Charley

My Feedback: (2)

You forgot the emoticon.

CR

cj_rumley

You're right, but fortunately you didn't need to see it explicitly.

I actually do agree with your DVP. Even though I think if would be futile, at least it wouldn't do any harm, unlike the path our AMA is on. He is not in the majority of the EC on this, obviously, and bless him for daring to hold a minority opinion about what should be done. An example of where the majority is coming from is in the response to the Pirker decision. MAAC immediately responded with an emphatic "he's not one of us." AMA released a press report that said they were studying the impact of the judgement. No subsequent word on what they determined as a result of that study. Don't want to alienate the market that is the objective of their current sell.

Correction: The outrage expressed by MAAC was over a close encounter between a UAS and a manned aircraft, not the decision in the Pirker case. Just happened the events were nearly concurrent and my immediate recollection was of the AMA vs MAAC responses better than the particular events that prompted them.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

traditionally, a little more than 50% of AMA members do NOT belong to any club.
myself being one of those.
now, my data is some 10 years old, but it is long term and i haven't seen anything that would make me want to say it was any more than 50/50 for any given year.

cj_rumley

You didn't need to see my omitted emoticon either, did you.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Who says there aren't already a significant number of FPV users involved with the AMA already? Where are your numbers on the "unaligned" FPV community, and where do you come up with the idea that the AMA needs to make anything attractive to manufacturers? They could probably care less, they will continue to make them regardless.

Disagree completely. Spend money on a PR campaign? Totally wasted money. Who would they try to convince, congress, the FAA? How would they ever track if that was successful? I could see the handwringing now about the ads, where they ran, etc etc. Nobody would be happy. It would never ever ever happen, not at that kind of spending. You would need 10 times that amount to even get stared. You could plant 10 positive "spin" stories, and another 5 great videos, and it would all be wasted when another story popped up about a "drone" buzzing a national park, or a beach, or falling and causing injury, or how about dropping into a hot spring at Yellowstone. By the way, have you ever heard the AMA mentioned in ANY of those new stories about these incidents? Never. They never associate the actions of those few people with the AMA. I've never seen it. So why then turn around and highlight the situation again, and say, hey....they aren't one of us. Just not realistic.

Can hardly believe that was actually memorialized in writing. Kick dues paying members out of the AMA because they don't belong to a club. Shortsighted, punitive, knee jerky, reactionary, and completely counterproductive. Probably unenforceable and almost impossible to administer too. Will never ever happen, and shouldn't.

Shortsighted, punitive, knee jerky, reactionary, and completely counterproductive. Intolerant and close-minded as well. I haven't seen anything even remotely close to the AMA poking the FAA in the eye. So far they are the only organization attempting to work through this issue with the FAA. Although it's difficult, and expensive, time-consuming, and sometimes disappointing, I think the AMA is doing the best they can with this. If not them, who?

The simple fact is FPV is a completely valid and appropriate part of this hobby. It has the same place in this hobby that emerging technology of yesteryear had....giant scale, high altitude gliders, helis etc. Multi rotor is probably the largest growth segment that this hobby has seen in years. Thousands and thousands of people fly MR and some incorporate FPV into their operation. As long as it's done appropriately, who is anyone to say they shouldn't be involved in this hobby?

There are many useful applications of FPV, and as the technology improves, there will be even more uses for it in the future. There will be allowances made for light commercial (like say a farmer using this tech to assist in his farming operation, or a sports team shooting video of their park/games etc). Universities are already creating classes around this, and civil entities (police, fire, rescue) are looking into the technology as well. I've got to imagine some of the folks at the AMA think that spending this money will help ensure these allowances are made, the technology advances, and AMA rules and regulations are the "go to" standards on how things should be done. Could it be said that AMA areomodeling education could benefit many in operating within the NAS safely? Perhaps the money that is spent today in working with and developing these programs won't impair the future of the discipline, rather it will ensure it?

Or is it easier to just write it all off, kick "those" people out, and just go on our merry way?

cj_rumley

Do you ever bother to read what you are replying to?

Stickbuilder

Why are we supporting FPV in the first place? We are supposed to be line of sight flyers.

Bill Hurt AMA 4720

JohnShe

Good question stick. Here's the thing. First, we model aviators are always on the lookout for new technology that will add to the fun of flying our model airplanes. FPV is such a technology. Now, while I have no immediate plans or even long term plans to investigate the technology, I think it is important that it be available to us for our recreational purposes. To that end, I think we should support it and try to find a way for the FAA to allow us to use and experiment with it if we apply reasonable risk management techniques. The AMA has already expressed support for FPV be developing an official safety guideline for operating FPV safely.

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

I surmise that the AMA is trying to stay relevant in a changing technological environment.

CR

phlpsfrnk

[ATTACH]2024450[/IMG]John,
I agree, and I think the AMA got it right the first time (see attached). The original 550.pdf half page with 4 simple rules would still be in compliance with the current FAA interpretation of section 336. The verbose two full page technospeak 550.pdf document that came later is not in compliance and should never have been accepted by the LOS flying community of the AMA. This was nothing more than some kind of appeasement to the FPV community. The current documentation needs to change back to the spotter being the PIC on the primary transmitter with the FPV pilot on the secondary controls so the spotter (PIC) maintains positive LOS control.

Frank

PS Attachmet is at the top of this post, don't quite have the hang of attaching docs.

cj_rumley

Depends..........currently AMA allows it but FAA, charged with enforcement of applicable federal statutes, does not - they require model aircraft to be flown line of sight, which by their definition means pilot's eyes on the aircraft. At any rate, flying model aircraft isn't at issue in this discussion thread, because the $250,000 allocation of funds is for expansion of AMA turf beyond model airplanes, whether as defined by AMA or FAA. Welcome to the Academy of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Aeronautics.

eddieC

My Feedback: (2)

That's true, when your definition of changing technological environment is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Precisely!

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Do you ever read what you are actually writing?

AMA should give the boot to all AMA members that are not club members.

That was your comment, was it not?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Incorrect. Just wrong. And since when did the AMA only deal with model airplanes?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Yes, correct. Accepting and adapting to change, something I believe the organization has done all along right? Why does change bother people so much?

bradpaul

Why do you think those are mutually exclusive? Have you ever read AMA Doc. 550?

cj_rumley

So, you're going to be the drama queen and keep everybody in suspense waiting for you to reveal the truth?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

lol...you're funny. You speak for everyone now?

No drama here friend, just opinions. You share yours, I share mine, I just choose not to make it personal.

phlpsfrnk

Do you mean this one?

[ATTACH]2024612[/IMG]

Frank

bradpaul

no this one: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf

phlpsfrnk

It gets better and better. I thought there were only two versions. 550 started out as four simple rules on half a page. It grew to two full pages and now it is three full pages. At least this latest version is dated although if the first sentence is any indication it was not proof read very well (page 5 of a 3 page doc?). Or maybe there are more pages to come!

Frank

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

That's exactly how we got into this mess...it just grows and grows and grows...before long the Empire State building won't be able to hold all the papers that tell us what is right.

phlpsfrnk

I am a firm beliver in the KISS principle. We need to go back to the original 550.pdf.


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).

Frank

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Sounds a perfectly reasonable procedure for AMA members to follow.

bradpaul

Bureaucrats, bureaucrats, bureaucrats weather from the FAA or the AMA must be compensated by the length and complexity of what they write. After all if only they can understand it then they become a necessary parasite.