jeffEE

My Feedback: (5)

As a member of the AMA, #679929, I have faith that the AMA will let me know when/if I need to get involved with letters or e-mails or whatever. I am sure that the AMA is going over all of the bills and such that the government is looking at. And if their set of rules is slanted toward AMA members, I say great! If you do not like the AMA or want to belong then write your own rules and send them to the same place that the AMA sends theirs. This is still America and you do have a voice.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Funny, watching how his demeanor changes throughout the 2 parts of the deposition... LMAO. He starts out as the authoritative Dick he is usually and soon becomes the lamb waiting for the mercy of the wolf for finality.

Now, for the understanding that such videos conveys... and we’re worried about videos of guys flying models in NY... completely ignoring the real problem.


Yes, he is just a small part of the much bigger problem...

Silent-AV8R

You make the assumption that the FAA is following the AMA's lead, which suits your purposes. I make the assumption that the FAA is in the lead, which matchs reality.

Silent-AV8R

I'm betting that unless somebody causes a significant issue with a full-size aircraft we will never see and "enforcement" action from the FAA. They have too many bigger issues to be concerned with.

nute12

My Feedback: (14)

Quote:
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.

(a) In General.Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if

(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;

(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and

(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).

(b) Statutory Construction.Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

(c) Model Aircraft Defined.In this section, the term ``model aircraft'' means an unmanned aircraft that is

(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;

(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and

(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.


dunno looks to me like ama just got themselves a mandatory sign up if people wanna fly their models. Being they are the only "nationwide community-based organization" I am not sure some fancy pants lwyer like is gonna get this shot down....AMA charges dues. does this not give them a monopoly? I am not anti AMA before ya start in on that.....just seeing a huge hole here.

Silent-AV8R

You've lost me. What waivers do you see the FAA requiring?

acerc

I thought AMA already required special something for heavier plane's?
None of the personnal opinion's matter much anyway. Fly until they change the rule's, comply with the new rule's, and go fly. With the advancement of the technoligies we use, plane's have gotten bigger, much bigger and faster, much faster. Add to that the advent of BLOS capabilities, did/do we really expect our hobby toremain a free for all.

BobbyMcGee

No. It just means that someone flying a model plane isto fly itwithin the safety guidelines set by a nationally based organization.
So, the pilot just needs to fly according to guidelines. He/She does not have to join that organization or club.

cj_rumley

I said nothing to remotely suggest that FAAis following AMA's lead. We were discussing an action by Congress to limit the power of FAAto regulate model aircraft operations that was initiated by AMAlobbying. How do you construe as reality that FAA was in the lead on that? That a Don Juan sort of reality to me.

KidEpoxy

BP
the See&Avoid argument again?
Why do I have to CONTINUOUSLY debunk that hooey
by pointing at AMA's endorsement of absolutely UN-See&Avoid FREE FLIGHT?
If FF can just ~Look around for planes in the area before launch~, aka completely UN-See&Avoid,
so can Goggle/Headsdown/Autonomus do the Look around for planes in the area before launch.

you guys just keep trying to use that S&A malarkey
even though I keep showing what total falacy/doublestandard it is.


...

Silent
CJ hit it-

...

Harvey
CJ is on a roll-
Harvey, we went over this adnauseum last year when the Sanete passed its bill with our amendment,
have you located the threads here of us going over this lats Feb?
Cause it was very educational of AMA actually starting to do For-Realsies Lobbying,
and just what we are lobbying for.
Those threads also pointed out how the Senate had already voted UNANIMOUSLY to have our amendment in the bill, prior to the start of AMA's letter drive campaign (meaning we were letterspamming legislators to pass what they had already just passed unanimously.

however, spincentral makes this statement about the letter campaign after the unanimous vote took place-
sheesh, a UNANIMOUS Senate vote BEFORE we sent the letters

...

Lopflyer
Welcome to the dark side,
you have mistakenly admitted that it causes problems for folks that simply dont belong to the AMA.
I guess that means there is going to be a dossier made for you and your anti-ama post


....


Lindsey
no, not 'only military' as you say
you are either intentionally(ama dogma) or unintentionally(ignorant of that information),
discounting our 15000+ recreational aeromodeling brethren at DIYDrones

KidEpoxy

oh, ok, lets run with that idea a sec (again)

So for non-members to fly a 60lb model, they just have to do it according to the AMA rules?

Bobby, do you see what Ace wrote?
How do you expect non-members to be able to follow the AMA's rules if they want to fly 60lb,
if our rules require pilots to hold a 55+ waiver issued by muncie?
Looking at all the anti-nonAMA posts around here, do you really see folks eager to supply the AMA required checks and endorsements to get that waiver issued to a non-member?


Now consider AMA's stand that at an ama club field you can do what they consider Maybe Commercial,
as long as you dont count on AMA insurance cause they cant say what you are doing wont be considered Commercial
(and the cute part is, if it is 'commercial' then it is 'illegal',
which puts muncie in the Wink&Nod seat for looking the other way over potentially illegal activity.
Wouldnt you support AMA saying something like:
If what you are doing at the AMA club might be illegal,
then it is forbidden by Muncie to do at the club, and a Charter Pull WILL result if you do it

and for the This Thread Tie-In:
Does that mean non-members can also
just not rely on AMA insurance when they fly what may be illegal/commercial (aka AMA uninsured)
which is the CBO way to do it and the non-member is doing it the CBO way ('it' being Maybe Illegal)

BobbyMcGee

We are not attorneys here, so we can only speculate. But from what I can figure out ... If someone wants to fly something heavier than 55 lb.,they should be an AMA member and get the weight restriction waiver (or whatever it's called). For the rest of us, as long as we fly safely (abiding by asafety code established by a national organization), we would be within the rules regardless if we were an AMA member or not.

That's my take on this.

I'll check with my daughter on Tuesday and see what/who she accomplished over the weekend.

KidEpoxy

Bobby
That dont make a lick of sense.

The only reason he would be FAA required to obey the CBO standard is because he is 60lb,
if he was below 55lb he can use the non-cbo default path of FAA limits (FAA limits like 55lb/400ft/No-Turbines etc)

So, at 50lb he dont have to use the CBO exclusion from the FAA/Legislature 'default' 55lb limit,
at 60lb he does have to 'Operate Within' the CBO standards that exceed the FAA default limit(55).

So, how can a non-member enjoy 60lb modeling by operating within CBO standards (that exceed FAA non-cbo limits)?

Either
we say nonmembers can use / 'operate within' the cbo standards without having a paid membership,
or
we say they HAVE TO JOIN/PAY AMA to operate a 55+ or 400'+ or Turbine model in america

or do you think there is something I am not considering?

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

The term , " line of sight" accurately describes the limitation of the radios that are currently available.

Our range is measured in only a few thousand feet. Our (FM and 2.4Ghz) radios do not transmit over the horizon, over/around hills, or over/around buildings.


The wording mentioned above, regaurding line of sight, does not take away any capabilities from us.

KidEpoxy

lemme trim the fat,
what I see it saying is


not quote-
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) the Federal Aviation Administration may not regulate model aircraft IF
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(2) the aircraft is operated within the programming of a CBO;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified by a CBO;
(4) the aircraft does not interfere with manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, provides prior notice of the operation



Only when the 5 conditions are met (cbo), the FAA cant regulate it.
But if one or more condition is not met, then the FAA is free to make up all kinds of regs and junk on toy airplanes.
We have been hearing for years that the FAA has no problem with a 2Tier plan, of a regulated Default path and the CBO freepass.

acerc

Kid you seem to know the rule's pretty well. Is there anywhere in the CBO/AMA guidline's that restrick flying from outside a chartered field.

acerc

deleted double post.

llindsey1965

My Feedback: (-1)

I AM 100% AMA HAVE BEEN SINCE 1988  I SUPPORT THE AMA AND CHARTERED CLUBS , ALL I WAS SAYING IS I FLY WITHIN THE LIMITS AND AND RULES OF OUR FIELD  , THIS SHOULDNT BOTHER US IS ALL I AM SAYING  , THE FAA IS CONCERNED ABOUT TERRORISM NOT US AT THE FIELD . THEY DON'T  WANT TO SAY THAT SO PEOPLE WON'T GET TERRIFIED , LAST YEAR SOME IDOIT PUT A BOMB INSIDE A RC PLANE  AND WAS CAUGHT  ,  JUST ENJOY FLYING AMA WILL TELL US WHEN TO RESPOND WITH LETTERS AND PHONE CALLS.

BobbyMcGee

I think this part of, LINEOFSIGHT, is referring to just that.It may have been incorporated becausetechnology advances have given us live video feedback (First Person Video for @ $800~ $1,000) that can allow somone to successfully fly their plane a mile or more (if they have that range) by wearing a set of special glasses that produces images on the lens that are fed from a small video camera mounted on the plane. Yep, for a cool grand you can get a live video feed from a camera mounted on the plane. No more waiting to download the video onto your computer.

Personally, none of the regulations the FAA is drawing up will affect me in any way. Life goes on as usual.

BobbyMcGee

Some of the guys at my flying field look like terrorists! So maybe the FAA will be checking out my flying field from time to time? ... If they are not already doing that!

Silent-AV8R

Sorry, this is completely incorrect. The FAA is not concerned about terrorism in the least. It is not their job. Their job is aviation safety and that is ALL they care about. Take a few moments to read any of the dozens of documents produced by the FAA on this topic and you will not see one singel reference to terroris. You will see endless references to safety.

Here's a sampling:

Plenty more where that came from too:

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/

e need to be focused and correct when the time comes to respond to the FAA, and comments about terrorism will have no effect, since that is not their responsibility. There are whole entire other government agencies charged with security concerns.

50+AirYears

Yesterday, a club member, who works for the local FAA, sent out an E-copy of the current House bill to the club roster, in which the definition is not restricted to Radio Controlled models This is apparently the reconcilliation bill to compromise on differences between the original House and Senate versions. With everything going on, it will probably be passed, almost as an afterthought.
The bill says nothing about having to join the AMA. Just says that if you want to fly, do it in accordance with a Community Based Organisation. At this time, the AMA happens to be the only one around in the US. Basically, to avoid trouble, just fly the plane safely, keep it in sight, and don't get in the way of full size people carrying aircraft.

Silent-AV8R

Interestingly enough, the FAA never intended to include or address free flight, since they are only concerned about aircraft that are capable of navigation. But they do have rules about rockets, especially high altitude rockets.

llindsey1965

My Feedback: (-1)

like i said i am not concerned , does not affect me , i fly safely and belong to the AMA , fly safe and god speed but most of all HAVE FUN
i JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO JOIN AMA DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME!!!!!!

KidEpoxy

ACERC
First, I have to give the standard acknowledgment
that we the AMA membership have not yet seem the secret AMA CBO Standards being drawn up for us by (FAA Sizemore and Muncie). However, folks like Silent will say that we will continue to do what we do the way we do it, but just have a new document describing it. For this discussion, we will forgo the hole in that concept and assume the rules we play by now will be the rules we play by in our AMA CBO Standard.... as soooo many folks here love to do when they say the upcoming changes dont affect them (without them actually seeing our Standard yet).


There is nothing in the current AMA mandates
that prohibit ama-insured flying form places other than chartered clubs fieldses.
There are qualifiers to that, for concerns like trespassing / permissions and illegal activities etc,
and one most still obey the Safety Code to maintain your insurance even away from the club.
However,
AMA Ilona not log ago answered a question if Sales Demo flights at AMA clubs was considered Commercial and not insured. She gave a firm noncommittal by saying that flying MAY BE considered commercial/business/non-hobby and therefore we members that do that at chartered club fields cannot rely on AMA insurance for it. She then suggested we carry outside insurance because AMA insurance might-not apply to that might-not be hobby flying.
Her text tells us 2 things:
We know 'promotional' flying cannot be just cut and dry declared 'hobby/non-commercial'
(else she would have made that declaration and actually answer the question);
and that AMA charterd club's fields are not restricted by Muncie to just pure hobby/rec flying, since she didnt just forbid the Potentionally Illegal Flying but instead suggested we simply carry outside insurance when doing MightBe-Commercial(illegal) stuff at the club.

So, Offclub you need to obey the SafetyCode to maintain AMA insurance,
and Oclub you just need to use outside insurance when breaking the AMA safetycode

ACE, you asked about restrictions off club,
but we dont even restrict onclub flying to prohibit stuff that sure looks illegal (commercial).
I bet your club is more aligned against violations of AMA Turbine rules (uh, actually legal) than they do about sales demos (currently potentially illegal). Even then, we heard a guy drop dime on a turbine meet that was just rounding radar speeds down to "199+" on the PA (since 200 is ama rule and we dont want to admit to breaking our own speed limit [:@])

Hope that answered you question,
but I doubt it cleared your mind over what we restrict and onto whom we restrict it.