View Poll Results: A poll
Voters: 60. You may not vote on this poll
Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
05-30-2012, 05:50 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
A recent written petition to the AMA to reconsider the First Person View (FPV) Operations 550.pdf raises the question of how far should the AMA go to support the FPV community?
https://www.change.org/petitions/pet...model-aircraft
First Person View (FPV) Operations
1. An FPV-equipped model must be flown by two AMA members utilizing a buddy-box system. The pilot in command must be on the primary transmitter, maintain visual contact, and be prepared to assume control in the event of a problem.
2. The operational range of the model is limited to the pilot in command’s visual line of sight as defined in the Official AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code (see Radio Control, item 9).
3. The flight path of model operations shall be limited to the designated flying site and approved overfly area.
4. The model weight and speed shall be limited to a maximum of 10 pounds and 60 miles per hour.
Regards
Frank
https://www.change.org/petitions/pet...model-aircraft
First Person View (FPV) Operations
1. An FPV-equipped model must be flown by two AMA members utilizing a buddy-box system. The pilot in command must be on the primary transmitter, maintain visual contact, and be prepared to assume control in the event of a problem.
2. The operational range of the model is limited to the pilot in command’s visual line of sight as defined in the Official AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code (see Radio Control, item 9).
3. The flight path of model operations shall be limited to the designated flying site and approved overfly area.
4. The model weight and speed shall be limited to a maximum of 10 pounds and 60 miles per hour.
Regards
Frank
05-30-2012, 06:00 AM
#2
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
I suggest that the FPV folks behind this petition read the HR 658 text which exempts models from FAA regulation if operated under a CBO program. One requirement is:
"(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft;"
So that seems to kill one of their main points right off the bat. The AMA cannot allow operations that violate the law as written.
In addition, if they would look at the 2009 ARC memo they would see the BLOS FPV operations will likely not be allowed under the FAA sUAS rules for at least the first 3 tiers of civil/public use operations/aircraft sizes detailed in the memo.
They need to grasp that while they enjoy this type of flying, it is laughable to call it the "future of model aviation."
So in my mind the AMA should leave the 550 document as is, since they really have no other option.
"(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft;"
So that seems to kill one of their main points right off the bat. The AMA cannot allow operations that violate the law as written.
In addition, if they would look at the 2009 ARC memo they would see the BLOS FPV operations will likely not be allowed under the FAA sUAS rules for at least the first 3 tiers of civil/public use operations/aircraft sizes detailed in the memo.
They need to grasp that while they enjoy this type of flying, it is laughable to call it the "future of model aviation."
So in my mind the AMA should leave the 550 document as is, since they really have no other option.
05-30-2012, 06:16 AM
#4
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
To say that it is operating within visual line of sght does not mean you have to be actually looking at it. Only that you can if you bother to look at it.
Also the law as written was to the FAA for guidance on writing their regulation. This will be more concrete after the regulations are written, commented on, and rewritten. To allow FPV or any present activities does not violate any law until such regulations are enacted.
Also the law as written was to the FAA for guidance on writing their regulation. This will be more concrete after the regulations are written, commented on, and rewritten. To allow FPV or any present activities does not violate any law until such regulations are enacted.
05-30-2012, 07:11 AM
#5
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
To say that it is operating within visual line of sght does not mean you have to be actually looking at it. Only that you can if you bother to look at it.
Also the law as written was to the FAA for guidance on writing their regulation. This will be more concrete after the regulations are written, commented on, and rewritten. To allow FPV or any present activities does not violate any law until such regulations are enacted.
To say that it is operating within visual line of sght does not mean you have to be actually looking at it. Only that you can if you bother to look at it.
Also the law as written was to the FAA for guidance on writing their regulation. This will be more concrete after the regulations are written, commented on, and rewritten. To allow FPV or any present activities does not violate any law until such regulations are enacted.
Regards
Frank
05-30-2012, 09:39 AM
#6
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
I voted No Changes needed.
I sent this message:
https://www.change.org/petitions/pet...model-aircraft
Should the AMA consider changes to the FPV rules?
I signed their petition as an OBJECTOR to FPV out side the pilot's view.
I object to any toy airplane being outside the ground pilot's eye-sight. I have survived large bird hits, at low level and up to 18,000 ft. MSL. I have had ALMOST Mid-Airs with several light airplanes, (the ones I SAW
) on their little excursions.
While I know nothing about current military low level activities, I see both military and civil helicopters almost daily at less than an estimated 1000 FT. AGL. I well remember the attention it takes a jet pilot when on a 1000+ mile low level bomb-run. BTDT!
If a guy quits AMA because of AMA's position reference FPV, then so be it.
I sent this message:
https://www.change.org/petitions/pet...model-aircraft
Should the AMA consider changes to the FPV rules?
I signed their petition as an OBJECTOR to FPV out side the pilot's view.
I object to any toy airplane being outside the ground pilot's eye-sight. I have survived large bird hits, at low level and up to 18,000 ft. MSL. I have had ALMOST Mid-Airs with several light airplanes, (the ones I SAW
) on their little excursions. While I know nothing about current military low level activities, I see both military and civil helicopters almost daily at less than an estimated 1000 FT. AGL. I well remember the attention it takes a jet pilot when on a 1000+ mile low level bomb-run. BTDT!
If a guy quits AMA because of AMA's position reference FPV, then so be it.
05-30-2012, 10:59 AM
#7
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FrederickMD
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
The only change I would make to the FPV guidelines would be removal of the weight/speed requirement. If the plane is operated IAW all other AMA rules, on a buddy box, within VLOS, the weight and speed restrictions add nothing.
Brad
Brad
06-01-2012, 05:15 AM
#8
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
I suggest that the FPV folks behind this petition read the HR 658 text which exempts models from FAA regulation if operated under a CBO program. One requirement is:
"(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft;"
So that seems to kill one of their main points right off the bat. The AMA cannot allow operations that violate the law as written.
In addition, if they would look at the 2009 ARC memo they would see the BLOS FPV operations will likely not be allowed under the FAA sUAS rules for at least the first 3 tiers of civil/public use operations/aircraft sizes detailed in the memo.
They need to grasp that while they enjoy this type of flying, it is laughable to call it the "future of model aviation."
So in my mind the AMA should leave the 550 document as is, since they really have no other option.
I suggest that the FPV folks behind this petition read the HR 658 text which exempts models from FAA regulation if operated under a CBO program. One requirement is:
"(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft;"
So that seems to kill one of their main points right off the bat. The AMA cannot allow operations that violate the law as written.
In addition, if they would look at the 2009 ARC memo they would see the BLOS FPV operations will likely not be allowed under the FAA sUAS rules for at least the first 3 tiers of civil/public use operations/aircraft sizes detailed in the memo.
They need to grasp that while they enjoy this type of flying, it is laughable to call it the "future of model aviation."
So in my mind the AMA should leave the 550 document as is, since they really have no other option.
A CBO (i.e. AMA or any other) has NO AUTHORITY to allow RC model aircraft flight BEYOND VISUAL LINE OF SIGHT (VLOS) either for FPV or non FPV flying.
Brad
06-01-2012, 05:18 AM
#9
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
06-01-2012, 05:52 AM
#10
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: City
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
ORIGINAL: bkdavy
The only change I would make to the FPV guidelines would be removal of the weight/speed requirement. If the plane is operated IAW all other AMA rules, on a buddy box, within VLOS, the weight and speed restrictions add nothing.
Brad
The only change I would make to the FPV guidelines would be removal of the weight/speed requirement. If the plane is operated IAW all other AMA rules, on a buddy box, within VLOS, the weight and speed restrictions add nothing.
Brad
I am in agreement with you bkdavy.
In reading the letter posted in the original post link, my first thought was that the reasons cited were childish and unsubstantiated.
06-02-2012, 11:20 AM
#11
Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: League City, TX
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
I fly FPV. Due to AMA rules, I can't fly fpv at the club field. I do it at my house. The feild at my house is much bigger but there are less places to land. I do it anyway because it's just fun.
I have my HAM radio license so you can't argue that this is illegal for me to do. I agree with the line of sight rule/law. However I don't think it should be mandatory to have two people doing buddy box. My transmitter isn't compatible with buddy box and I'm not spending $400+ on a transmitter that can do it. Those 2.4GHz transmitter's aren't even compatible with my video transmitting equipment so even if I could shell out that huge amount of money on something I wouldn't spend it on a transmitter I don't need. I am forced to use old but still fully functional 72MHz control equipment which doesn't have buddy box (or at least mine doesn't).
I also think the 10 pound and 60mph limit is just a little harsh. My plane weighs less than 10 pounds but I don't see why people shoudln't be allowed to fly fpv on their huge 108 inchers. I don't know how fast I go but I doubt I stay under the 60mph speed limit.
The bottom line is that I can't buy a whole new transmitter just to use buddy box and I'm not willing to comply with the 60mph speed limit. So I just fly at my house in the middle of nowhere outside of AMA rules. It's just having fun like we are all trying to do
I have my HAM radio license so you can't argue that this is illegal for me to do. I agree with the line of sight rule/law. However I don't think it should be mandatory to have two people doing buddy box. My transmitter isn't compatible with buddy box and I'm not spending $400+ on a transmitter that can do it. Those 2.4GHz transmitter's aren't even compatible with my video transmitting equipment so even if I could shell out that huge amount of money on something I wouldn't spend it on a transmitter I don't need. I am forced to use old but still fully functional 72MHz control equipment which doesn't have buddy box (or at least mine doesn't).
I also think the 10 pound and 60mph limit is just a little harsh. My plane weighs less than 10 pounds but I don't see why people shoudln't be allowed to fly fpv on their huge 108 inchers. I don't know how fast I go but I doubt I stay under the 60mph speed limit.
The bottom line is that I can't buy a whole new transmitter just to use buddy box and I'm not willing to comply with the 60mph speed limit. So I just fly at my house in the middle of nowhere outside of AMA rules. It's just having fun like we are all trying to do
06-02-2012, 11:54 AM
#12
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
Not sure what having your amateur radio license has to do with anything, especially since you are flying on 72 and not 6-meters. I suspect down the line that the FAA rules will not allow it for models that are not operating under AMA/CBO rules, and if you are operating under AMA rules then you will need to comply with those.
06-02-2012, 12:17 PM
#13
My Feedback: (35)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Bowling Green,
KY
Posts: 2,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
At this point in time Veraster can do what ever he wants on his property. He has no AMA coverage. And any accident is on his HO only. Now when the FAA finally does come out with their rules and he still flys FPV's the way he wants too, he'll have to answer to the FAA should he have a accident that causes property or bodily harm. Dennis
06-02-2012, 03:04 PM
#14
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
Not sure what having your amateur radio license has to do with anything, especially since you are flying on 72 and not 6-meters. I suspect down the line that the FAA rules will not allow it for models that are not operating under AMA/CBO rules, and if you are operating under AMA rules then you will need to comply with those.
Not sure what having your amateur radio license has to do with anything, especially since you are flying on 72 and not 6-meters. I suspect down the line that the FAA rules will not allow it for models that are not operating under AMA/CBO rules, and if you are operating under AMA rules then you will need to comply with those.
What business of FAA is the frequency he is flying on?
If you meant something something else by 'it' in saying you suspect FAA rules will not allow 'it,' what is 'it?'
If 'it' is FPV ops by non-CBO modelers, they would have merry chase enforcing a ban. There's a lot of FPVmodeling going on, and darn little of it in places where AMA has any influence or visibility of it..........nor cash flow from it. Some in AMA are attempting to be less inhospitable to modelers with an interest in it.
06-02-2012, 04:27 PM
#16
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
ORIGINAL: DadsToysBG
At this point in time Veraster can do what ever he wants on his property. He has no AMA coverage. And any accident is on his HO only. Now when the FAA finally does come out with their rules and he still flys FPV's the way he wants too, he'll have to answer to the FAA should he have a accident that causes property or bodily harm. Dennis
At this point in time Veraster can do what ever he wants on his property. He has no AMA coverage. And any accident is on his HO only. Now when the FAA finally does come out with their rules and he still flys FPV's the way he wants too, he'll have to answer to the FAA should he have a accident that causes property or bodily harm. Dennis
Exactly my thoughts.
06-02-2012, 07:13 PM
#17
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan,
IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
ORIGINAL: Veraster
I fly FPV. Due to AMA rules, I can't fly fpv at the club field. I do it at my house. The feild at my house is much bigger but there are less places to land. I do it anyway because it's just fun.
I have my HAM radio license so you can't argue that this is illegal for me to do. I agree with the line of sight rule/law. However I don't think it should be mandatory to have two people doing buddy box. My transmitter isn't compatible with buddy box and I'm not spending $400+ on a transmitter that can do it. Those 2.4GHz transmitter's aren't even compatible with my video transmitting equipment so even if I could shell out that huge amount of money on something I wouldn't spend it on a transmitter I don't need. I am forced to use old but still fully functional 72MHz control equipment which doesn't have buddy box (or at least mine doesn't).
I also think the 10 pound and 60mph limit is just a little harsh. My plane weighs less than 10 pounds but I don't see why people shoudln't be allowed to fly fpv on their huge 108 inchers. I don't know how fast I go but I doubt I stay under the 60mph speed limit.
The bottom line is that I can't buy a whole new transmitter just to use buddy box and I'm not willing to comply with the 60mph speed limit. So I just fly at my house in the middle of nowhere outside of AMA rules. It's just having fun like we are all trying to do
I fly FPV. Due to AMA rules, I can't fly fpv at the club field. I do it at my house. The feild at my house is much bigger but there are less places to land. I do it anyway because it's just fun.
I have my HAM radio license so you can't argue that this is illegal for me to do. I agree with the line of sight rule/law. However I don't think it should be mandatory to have two people doing buddy box. My transmitter isn't compatible with buddy box and I'm not spending $400+ on a transmitter that can do it. Those 2.4GHz transmitter's aren't even compatible with my video transmitting equipment so even if I could shell out that huge amount of money on something I wouldn't spend it on a transmitter I don't need. I am forced to use old but still fully functional 72MHz control equipment which doesn't have buddy box (or at least mine doesn't).
I also think the 10 pound and 60mph limit is just a little harsh. My plane weighs less than 10 pounds but I don't see why people shoudln't be allowed to fly fpv on their huge 108 inchers. I don't know how fast I go but I doubt I stay under the 60mph speed limit.
The bottom line is that I can't buy a whole new transmitter just to use buddy box and I'm not willing to comply with the 60mph speed limit. So I just fly at my house in the middle of nowhere outside of AMA rules. It's just having fun like we are all trying to do
for pennies on the dollar.
OTOH, I agree with you that the buddy boxing requirement is a bit nanny-ish.
The speed and weight rule seems arbitrary, where did those numbers come from?
It would be interesting to see how many FPV'ers would take advantage of an AMA club facility if those two rules were relaxed.
My opinion is, not many, since to me, flying within LOS (and the property boundaries many clubs establish) would make FPV rather boring.
And, if FAA were after all to bless BLOS FPV, I can't see AMA doing the same, since they ultimately have to answer to Westchester, or similar, as to what is acceptable
use of our hobby aircraft.
06-02-2012, 08:33 PM
#18
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
ORIGINAL: 804
And, if FAA were after all to bless BLOS FPV,
And, if FAA were after all to bless BLOS FPV,
If you read the ARC memo from April 2009 you will see that BLOS operations for commercial/public agency sUAS is likely not going to be permitted except for the largest classes. The more typical model size sUAS will likely be prohibited to fly BLOS. Given that, I am betting it is unlikely that the AMA will permit it regardless of the insurance concerns.
06-03-2012, 03:31 AM
#19
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan,
IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
If you read the ARC memo from April 2009 you will see that BLOS operations for commercial/public agency sUAS is likely not going to be permitted except for the largest classes. The more typical model size sUAS will likely be prohibited to fly BLOS. Given that, I am betting it is unlikely that the AMA will permit it regardless of the insurance concerns.
ORIGINAL: 804
And, if FAA were after all to bless BLOS FPV,
And, if FAA were after all to bless BLOS FPV,
If you read the ARC memo from April 2009 you will see that BLOS operations for commercial/public agency sUAS is likely not going to be permitted except for the largest classes. The more typical model size sUAS will likely be prohibited to fly BLOS. Given that, I am betting it is unlikely that the AMA will permit it regardless of the insurance concerns.
My point is that I think AMA's hands are tied with regard to BLOS from both directions, FAA and Big Daddy insurance.
06-03-2012, 06:23 AM
#20
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk
A recent written petition to the AMA to reconsider the First Person View (FPV) Operations 550.pdf raises the question of how far should the AMA go to support the FPV community?
A recent written petition to the AMA to reconsider the First Person View (FPV) Operations 550.pdf raises the question of how far should the AMA go to support the FPV community?
06-03-2012, 08:56 AM
#21
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
ORIGINAL: rgburrill
How far? FPV has been a thorn in AMA's side for at least the 20 years I have been in it. And quite rightly so. It's not that FPV by itself is bad - it's that the people who do it just don't believe in rules. And they destroy our entire community with their blatant disregard for those rules.
ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk
A recent written petition to the AMA to reconsider the First Person View (FPV) Operations 550.pdf raises the question of how far should the AMA go to support the FPV community?
A recent written petition to the AMA to reconsider the First Person View (FPV) Operations 550.pdf raises the question of how far should the AMA go to support the FPV community?
06-03-2012, 07:42 PM
#22
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
If you read the ARC memo from April 2009 you will see that BLOS operations for commercial/public agency sUAS is likely not going to be permitted except for the largest classes. The more typical model size sUAS will likely be prohibited to fly BLOS. Given that, I am betting it is unlikely that the AMA will permit it regardless of the insurance concerns.
ORIGINAL: 804
And, if FAA were after all to bless BLOS FPV,
And, if FAA were after all to bless BLOS FPV,
If you read the ARC memo from April 2009 you will see that BLOS operations for commercial/public agency sUAS is likely not going to be permitted except for the largest classes. The more typical model size sUAS will likely be prohibited to fly BLOS. Given that, I am betting it is unlikely that the AMA will permit it regardless of the insurance concerns.
There is no requirement to comply with AMA rules, especially from your private property.However,It would be a problem if making a claim against the AMA insurance.
06-03-2012, 09:50 PM
#23
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
There is no requirement to comply with AMA rules, especially from your private property. However, It would be a problem if making a claim against the AMA insurance.
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
If you read the ARC memo from April 2009 you will see that BLOS operations for commercial/public agency sUAS is likely not going to be permitted except for the largest classes. The more typical model size sUAS will likely be prohibited to fly BLOS. Given that, I am betting it is unlikely that the AMA will permit it regardless of the insurance concerns.
ORIGINAL: 804
And, if FAA were after all to bless BLOS FPV,
And, if FAA were after all to bless BLOS FPV,
If you read the ARC memo from April 2009 you will see that BLOS operations for commercial/public agency sUAS is likely not going to be permitted except for the largest classes. The more typical model size sUAS will likely be prohibited to fly BLOS. Given that, I am betting it is unlikely that the AMA will permit it regardless of the insurance concerns.
There is no requirement to comply with AMA rules, especially from your private property. However, It would be a problem if making a claim against the AMA insurance.
That is the current situation. I was speaking of in the future when I suspect that the FAA will prohibit FPV-BLOS for most civil/public agency sUAS as well as non CBO/AMA models. If that is the case then I strongly suspect that the AMA will not have more lax restrictions on FPV. But we will have to wait to see what the FAA actually does.
06-04-2012, 08:18 AM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
ORIGINAL: warningshot
But yet many of them are AMA members.
ORIGINAL: rgburrill
How far? FPV has been a thorn in AMA's side for at least the 20 years I have been in it. And quite rightly so. It's not that FPV by itself is bad - it's that the people who do it just don't believe in rules. And they destroy our entire community with their blatant disregard for those rules.
ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk
A recent written petition to the AMA to reconsider the First Person View (FPV) Operations 550.pdf raises the question of how far should the AMA go to support the FPV community?
A recent written petition to the AMA to reconsider the First Person View (FPV) Operations 550.pdf raises the question of how far should the AMA go to support the FPV community?
The ONLY people that CAN break ama rules are ama members.
I know a Dry parish in Louisiana,
do we say all the folks in america that drink beer are breaking the rules?
Of course not,
that one parish's rules dont apply outside the parish,
just as that one member org's(AMA) rules dont apply outside the membership.
Perhaps if someone considers the few badapple PFV rulebreakers can tarnish the whole FPV community,
then surely that person would say a few badapple AMA member rulebreakers tarnish the whole AMA.
Of course, I dont slur an entire aeromodeling discipline over the action of a few bad apples,
but that seems to be a popular way to do things among AMA members & leaders
... yet they cry foul when it is done to them
06-04-2012, 08:37 AM
#25
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
+1
The ONLY people that CAN break ama rules are ama members.
I know a Dry parish in Louisiana,
do we say all the folks in america that drink beer are breaking the rules?
Of course not,
that one parish's rules dont apply outside the parish,
just as that one member org's(AMA) rules dont apply outside the membership.
Perhaps if someone considers the few badapple PFV rulebreakers can tarnish the whole FPV community,
then surely that person would say a few badapple AMA member rulebreakers tarnish the whole AMA.
Of course, I dont slur an entire aeromodeling discipline over the action of a few bad apples,
but that seems to be a popular way to do things among AMA members & leaders
... yet they cry foul when it is done to them
ORIGINAL: warningshot
But yet many of them are AMA members.
ORIGINAL: rgburrill
How far? FPV has been a thorn in AMA's side for at least the 20 years I have been in it. And quite rightly so. It's not that FPV by itself is bad - it's that the people who do it just don't believe in rules. And they destroy our entire community with their blatant disregard for those rules.
ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk
A recent written petition to the AMA to reconsider the First Person View (FPV) Operations 550.pdf raises the question of how far should the AMA go to support the FPV community?
A recent written petition to the AMA to reconsider the First Person View (FPV) Operations 550.pdf raises the question of how far should the AMA go to support the FPV community?
The ONLY people that CAN break ama rules are ama members.
I know a Dry parish in Louisiana,
do we say all the folks in america that drink beer are breaking the rules?
Of course not,
that one parish's rules dont apply outside the parish,
just as that one member org's(AMA) rules dont apply outside the membership.
Perhaps if someone considers the few badapple PFV rulebreakers can tarnish the whole FPV community,
then surely that person would say a few badapple AMA member rulebreakers tarnish the whole AMA.
Of course, I dont slur an entire aeromodeling discipline over the action of a few bad apples,
but that seems to be a popular way to do things among AMA members & leaders
... yet they cry foul when it is done to them
You do know that by paying AMA $58 a year, one is immune from the scrutiny that plagues the rest of the modeling community, don't you??? AMA is good, the light and the way of salvation...