littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

You do? Guess what??? I don't think so... I really don't have to answer to you.

JohnShe

You know, this is a discussion forum. The goal is to exchange ideas, thoughts, information, misinformation. well founded opinions and poorly thought out opinions, and a lot of other stuff. A successful discussion should result in all participants learning something. In order for this to happen, the participants like you and I need to exchange some or all of the above in a nice fraternal manner.

The point of the post, that you have responded to was to understand the post that I was responding to. Since I was not sure that I had understood the aforementioned post of yours, I thought it reasonable to ask a few questions in order to avoid a possible misunderstanding. With that in mind, your response to my questions suggest that instead of a genuine participant in this discussion forum, you are nothing more than a troll. Did I get that right?

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Ask without demanding and I'll oblige...But BIG BUT if you think I need to comply based on your assessment, that is in error.

Now, if you would like to ask me a reasonable question, without the inherent vilification or otherwise impending culpability of your judgment of my position, I will be glad to respond. Respect goes both ways or not at all...savvy?

Your questions thus far are very much like if I asked you if your mom ever caught you "eating cake"(or fill in the blank) in a closet... But more to the point, most of your answers can be garnered by reading previous posts.

JohnShe

What demand?

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

No nerve hit at all, as expressed by the smiley in the part of the post you did not bother to quote.

i found the analogy humorous, but not relevant enough to be meaningful.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Your findings are great...for you...but others may feel otherwise.

If the "wait and see what happens" theory is fine for you, then great...because thats probably how it will work anyway but very hard to put the genie back in the bottle once out.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Still not getting what I said and surprised that you, of people decided to change what I said to match your agenda..
I said wait and see what the "shape" of AMA's approach to this issue. We will see the shape when the AMA asks us what we think of what they come up with. Then people can "wait and see what happens", or to raise hell about it before it is adopted.

I think a person needs to know what the AMA has in mind in order to react accordingly.

This is going to be a controversial enough issue for most of the membership that it will not happen overnight, fully formed and as a done deal.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

Ok guys, I've removed some posts from the thread because they have ventured into the realm of Politics, which is absolutely verboten on RCU. Unless the politics being discussed directly affect the world of RC we're not going to discuss them here. If you want to post your political leanings online there are plenty of forums for you to do that, RCU's not the place for it. So please take it elsewhere. Also, if I have missed a post from being deleted please don't try to "catch me" on it. I'm human and I don't always catch everything. Just point out the post I missed and I'll take a second look.

Ken

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Ok...maybe there is a bit of misunderstanding here. You rhetorical question about whether I know what "shape" means seemed very condescending to me...but I 'm willing to "give" you the benefit of doubt this time and chalk it up to semantics. I guess your definition of "shape" in this context may be in regards to what AMA may propose... My definition of "shape" is after the carving has been done... I hope we can get on the same page now.

Now, as for as AMA waiting to get our weighed response before throwing the machinery into gear...I wouldn't hold my breath...the Park Pilot program should still be fresh in everyone's mind that gives a flying flip.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Semantic stumbles do hurt communication at times.

As odd as your comparison of this topic to Obamacare was, one thing I did make note of. Before Obamacare was passed, we had endless reporting and discussion and argument on the "shape" of the program, well before they decided to "pass it and see what happens".

Nothing that came to pass came as any surprise to people that cared enough to keep abreast of the situation.

The AMA trying the Park Pilot program was, I think, well with their charter of promoting model aviation. Their consideration of possibly supporting light commercial use of sUAS aircraft is not nearly as clear cut and is going to be far more controversial than the PP program. I simply do not see the AMA slapping this new concept into place overnight and sorting out the consequences later.

I need to know the details before I support or condemn the program. If it is handled correctly, it need not take way a single thing from those that enjoy and prefer what model aviation has been up until the present day. It would simply add possible options for those that want to embrace new technologies and allow the AMA to expand their membership base.

If it does take anything away from the average modeler I will be first in line to raise hell about it.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I respectfully disagree...and that is probably further than I should go given Ken's previous admonishments but simply can't let that one go unchecked.

JohnShe

I strongly agree with you Tom, we need to know what the AMA is thinking before we can take appropriate action.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

if AMA follows recent form, they will just announce what they have decided to implement, as it is implemented, and worry about squashing whatever resistance springs up after the fact.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

I am glad to respectfully agree to respectfully disagree.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Not so sure about that in this case. Perhaps yes, if the AMA come up with some sort of new membership catagory for light commercial sUAS. That way the folks that want to do it join as a different sort of AMA members. Probably not if it is approached in any other way, due to the controversial nature of the idea.

The AMA's Park Pilot membership was discussed at some length before giving it a try and it was not nearly as controversial as this issue will be.

JohnShe

My main concern is to know how the AMA plans to avoid conflict with the recreational use only part of the model aviation definition in the FAA modernization act.

Hossfly

Sorry Sir: Mongo in Post #213 is entirely correct. The Park Pilot was a "Done Deal" before even the EC was truly informed of the program. When they got real wind of the program then they all fell into line and became good children.

The Park Pilot Program was simply another "Lay it on 'em!" like this SUV - FPV - UAS, or whatever it is called program that satisfies the AMA's folks to get a bunch of money in the pot from the people in the business. Take a look at the Jan. 2014 Model Aviation. Don't miss page 95, 96 & 97. Great to read but simply a sales job for FPV, and check that several spots are there to illustrate that these fellows are there, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE HOBBYSTS, but simply looking for a target to sell their wares to. The first paragraph of the page 97 Text lays it on the line. For one like me that pays much attention to what is NOT said as to what is said, well they rather, IMO, really smack those that promoted model aviation, as it was back in the early days, mostly 1930s, 1940s.

The entire magazine pushes for the advertisers, and most articles are pushing new stuff much more-so than trying to illustrate the joy of aeromodeling for all hobbyists past, present, and future. I still say the Horizon and AMA ad. inside front cover and page one throw Safety out the window as far as youth readers are concerned. They're gonna' get the bearded kid in the crotch if they keep trying.
Bob Brown must have a ghost writer. First ever really neat column from him, IMO! Last 3 statements: 1. EC updating Bylaws. Wonder who has pushed that for some 10 years past? 2. Big Event for all kinds of modeling. Wonder where? 3. EC and AMA staff working in innovative positive direction? WOW! Working for WHAT?

JohnShe

OK, I read the article and you are correct, this Roswell FTC is very transparent in their intent to use sUAS technology commercially. I think that is dangerous ground for the AMA to step on. The AMA is supposed to be there for us hobbyists, not for business enterprise.

Maybe it is time to start sending letters to our AMA leadership to let them know how concerned we are.

I know that some AMA people at a high level read these discussions groups. Maybe it is time for a response from them.

On the other side of the commercial coin, I think that business have every right to market technology to us hobbyists for recreational purposes. That is what our local hobby shops were doing for years. And if they buy advertisements in our journals and sponsor hobby related events, that is a good thing too. But, you are also correct, the advertisements should be responsible and not encourage dangerous behavior. Don't forget, we don't have to buy their products.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

kinda gotta wonder how this "light commercial use" embracing is going to mesh with the "general R/C hobbyist" wording of the MOU(or whatever it is) that AMA and FAA are signing on the main stage at AMA expo.
seems like a built in conflict to me.

JohnShe

"light commercial use" is like being a little bit pregnant.

bruceal

I chimed in on this post back in the beginning. My concerns about FPV were simply pilots flying outside the designated flying areas of established fields. In my case, there is an active heliport, County park and a large marina right across the street. Last night I came across "Doomsday Preppers" on tv. There was a guy that wants to use FPV for different things. While he was demonstrating, he had no problem flying over other peoples property. How can the AMA think that they can control this? These actions have become so common place that I'm sure that these people don't see anything wrong with it. I fear for the future of the hobby with all of this going on. There needs to be a separation between drones and the average hobbyist. It also concerns me that there are so many FPV ads in Model Aviation lately.
I founded my club and I am the guy who deals with the land owner which happens to be the Town. We currently have a "NO FPV" rule and we stand by it. For every argument I get about FPV being safe to fly at a club field, I find videos showing people flying over populated areas with no regard for the current AMA regulations. All I can say is that the AMA is going to do what they are going to do. My hope is that those clubs that do permit FPV, enforce the rules so that we can minimize incidents of aircraft originating from AMA flying sites.

JohnShe

Well, I don't agree totally with you about some of your points.

First, as far as I am concerned, as long as FPV flyers obey AMA and club rules, they are as safe as any other mode of RC flying. Not perfectly safe but at least the risks are well managed. And I really don't understand why responsible and safe FPV operation cannot be allowed at your club field. As a club, you can control their behavior. You can eject anyone on repeatedly flouts the rules for any mode of flying.

Second, there are many irresponsible A-holes out there who will not obey any rules. The AMA cannot in any way be responsible for them or in any way manage them. That is not our job as AMA members. What we can do is report irresponsible behavior to the authorities. For those who cause damages or injuries, and many will, it is the force of the law that will have to deal with it. It is up to us as AMA and club members to behave responsibly.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

So, if a long time member of your club showed up with a camera mounted to his Senior Kadet he would be told he couldn't fly it?

bruceal

I never said that a camera was a problem, only FPV. The problem is that who is going to be at the field and police people 24/7. Some clubs don't have the luxury of an "oops" moment, and we are one of them. As for FPV being as safe as other forms of the hobby, sure it can be. But how many people do you know that want to invest in a nice FPV set up to fly where everyone else does. My point is that the AMA isn't going to stop the Town from removing us when they get complaints from a heliport and marina that pays hefty taxes. The AMA says we have 550 and 560 as guidelines for FPV to follow. I say good luck with that.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

The reason I ask is the same motivations to get imagery would be similar.The Kadet could be flown over the shipyard as well...