where to draw the line is the big question. Weight has long been one of the factors considered. Another is "line of sight". Altitude is another.
I believe that 1500 AGL or so is a reasonable limit, not 400 AGL. After all even birds fly higher than 400 AGL.
Another area that I don't care for (even though I do hold a private pilot's license) is any requirement that a modeler/pilot carry any sort of license or medical certificate.
Many of the RC modelers are older, and likely would not pass any FAA medical requirements for a certificate. (The devil is in the details, believe me!)

I can remember when those "flying dope" into the US, using light planes, were actually better off legally (when caught) if they were totally unlicensed.

chuckk2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 06:54 PM
  #102
804
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan, IN
Posts: 1,167
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: 804
Earilier, as I quoted before, you said this:

'Much like in an armed conflict, the ''enemy'' (in this case, the FAA) knows that it will enjoy an easy victory when it sees that its opposition is spending all of its energy fighting among themselves. ''

Then, you go and start a thread that promises just that.
I don't get it.
To be honest with you, I started the thread to see what the sentiment was amongst the modelers here. I had no idea that there were two strongly-opinionated sides who were ready to come out fighting. That being said, I am pleased that the responses/arguements have been mostly civil.

At least for me, this thread has been both informative and entertaining.

Harvey
You're right, it has been civil, and that's unusual and good.
One thing for sure, when the rules finallycome out,
we'll all really have something to talk about.
804 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 06:56 PM
  #103
warningshot
 
warningshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: OU-OSU OK
Posts: 474
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: 804
...In one breath you are saying we should be open-minded and stick together as modelers (flyers), and in the next you (and others) are racking a guy over something you know nothing about as far as how he did it, where he did it.
My definition of open-minded doesn't include ignoring someone who has just bragged about doing something illegal, right in the middle of a discussion about how some modelers' flagrant disregard for the Safety Code are possibly responsible for bringing the FAA's eyes upon all of us. I don't have to know the details of how or why he did it, what color his aircraft was, or what type of clouds were in the sky that day. Dropping explosives (even if just a harmless little firecracker) from a model airplane is expressly forbidden by the AMA. There's no grey area here. He self-confessed that he did it so there's nothing that I, or the rest of us need to prove. He pronounced himself guilty. I see no reason to appologize for disapproving of an illegal act that he bragged about doing in a public forum.

It's no wonder that the FAA is proposing legislation for tighter controls on us!

Harvey
What he did is not illegal. May be against the AMA safety code which only applies to AMA members to keep their insurance in force.
warningshot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 07:07 PM
  #104
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: 804
One thing for sure, when the rules finallycome out,
we'll all really have something to talk about.
And I'm sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for that as well. Hopefully, the new rules won't be terribly restrictive to any of us. However, I think this should be a wake-up call for all of us in that our carefree-do-anything-that-we-want days are over. We are being watched closely and anything that we do that threatens full scale aviation or folks on the ground may very easily result in further legislation. We need to understand that WE are directly responsible for our own future!

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 07:12 PM
  #105
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: warningshot
What he did is not illegal.
Okay, I'll tell you what. Get caught with your model loaded with fireworks (also known as Class C explosives) and let us know how they couldn't find anything to charge you with.

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 07:20 PM
  #106
jkpape
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: LaGrange, KY
Posts: 238
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

The reason that 400 ft agl is the limit is because full scale is limited to 500 ft agl over sparsely populated areas, 1000 ft agl over populated areas. Think about how far 1500 ft is. A model airplane at 1500 ft would look like a dot in the sky. Also, model airplane sights/fields are not shown on any aviation maps. Full scale aircraft have no way of knowing where model aircraft are being flown. It's hard enough to spot another full size aircraft at times, much less a model airplane.

By the way I fly both model & full scale.
jkpape is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 07:23 PM
  #107
jkpape
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: LaGrange, KY
Posts: 238
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Think again, it's a federal offense to drop explosives from any aircraft, model or full scale.
jkpape is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 07:53 PM
  #108
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?

Wow, has this really gotten to a discussion of pyro on models?

Cause I think I recall hearing how we regular AMA memebers were not allowd to load a model with pyro,
because only the AMA showteam could load models with pyro.
Am I rememberin right about Muncie allowed the show team to have models with pyro?

Cause if thats the case,
it would stand to reason that it was either
not a violation of fed law to do what muncie did,
or that it was
.... cant be that pyro was a fed law violation AND muncie did it legally... gotta be one or the other right?
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 08:00 PM
  #109
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

Wow, has this really gotten to a discussion of pyro on models?

Cause I think I recall hearing how we regular AMA memebers were not allowd to load a model with pyro,
because only the AMA showteam could load models with pyro.
Am I rememberin right about Muncie allowed the show team to have models with pyro?

Cause if thats the case,
it would stand to reason that it was either
not a violation of fed law to do what muncie did,
or that it was
.... cant be that pyro was a fed law violation AND muncie did it legally... gotta be one or the other right?
Kid,

Without knowing the exact details of the event, I can only guess that the AMA was able to get waivers for the show from both the FAA and AMA's insurance underwriter. I'm pretty certain that AMA wouldn't risk such an event without insurance coverage.

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 09:56 PM
  #110
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?

Models have been flying in the range of 300- 500 ft for years with no problems andvirtually no conflict with full scale planes, The main reason for there
being almost contact between the two is full scale rarely flys below 2,000 ft unless taking off or landings and models rarely go above 500 ft due to
visibllity. I know some sail planes and rockets also balloons can on ocassion exceed 500ft and maybe the FAA needs to make some rules specific
for models that fly at high alititude.
ira d is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 09:57 PM
  #111
NorfolkSouthern
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,568
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: chuckk2

Where to draw the line is the big question. Weight has long been one of the factors considered. Another is ''line of sight''. Altitude is another.
I believe that 1500 AGL or so is a reasonable limit, not 400 AGL. After all even birds fly higher than 400 AGL.
Another area that I don't care for (even though I do hold a private pilot's license) is any requirement that a modeler/pilot carry any sort of license or medical certificate.
Many of the RC modelers are older, and likely would not pass any FAA medical requirements for a certificate.
(The devil is in the details, believe me!)

A medical certificate to fly a model plane? Where did you get that idea? How embarrassing it's gonna be for some folks when this thing finally unwinds. It's gonna be very hard to get most of us to stop laughing!

NS
NorfolkSouthern is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 10:03 PM
  #112
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
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: NorfolkSouthern

A medical certificate to fly a model plane? Where did you get that idea?
It is very likely according to what the commercial sUAS guys say and think that 2nd class FAA medicals will be required for most sUAS operations. I have not seen anything hinting that they will be required for models.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 10:07 PM
  #113
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
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: Speedy-Gonzales

Ever try to collect on AMA's insurance?
Have you? While not primary for those who have other insurance the AMA insurance works as advertised. In the member's only area of the website they have the information about the number of claims filed, paid, etc.

I'll turn it around, I've never heard of a valid claim being denied.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 10:12 PM
  #114
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
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
right in the middle of a discussion about how some modelers' flagrant disregard for the Safety Code are possibly responsible for bringing the FAA's eyes upon all of us.
The FAA people have stated repeatedly that the modeling community has done absolutely nothing to cause the writing of the sUAS rules. It is motivated solely by the increasing demand for commercial and public agency sUAS operations. We are just getting swept up in the rule since we are sUAS by their definition, so they need to address us in the rule. But again, they are not "coming after us", we are only a tiny slice of what the rule is about. Like I said, the ARC document had 76 pages. Only 6 concerned models, the other 70 were for the guys they are really targeting.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 10:13 PM
  #115
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
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: littlecrankshaf

You do know AMA rules aren’t law...don’t you?
Not right now they are not. But if the FAA accepts the AMA Standards for use they will have the force of law for those people using them to operate under.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 10:19 PM
  #116
NorfolkSouthern
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,568
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: Silent-AV8R


Quote:
ORIGINAL: NorfolkSouthern

A medical certificate to fly a model plane? Where did you get that idea?
It is very likely according to what the commercial sUAS guys say and think that 2nd class FAA medicals will be required for most sUAS operations. I have not seen anything hinting that they will be required for models.
Yes, that's for the sUAS guys. You know, the ones who fly something made by Northrop-Grumman, that weighs 300 pounds, with a video camera, a zillion miles out of the line of sight to sniff out drugs and illegal aliens. Something like that. But the notion sounds a bit silly for someone who goes to the field to play with their toy airplanes on a Sunday afternoon.

NS
NorfolkSouthern is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 05:20 AM
  #117
GerKonig
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Levittown, PA
Posts: 1,960
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: jkpape

The reason that 400 ft agl is the limit is because full scale is limited to 500 ft agl over sparsely populated areas, 1000 ft agl over populated areas. Think about how far 1500 ft is. A model airplane at 1500 ft would look like a dot in the sky. Also, model airplane sights/fields are not shown on any aviation maps. Full scale aircraft have no way of knowing where model aircraft are being flown. It's hard enough to spot another full size aircraft at times, much less a model airplane.

By the way I fly both model & full scale.

I fully agree with you.

Gerry
GerKonig is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 05:27 AM
  #118
GerKonig
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Levittown, PA
Posts: 1,960
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: NorfolkSouthern


Quote:
ORIGINAL: chuckk2

Where to draw the line is the big question. Weight has long been one of the factors considered. Another is ''line of sight''. Altitude is another.
I believe that 1500 AGL or so is a reasonable limit, not 400 AGL. After all even birds fly higher than 400 AGL.
Another area that I don't care for (even though I do hold a private pilot's license) is any requirement that a modeler/pilot carry any sort of license or medical certificate.
Many of the RC modelers are older, and likely would not pass any FAA medical requirements for a certificate.
(The devil is in the details, believe me!)

A medical certificate to fly a model plane? Where did you get that idea? How embarrassing it's gonna be for some folks when this thing finally unwinds. It's gonna be very hard to get most of us to stop laughing!

NS

That is a silly idea. Do you need a medical to fly a full size glider? Do you need a medical to fly a Skycatcher? (in case you do not know the answer: Of course not!)

Asking for a medical to fly a heavy sUAS over populated areas, and COMMERCIALLY, yes is a good idea. They would also need to prove proficiency somehow... and use certified platforms.

Gerry
GerKonig is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 05:28 AM
  #119
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?

KE, all:

The AMA show teams have no dispensation for loading models with pyro. The teams actually follow rules that are more restrictive that the typical modeler. However, the teams may use ground based pyro provided that a strict set of guidelines are followed. See AMA doc #718

Mike
Safety Director
TEAM AMA
Bird of Paradise is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 06:05 AM
  #120
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
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: NorfolkSouthern
Yes, that's for the sUAS guys. You know, the ones who fly something made by Northrop-Grumman, that weighs 300 pounds, with a video camera, a zillion miles out of the line of sight to sniff out drugs and illegal aliens. Something like that. But the notion sounds a bit silly for someone who goes to the field to play with their toy airplanes on a Sunday afternoon.

NS

Not just for the large UAS, even the small ones. I have several friends who work for AeroVirnoment, the leader in smaller UAS, and they all hold 2nd Class medicals and they have all taken and passed the FAA Private Pilot written test.

And again, the only place that medical for modelers is being discussed is in the fantasy and that is the Internet.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 06:08 AM
  #121
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?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R




I'll turn it around, I've never heard of a valid claim being denied.
That line works on most people...of course, all insurers say they never deny "valid claims”...
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 06:33 AM
  #122
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
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: littlecrankshaf


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R




I'll turn it around, I've never heard of a valid claim being denied.
That line works on most people...of course, all insurers say they never deny ''valid claims”...

Can you list the claims you know have been denied along with the circumstances so we can determine the validity of AMA insurance? Also, are you implying that the AMA policy, or any other insurance policy, should pay invalid claims??
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 06:33 AM
  #123
brendon33
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1
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 absolutely think the government should regulate our hobby.  Just like they've done such a great job with homeland security, social security, medicare and unemployment benefits.  This way, any one who can not afford that new model everyone wants, the government will supply this for you.  You will probably have to be unemployed for at least one year to qualify for the "model plane stamp" and probably have to show no initiation towards getting a job.  I can't wait for them to regulate us!
brendon33 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 07:14 AM
  #124
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?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R





Can you list the claims you know have been denied along with the circumstances so we can determine the validity of AMA insurance? Also, are you implying that the AMA policy, or any other insurance policy, should pay invalid claims??
I think you could do a better job of that since your are the one paid as an expert witness, while being an AMA AVP, against those seriously injured, that try to prove "valid claims" in a court of law...
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 07:26 AM
  #125
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
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: littlecrankshaf


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R





Can you list the claims you know have been denied along with the circumstances so we can determine the validity of AMA insurance? Also, are you implying that the AMA policy, or any other insurance policy, should pay invalid claims??
I think you could do a better job of that since your are the one paid as an expert witness, while being an AMA AVP, against those seriously injured, that try to prove ''valid claims'' in a court of law...
Actually, I was the one who helped defend a fellow AMA member against a baseless claim by a person who was injured as a direct result of his own documented and continued negligence. As far as being an AVP at the time the Superior Court judge nor the opposing counsel had an issue with it, but you do. Is this based on your wide and extensive legal training and experience, or something else?

But back on the (off) topic. Can you provide evidence to support your point that the AMA has denied valid claims?
Silent-AV8R 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 06:44 AM.