AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Division among AMA members? Battle lines being drawn....

Reply
Old 07-31-2014, 11:48 AM
  #1
GSXR1000
Thread Starter
 
GSXR1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 231
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default Division among AMA members? Battle lines being drawn....

So looks like there is a division among AMA members regarding FPV flight be it rotor or fixed wing.... Looks like people or either for or against FPV, not to many in the middle ground. I'm not for FPV, but i may be in the middle ground as long as it's over private rural land or AMA sanctioned field, I'm against FPV out in the public open airspace...

What are yall's opinion on the matter? I tend to agree with Bob of BVM models and share his is FPV views as it pertains to AMA trying so hard to fight for it against the FAA.
GSXR1000 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2014, 12:00 PM
  #2
raptureboy
 
raptureboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kempton PA
Posts: 2,589
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I don't have problem with FPV as a segment of the hobby, but rather the ones who use it irresponsibly. The AMA's requirement that another pilot be involved on a buddy box is good but the problem is really not with AMA members but with all the ones who will go get one and just start flying it any where they want. The AMA needs to focus on the mainstream of the hobby not the fringe and if needed offer up the sacrificial lamb to please the FAA gods.
raptureboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2014, 12:09 PM
  #3
GSXR1000
Thread Starter
 
GSXR1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 231
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raptureboy View Post
I don't have problem with FPV as a segment of the hobby, but rather the ones who use it irresponsibly. The AMA's requirement that another pilot be involved on a buddy box is good but the problem is really not with AMA members but with all the ones who will go get one and just start flying it any where they want. The AMA needs to focus on the mainstream of the hobby not the fringe and if needed offer up the sacrificial lamb to please the FAA gods.
Yes I agree, live to fight another day and choose your battles wisely. Just like I ride a sport bike, and the squids go out there on their sport bikes and ride fast and do stunts, that makes all sport bike riders who follow the law look bad. One bad apple doesn't spoil us as a bunch, but it does in public perception :-(
GSXR1000 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 05:36 AM
  #4
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default Oh the hypocisy

There have for years been threads in the forum on why the AMA is not growing or how to increase membership..................................... The consensus answer has been that the AMA needs to somehow attract youth to the hobby in order to have a viable future.

So when a method of flying a model aircraft called FPV is created and youth accept flock to it in numbers greater then ever before as it always happens, the old guard it upset and calls for a ban of the activity.

Those darn kids just are not willing to join a AMA Club, fly the pattern, and spend most of the day discussing "back in the day".....................

Reminds me of the threads here on:

darn helicopters hovering over the runway
darn 3D pilots hovering over the runway
darn foamies those are not real models
real men don't fly electric
Lipos will explode and are dangerous

FPV is what the youth want to fly, that is why the manufactures are flooding the market with them........................ it wont go away and the AMA is correct in trying to provide a set of rules for safe operation.

Some feel that the hobby will die because of FPV, when the reality is that the hobby will die without FPV and younger members.
bradpaul is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 07:23 AM
  #5
JoeEagle
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 793
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Buddy box requirement was removed. no buddy box in AMA guidelines.
JoeEagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 07:27 AM
  #6
GSXR1000
Thread Starter
 
GSXR1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 231
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradpaul View Post
There have for years been threads in the forum on why the AMA is not growing or how to increase membership..................................... The consensus answer has been that the AMA needs to somehow attract youth to the hobby in order to have a viable future.

So when a method of flying a model aircraft called FPV is created and youth accept flock to it in numbers greater then ever before as it always happens, the old guard it upset and calls for a ban of the activity.

That is good the AMA wants to create a set of rules and guidelines for FPV, they shouldn't be going to battle the FAA against the FAA's interpretions of FPV regulations.
Those darn kids just are not willing to join a AMA Club, fly the pattern, and spend most of the day discussing "back in the day".....................

Reminds me of the threads here on:

darn helicopters hovering over the runway
darn 3D pilots hovering over the runway
darn foamies those are not real models
real men don't fly electric
Lipos will explode and are dangerous

FPV is what the youth want to fly, that is why the manufactures are flooding the market with them........................ it wont go away and the AMA is correct in trying to provide a set of rules for safe operation.

Some feel that the hobby will die because of FPV, when the reality is that the hobby will die without FPV and younger members.
I'm glad the AMA wants to have rules and guidelines for FPV usage, but they shouldn't be going head on against the FAA's interpretations regarding FPV regulations. Instead of fighting the FPV battle, they should focus on the longterm health of our hobby. We need to pick and choose are battles wisely for the longterm health of our hobby.

I'm glad they are going to fight the FAA regarding compensation for a person in the hobby who would no longer be a hobbyist but a business if the accepted compensation for something hobby related.

I'm somewhere in the middle ground when it comes to FPV, I just wish the AMA wouldn't use valuable resources fighting the FPV battle.

You can see, that 2 of our hobbies biggest names look at drones differently.

Bob Violett has nothing against FPV/Drones since he is a sUAS, he just doesn't want the AMA to endorse/embrace the FPV as being part of the "model aircraft" hobby we enjoy since its not always line of site. Bob wants drones/fpv and los aircraft to be seen differently, he agrees with the FAA on drone classification.

Renown Heli Pilot Curtis Youngblood endorses/embraces commercial and "hobby" drone usage, doesn't really see a distinction between commercial and "hobby" drone use. He is against the FAA's regulation FPV/Drones. This is quote from a post he did "Do not kill a new industry and harm the US through bans and restrictions."

So there is some division when it comes to peoples view of FPV/Drone usage and what the AMA should or shouldn't do, when it comes to fighting the FFA on FPV/Drone regulations.

I'm am somewhere in the middle and just want to make sure that we aren't sacrificing our current rc flying future, trying to better what I still consider a periheral segment of our hobby.
GSXR1000 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 08:11 AM
  #7
phlpsfrnk
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeEagle View Post
Buddy box requirement was removed. no buddy box in AMA guidelines.
I think the AMA got it right the first time.

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 ModelAircraft 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 10pounds and 60 miles per hour.

Four simple rules that has morphed into two full pages of verbose techno speak that the FAA trashed in one fell swoop. Go back to the original four rules and we are in compliance.

Frank
phlpsfrnk is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 08:20 AM
  #8
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk View Post
I think the AMA got it right the first time.

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 ModelAircraft 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 10pounds and 60 miles per hour.

Four simple rules that has morphed into two full pages of verbose techno speak that the FAA trashed in one fell swoop. Go back to the original four rules and we are in compliance.

Frank
Funny...how that acceptance thing works...If you are opposed to something, in this case FPV for Frank, and the powers that be your guide keep turning up the volume...you'll just be glad to go back and accept what you were once against. Oldest trick in the book LOL... AMA really knows how to work 'em. More of that type persuasion coming...
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 11:32 AM
  #9
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,768
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf View Post
Funny...how that acceptance thing works...If you are opposed to something, in this case FPV for Frank, and the powers that be your guide keep turning up the volume...you'll just be glad to go back and accept what you were once against. Oldest trick in the book LOL... AMA really knows how to work 'em. More of that type persuasion coming...
I think a good example of how it works for AMA is illustrated by one of their more recent polls, which incidentally asked members how they felt about FPV and operation of sUAS for other than hobby purposes. Not surprisingly, members attitudes were generally favorable toward sUAS and their potential for public service jobs like search and rescue, ag surveys, light commercial work like AP and such. Also not surprising, the Muncie mucky-mucks interpreted (big flap over that word lately...) that general acceptance of sUAS having potential benefits in our society as a ratification by members of their plans (again not surprising, unmentioned in the poll) to make AMA the AsUAS, and thus kicked-off the current marketing blitz to sell the sUAS users insurance, representation, training and such. When anybody airs having a problem with that, the answer will be "why didn't you say so when we asked?"

cj
cj_rumley is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 12:54 PM
  #10
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GSXR1000 View Post
I'm am somewhere in the middle and just want to make sure that we aren't sacrificing our current rc flying future, trying to better what I still consider a periheral segment of our hobby.
peripheral segment of our hobby????? How many pilots with turbine waivers are there? Less than 1000?, less than 500?

How many FPV pilots are there? many more then there are turbine jet pilots.

And if my business was for sale and the viability depended of the FAA not taking another look at turbine jets, I would also consider throwing another segment of model aviation under the bus.
bradpaul is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 02:51 PM
  #11
804
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan, IN
Posts: 1,167
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Well, it finally happened.
A FPV'er ran into a helicopter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1X4v_71KvI
804 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 03:49 PM
  #12
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,768
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 804 View Post
Well, it finally happened.
A FPV'er ran into a helicopter.
OK,It was a RC model heli and apparently an RC event, so no harm, no foul.

As an aside though, it did make me think about all the hype I have read regarding how well equipped FPVers are to practice See and Avoid............
cj_rumley is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 05:36 PM
  #13
GSXR1000
Thread Starter
 
GSXR1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 231
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradpaul View Post
peripheral segment of our hobby????? How many pilots with turbine waivers are there? Less than 1000?, less than 500?

How many FPV pilots are there? many more then there are turbine jet pilots.

And if my business was for sale and the viability depended of the FAA not taking another look at turbine jets, I would also consider throwing another segment of model aviation under the bus.
lol I was actually looking for a different word to use, but that was all I could come up with, but yeah Turbine jets owners are few and far between; but man seeing and hearing them is just almost as cool as being able to fly them...
GSXR1000 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 07:32 PM
  #14
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cj_rumley View Post
OK,It was a RC model heli and apparently an RC event, so no harm, no foul.

As an aside though, it did make me think about all the hype I have read regarding how well equipped FPVers are to practice See and Avoid............
Made me think about how fun FPV combat would be...or FPV pylon racing...
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2014, 12:19 AM
  #15
NorfolkSouthern
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,568
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I grew up with nitro models with control-line flight. It's what I enjoyed watching at some of the playgrounds. I would come running when ever I heard a Cox .049 start up. Once in a while, I would see something built from a kit of balsa and would stay and watch the whole show. So, I gravitated to RC with the average .40 sized 2-stroke, and was happy. Anything electric would bore me to death, having no personality, none of that unmistakable smell of nitro, and essentially no challenge, really.... Just push the stick forward and go!

Anyway. One would think I'm in that group that is dead-set against FPV, with me being an old grouch. On the contrary, I am in fact the exact opposite. Grab the quad copters, with their colorful Christmas tree lights, and go fly 'em! As long as my privacy is respected, it don't bother me a bit. And who knows? Due to my financial condition, I really don't anticipate getting back into the hobby any time soon, FPV or not. Yet, I still support that part of it, plus the commercial interests. Because if a small unmanned aircraft can make me a little money and licensing requirements turn out less rigorous than full-scale, then perhaps it could be a good investment for me. I like the idea of having stuff with a negative cost of ownership and operation.
NorfolkSouthern is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2014, 02:52 AM
  #16
tomfiorentino
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New Hartford, NY
Posts: 437
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf View Post
Funny...how that acceptance thing works...If you are opposed to something, in this case FPV for Frank, and the powers that be your guide keep turning up the volume...you'll just be glad to go back and accept what you were once against. Oldest trick in the book LOL... AMA really knows how to work 'em. More of that type persuasion coming...
+1 on that! This is like the NY gun owners arguing today that 10 round clips should be legal. This, because the current law stripped it down to 7. Problem is, there used to be no law at all on it. It was unlimited, then went to 30 rounds, then went to 10 rounds...now down to 7 rounds.

While I like the original AMA rule and believe they had it covered, this is a little bit like the penalty the IRS is supposed to levy on folks that don't pick up insurance through the Helath Exchanges. The problem there is that people who really can't afford health insurance are pretty much living under the IRS radar anyway as they don't file tax returns. Similarly, the AMA has no effect on people that just run to the store, buy these FPV units and start flying them in the wrong places. They don't even know what the AMA is much less pick up a membership and abide by its safety rules!

Tom
tomfiorentino is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2014, 04:16 AM
  #17
porcia83
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,208
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradpaul View Post
There have for years been threads in the forum on why the AMA is not growing or how to increase membership..................................... The consensus answer has been that the AMA needs to somehow attract youth to the hobby in order to have a viable future.

So when a method of flying a model aircraft called FPV is created and youth accept flock to it in numbers greater then ever before as it always happens, the old guard it upset and calls for a ban of the activity.

Those darn kids just are not willing to join a AMA Club, fly the pattern, and spend most of the day discussing "back in the day".....................

Reminds me of the threads here on:

darn helicopters hovering over the runway
darn 3D pilots hovering over the runway
darn foamies those are not real models
real men don't fly electric
Lipos will explode and are dangerous

FPV is what the youth want to fly, that is why the manufactures are flooding the market with them........................ it wont go away and the AMA is correct in trying to provide a set of rules for safe operation.

Some feel that the hobby will die because of FPV, when the reality is that the hobby will die without FPV and younger members.
You forgot the arf's aren't real planes in addition to the foamies, and that you're not a real modeler unless you stick built it.

I agree with almost everything you said, except for the hobby dying without FPV. While the numbers of new AMA members might have been down, I don't think the issue is strictly age based. It's not all "youngsters" that are gravitating to FPV. I'm seeing more 30-40-50 year olds (yes, I know some would say they are youngsters) getting involved. Some are joining AMA and clubs, others not. I think cost is a factor, these rigs can get pricey real quick. Over the past 4 years my club has seen about 10 people not renew their membership, while we've picked up 40 new members, most of which were 40 and above. At least a third of those were completely new to the hobby, let alone FPV. Many sign up after coming to club events that have been publicized, and some have seen our booth at a town event or other non RC related function. I sense we sometimes think technology will help/hurt growth in the hobby, but it's more than that. We need to actively search for new members of AMA and clubs through club functions and public outreach, I think all types of new technology has helped bring in new folks to the hobby, be it arfs, foamies, helis, gyro technology, and now multi rotors and quads. The car and truck segment seems to have popped too, wish we had room at the field to build a track or two.
porcia83 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2014, 07:24 AM
  #18
twistman
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Liberty, SC
Posts: 48
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Don't hold your breath if you think the AMA is going to help because from my own personal contact with them, they don't help much if at all. If I didn't have to belong to AMA to fly at club fields I not join. All the AMA thinks about now days is the all mighty dollar!
twistman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2014, 03:48 PM
  #19
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 3,046
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I am 100% in favor of FPV when flown according to the AMA guidelines although I do feel there needs to be some restrictions on where any model
is operated when not a RC site. I also feel instead of the FAA having a outright ban on FPV they should come out with some rules for FPV flying
that is done outside of a RC site.
ira d is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:42 PM.