Sport_Pilot

No typically when congress puts in a should, the regulatory agency can change it to a shall in the regulations.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Well... Everything I’ve heard or read either implies or directly states AMA is the org responsible for model aviation’s safety record in the NAS... that contention or assertion has the very real effect of being the basis for the differential we now see between non-AMA and the AMA (NCBO) modeler in the eyes of FAA. That is where the rub lies IMO. The proof of that effect is by the pure virtue of the "two paths” the FAA perceives prudent now...

Yes, AMA has always been quick to take credit for model aviation’s safety record and very little has been generated by the AMA giving credit to anyone outside the “fold”. Piece by piece, little by little, the independent modeler’s privilege has been and is being chipped away... IMO it appears AMA is playing a winner take all game...

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Interesting observation. I've never seen this happen, though I've read a lot of statutes and regulations. Could you give us an example? If this is something that "typically" happens, it ought to be easy to find some actual cases, though none occur to me offhand.

phlpsfrnk

Actually I have put it on a few other servers, not just RCU. This one however seems to be the only one that has generated any discussion.

Regards
Frank

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Do you have any evidence that there was any significant organized safety program for model aircraft on a national or even regional basis besides what the AMA created? Or is there any evidence that individuals did anything noticable outside the boundaries of the AMA to promote a reasonable unified safety code for model aircraft?

Sounds more like wishful thinking to me to consider that there was lots of significant things relating to model aircraft safety of operations done "outside the fold".

I suppose the IMAA folks contributed in some way with their model inspections at giant scale fly in events...that did go beyond what the AMA suggests. IRCHA does have a nice voluntary training program that one could say contributes to the safety of model helicopter operations.

phlpsfrnk

Don't mean to pick nits here but both of those organizations are a Special Interest Group (SIG) of the AMA, but it only makes your point stronger.

Regards
Frank

DadsToysBG

My Feedback: (35)

I really didn't want to get into this but I have to answer littlecrankshaf comment with a question. What other RC group has records of accidents and safety?
Who and what independent RC people went to the FCC with the AMA? Same question regarding the FAA meetings? Name one person that had a meeting with the FAA!
We have only one voice that speaks for all RC'ers in the US and that is the AMA. and I do mean ALL. Member or not. Dennis

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

That is well known and understood. I was a member of the IMAA back in the 1980s and IIRC, they were not an official SIG in the very beginning. They came under the SIG/AMA umbrella a little later. I do not know if the IRCHA was always a SIG, or not...was never a member or much of a heli pilot.

Even if we give those two small examples a little independant safety program credit and forget they are SIGs, they are extremely tiny compared to the safety footprint left in the hobby by the efforts of the AMA.

I am more than willing to give some credit to the common sense approach to model ops safety shown by the majority of all model flyers, AMA or not AMA. However, the folks that enact the laws do not see that on a regular basis like those of us in the hobby...they need facts and figures and the AMA is the only national org doing any sigificant documented work in this area.

KidEpoxy

hmmm, you got me there,
cant think of any national organized modeling group
other than AMA
with a history of modeling accidents, injuries, fullscale collisions, and even death-by-toy-aircraft

That is the point you are trying to make, aint it?
That we are the only ones with a history of accidents and dealing with those accidents?
We certainly havent heard about DIYDrones dealing with them killing people, chopping up girls in parks, or actually colliding with fullscales. And that is your point, right? We never heard of those types of accidents and accident-handling with other guys like we heard about with AMA.

KidEpoxy

LOL
When the FAA is behaving, we see folks credit it to muncie-

but when there is junk coming out of a meeting with FAA,
suddenly muncie had nothing to do with it and is a powerless pawn/lapdog to the FAA-

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Funny thing is, most people, rightfully so in most cases, perceive model airplanes as really cool and fun toys... Its not until the over compensating, typical devout AMA type starts citing scenarios, most usually purely hypothetical, of death and destruction does things start to degrade. Yes, we are our own worst enemies... AMA was never meant to be that way but unfortunately that is type of person that rises to the top in an organization like AMA...


The hobby as a whole has a great safety record...period! Not because of AMA... it is simply an inherently safe activity usually... Most people I observe in the hobby are very mindful of being safe for many reasons and one natural, that always reigns high for most, is the preservation of their precious toy...LOL

Seriously, I know many modelers outside the AMA and have always been impressed by their eye to safety. And I know many AMA members as well that push that envelope much further... Why is that? Not sure but the idea they are” insured” may actually justify taking greater chances in their mind...

DadsToysBG

My Feedback: (35)

See here we go around and around in circles. Kid some times I'm not sure if your comments are meant to be snide or sarcastic. but since the AMA has been around for 75 years then yes they have records of accidents by their members, but not non members.. And when drone flying has been done for 75 years and they have a national org. keeping records then they too will have a history to go by.
And to Little I agree being or not being a member of the AMA does not make you a safer pilot.
My point is that the government listens to org. with a a history that can make their case in safety. They will not listen to on person that tells them "I has flown for XXX years with no problem.
See here I am not wanting to be sucked in to this consent diatribe and now I'm posting. I respect everyone's opinion even if I think it misses the point, and I'll going to try real hard to stay out of endless what if's.
Enjoy the good flying weather that's coming and I would be glad to fly with you all. Dennis

KidEpoxy

well, considering this thread is supposed to be about what a great job MrP did with his letter,
I would hazard a guess that
if folks didnt try to shill AMA here
other folks wouldnt point out what lousy pitches the shills make

Come on,
what on earth does 75years of AMA accident records
have to do with the nice pdf MrP is supplying the hobby re PublicLaw112-95.
The law says you need to Provide Notice if you want protection, and MrP's letter does that in spades.


The proper response to seeing MrP's letter
is NOT ~ Whaaahh! AMA IS GREAT because its AMA!!!

DadsToysBG

My Feedback: (35)

Nope not going to do it. I'm back to getting my old plane ready to fly. Got the gear straight and putting new tires on it. Next I'm need to cycle the battery's.
Now this post is way off of the OP started. These threads never stay on point. Sorry you think I'm posting lousy pitches kid. Still like reading yours. Dennis

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

I have to somewhat disagree with that statement based on personal experience. When not a member of the AMA during a partial hiatus in the hobby in the 1990s, I was not very active and when I did fly, I often flew at some independent flying sites scattered around the DFW area. In general, the activities there were simply not as safe as at organized club fileds that typically keep fairly close to the AMA safety code.

Here is what I witnessed at some of these sites:

1. incredibly poor frequency control in the days before 2.4. People would get out their planes and turn on with zero reguard for who might be flying. Often due to complete ignorance on the part of new flyers, but not always. A few simply did not care.
2. flying too high near a major airport. One site was at the north end of the very old Greater Southwest regional airport, which butted up to the south end of DFW airport. Perfectly safe to fly at 400 feet or less, but flyers that knew better, plus some that did not, would fly much higher and there were a number of complaints from passing airliners.
3. Seemed to be a lot of very independent folks trying to teach themselves to fly before the days of good flight sims. You can write the endngs to most of these short uncontrolled flights.
4. No organized flight line...witnessed a couple of plane/car collisions and a plane/person collision due to no defined flight line and parking on the runway.

I do agree that the hobby is pretty safe, even when folks are just doing what they want to do. Not all folks at the independent sites were unsafe..most were safe operators. However, the overall safety difference from the independent sites and club sites was quite perceptible and lagged behind club sites following the AMA safety code.

Our public park club field was open to the general public in the 1980s (AMA was required starting in the 1990s) and the people that showed up there were pretty good about following the field rules, even if they were not AMA members. Thus, the AMA safety code and some guidance from club members helped even non members fly a little more safely at public fields.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

I can see that you have had a difference experience and I can respect that. I do find it interesting that you, such a advocate of keeping an open mind about hobby related things, are so closed off in this particular case and unwilling to respect the opinions and personal experiences of others that vary from your own.

I have seen a few safety issues at clubs and witnessed a few radio shoot downs at club fields, but I stand by my personal experience that the per capita safety issues were noticably less at organized club fields than at independent flying sites.

I will "buy" your experiences, since I was not present when you had them. Too bad you cannot extend the same courtesy.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

As well, with you “buying" my experiences...I buy yours... Your experiences that is... but it is the philosophical part I am not willing to concede based on just your experiences alone. I hope you can appreciate that...

As someone pointed out, accident records for non-AMA member are pretty scarce... Not sure whether the incidents are low or just so dang innocuous it doesn’t matter much but I lean towards both...LOL... Either way the same conclusion can be drawn... Model Aviation is a safe and worthwhile activity and any language contrary to that is not in our best interests... regardless of any agenda some have to propel AMA.

phlpsfrnk

How did my offer of a draft letter to local airports for the notification of RC activities turn into an AMA pro/con debate? Does anyone besides TimJ and KidEpoxy have any constructive criticisms of the form letter?

Regards
Frank

KidEpoxy

MrP
as an option-
you could reformat it to fit 3" wide
and have a balsa laser guy cut 'kits' of the pdf to build and give to the airports [8D]


... get it... 'constructive' comments

JohnShe

This whole forum is an AMA/FAA pro/con debate, it always has been. Unfortunately your thread got hijacked, like all the others.

As for your letter, I never read it, because it is unnecessary. The AMA and the FAA are in the process of working out a notification process that will include means of transmitting the necessary information between model aviators and airports. Until that process is defined and published, your letter will be unnecessary and may even result in confusion. The AMA has asked everyone to follow the current rules until the process is approved and published.

I am sure that you understand that the current rules restrict model aircraft altitudes to less than 400 ft when they are within 3 miles of an airport. This rule holds unless they have a standing agreement with the airport to operate at a higher altitude. Any field outside that 3 mile zone has no restrictions. And, as I have said before this rule will remain in effect until the new procedure is published and notification deadlines are established. At which time there will be an official format for transmitting the necessary information between the two parties. And, it won't be your letter.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Started with this; "The AMA went to the FAA for all RC'ers not just AMA members.” Just shedding light on how the AMA went to the FAA and the resulting two path differential that is clearly demonstrated right here in this thread.

Your letter is clearly aimed at AMA club interactions with airports... Seems we got on an alternate tangent as usual by someone proclaiming AMA is magnanimously promoting the hobby...

phlpsfrnk

Got it Kid,
of course fan-fold foam board would provide a larger format than 3" balsa and would be perfect for the "scratch builders" don't you think?

Frank

phlpsfrnk

John,
I am surprised and disappointed that you have an opinion about something that you “never read”.[] As for the “current rules restrict model aircraft altitudes to less than 400 ft when they are within 3 miles of an airport”, that is another issue. I’m also well aware of the FAA’s 30 year desire and advise to “not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface (period) (ref AC 91-57). This has been a hotly debated issue for many years over the referenced document and the AMA’s interpretation. It is obvious that you have not read the referenced document so I am providing it here. Please read before offering an opinion on it.

Regards
Frank

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)