Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

Another "Drone" incident in the news... , mostlikely non AMA member

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

Another "Drone" incident in the news... , mostlikely non AMA member

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-12-2014, 05:53 AM
  #251  
joebahl
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
 
joebahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: joliet, IL
Posts: 1,574
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Fpv .drones ! If it does not look like a RC airplane then they are waisting the rest of our money .Waisting our money ? http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...0-000-fpv.html joe

Last edited by joebahl; 09-12-2014 at 06:05 AM.
Old 09-12-2014, 06:08 AM
  #252  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
Who said that the AMA was going to charge a fee? What will the AMA do with the money, if any? And who said they were doing FPV training? The meeting minutes only speak of drones, and says nothing about FPV.
Nobody said they were charging a fee, there is a company doing uav and fpv training that is suposedly AMA certified. The AMA might not be getting any money but I don't see how this would come out of dues.
Old 09-12-2014, 07:29 AM
  #253  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Nobody said they were charging a fee, there is a company doing uav and fpv training that is suposedly AMA certified. The AMA might not be getting any money but I don't see how this would come out of dues.
What! Are you losing it completely? The AMA doesn't certify anything or anybody for any reason. I recall the posting that you are referring to. When I contacted the AMA about some spurious statements made by that company, the AMA contact assured me that they would ask them to remove any suggestion of AMA sponsorship or approval.

So, if the AMA isn't getting any money that what did your statement, "I thought the FPV training was a money making venture" mean?
Old 09-12-2014, 08:20 AM
  #254  
carddfann
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: tipp city, OH
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I'm not a "drone" pilot myself, but implying this wouldn't have happened if the pilot was an AMA member isn't a guarantee that he/she would follow the rules and make good decisions. There are some pilots in my club that break the rules when almost nobody is around.
Old 09-12-2014, 08:51 AM
  #255  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
What! Are you losing it completely? The AMA doesn't certify anything or anybody for any reason. I recall the posting that you are referring to. When I contacted the AMA about some spurious statements made by that company, the AMA contact assured me that they would ask them to remove any suggestion of AMA sponsorship or approval.

So, if the AMA isn't getting any money that what did your statement, "I thought the FPV training was a money making venture" mean?

I was asking a question, I have no idea or I would not have that question mark at the end. If they are doing training, should they not get paid for it?
Old 09-12-2014, 09:37 AM
  #256  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=Sport_Pilot;11879200]I was asking a question, I have no idea or I would not have that question mark at the end. If they are doing training, should they not get paid for it?
Old 09-12-2014, 10:12 AM
  #257  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
Whoops! ya got me. Well, why should the AMA be doing any drone training or making money from it? I don't understand this either. The AMA is for recreational model aviation, we have pilot training as needed in our local AMA chartered clubs.
Well lets see what the AMA BYLAWS says the purpose is:

ARTICLE II
Purposes
Subject to the limitations set forth in the Academy of Model Aeronautics, Inc., Articles of Incorporation, the primary
object of the AMA is to promote and foster educational and scientific advancement in model aeronautics, to give
recognition to model leadership and to provide guidance and direction of national model aeronautic affairs by those
individuals who, through their accomplishments in the model field, have demonstrated their qualifications for such
responsibility. More particular purposes are listed below, but shall not be considered exclusive.
(a) To encourage the study and discussion of scientific problems and to disseminate scientific news and views.
(b) To organize and sponsor discussion conferences and the presentation of technical papers at such
conferences.
(c) To encourage through recognition, leadership in model aeronautics.
(d) To recognize leadership of unusual quality by the conferring of special honorary titles.
(e) To encourage joint discussion directed toward group agreement on development needs relating to model
aviation.
(f) To keep model leaders informed through the publication of scientific journals and news bulletins.
(g) To encourage the contribution of articles on the development of model aeronautics for the AMA publication.
(h) To associate interested organizations and individuals for group support of education and development needs
related to model aeronautics.
(i) To guide and direct national model activities to the end that model aeronautics may be advanced in the
United States in a manner that will best serve model aviation as a whole.
(j) To guide and assist in the acquisition and retention of flying sites for the further growth and development of
model aeronautics.
(k) To establish and maintain official regulations governing the conduct of model airplane records and contests
and issue sanctions for same.
(l) To direct the technical organization and conduct of national and international model contests held within the
United States and to act through the National Aeronautics Association as the aeromodeling representative in the
United States for the Federation Aeronautique Internationale.
(m) To license model aircraft and fliers thereof for competition.
(n) To promote recognition in the United States and abroad of all officially sanctioned competitions and records
which are conducted by AMA Contest Directors.
(o) To have as its guiding principle, Of, By, and For the Model Airplane Enthusiast. (p) To operate through the National Aeronautic Association in representing all activities of United States
Aeromodeling to the FAI, such operation to be in accordance with a written agreement between AMA and NAA.
Old 09-12-2014, 10:53 AM
  #258  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul
Well lets see what the AMA BYLAWS says the purpose is:
(o) To have as its guiding principle, Of, By, and For the Model Airplane Enthusiast.
Well, 50% - 1 of the EC may have principles.
Old 09-12-2014, 10:53 AM
  #259  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul
Well lets see what the AMA BYLAWS says the purpose is:
Yup, recreational model aviation, nothing else.
Old 09-12-2014, 11:39 AM
  #260  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
Yup, recreational model aviation, nothing else.
Just posing a question. But can an enthusiast be commercial as well? IMO the AMA is stepping out of bounds but the bylaws do not say specifically that their is no commercial activities. But to say for model enthusiasts seems to imply that commercial activities would only be supported as an extension of enthusiasts that also fly models for commercial purposes. And IMO FPV of any form including the multi rotors are model airplanes. I don't like them but those that do should be able to participate in AMA activities.
Old 09-12-2014, 11:46 AM
  #261  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Just posing a question. But can an enthusiast be commercial as well? IMO the AMA is stepping out of bounds but the bylaws do not say specifically that their is no commercial activities. But to say for model enthusiasts seems to imply that commercial activities would only be supported as an extension of enthusiasts that also fly models for commercial purposes. And IMO FPV of any form including the multi rotors are model airplanes. I don't like them but those that do should be able to participate in AMA activities.
I don't think commercial activities were on the radar when the AMA composed the bylaws. As of the FAA Modernization Act, commercial activities are now under FAA regulation. Recreational activities fall under AMA guidelines. At least that is the FAA interpretation and the way I read it also. That is also why I am concerned about the AMA's fraternization with commercial drone users.
Old 09-12-2014, 12:17 PM
  #262  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
Yup, recreational model aviation, nothing else.
There is nothing I see in the BYLAWS that precludes offering services including education to non-recreational users.

(h) To associate interested organizations and individuals for group support of education and development needs
related to model aeronautics.
(i) To guide and direct national model activities to the end that model aeronautics may be advanced in the
United States in a manner that will best serve model aviation as a whole.

Old 09-12-2014, 12:35 PM
  #263  
joebahl
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
 
joebahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: joliet, IL
Posts: 1,574
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

So the AMA is a non proffit Org so your tell me where they are getting 250,000 for this training http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...0-000-fpv.html Thats right ! Our dues ! joe
Old 09-12-2014, 01:24 PM
  #264  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Of course our dues, was that never not understood?
Old 09-12-2014, 01:28 PM
  #265  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by joebahl
Fpv .drones ! If it does not look like a RC airplane then they are waisting the rest of our money .Waisting our money ? http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...0-000-fpv.html joe
We should definitely ban these things with wings and a tail. darn FPV drones!!!!!!!!

Old 09-12-2014, 01:42 PM
  #266  
flyingdan
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bermuda Dunes, CA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

This is from Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor.

If you think they are not serious about this you have another think coming.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/09/12/...ead-of-drones/

Dan
Old 09-12-2014, 10:47 PM
  #267  
stars13
My Feedback: (53)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

stupidity at the highest level, this is what will take away our flying privlediges.
Originally Posted by GSXR1000
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/07/us/dro...t=hp_inthenews

This guy was flying a "drone" at Yellowstone and lost it in the largest spring that have at Yellowstone; that goes 200 feet down. He had the tenacity to go and ask a park official if he could try and retrieve it. If I was visiting Yellowstone and saw this, I would have confronted this dude, punked him out then try to educate him; that his actions is putting unnecessary bad spotlight on RC flying as a whole.

I'm pretty sure, he wanted to take a cool aerial video of the Spring and then post it on Youtube and say have everyone look at this cool aerial vid I took at Yellowstone, he just wants to see how many hits he gets.
Old 09-13-2014, 03:04 AM
  #268  
cublover
My Feedback: (47)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sparks, NV
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Interesting,,,,I don't belong to the AMA,,,and I would NEVER fly anything into a situation like that...Imusta b smart !!

I find most people to be dumb as hell!!... This is ,,,IS, the reason why there is SO MANY rules at flight fields !!



Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf
Because AMA members are programmed...err...they have programming...err...Sorry,,, they operate within their programming...that's a little better. Hard to say it where it doesn't sound derogatory.
Old 09-14-2014, 03:44 PM
  #269  
joebahl
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
 
joebahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: joliet, IL
Posts: 1,574
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cublover
Interesting,,,,I don't belong to the AMA,,,and I would NEVER fly anything into a situation like that...Imusta b smart !!

I find most people to be dumb as hell!!... This is ,,,IS, the reason why there is SO MANY rules at flight fields !!
You are correct that most are stupid but now since the AMA took the good ones and bad ones guess who is paying to teach them ,police them and represent them in court. Not to mention the bad press on my once peacefull hobby ,or it use to be :-( joe
Old 09-15-2014, 02:09 AM
  #270  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
Right. I don't suppose you have that one, do you?
Yes, see attached;

Frank
Attached Files
File Type: pdf
2010 safety code.pdf (39.0 KB, 28 views)
Old 09-15-2014, 06:24 AM
  #271  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
Yes, see attached;

Frank
Thanks. Interesting! It doesn't say a word about line of sight but does refer the reader to doc 550 for FPV instructions.
Old 09-15-2014, 06:46 AM
  #272  
MajorTomski
 
MajorTomski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 2,536
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
Thanks. Interesting! It doesn't say a word about line of sight but does refer the reader to doc 550 for FPV instructions.
The AMA is made up of people. If you do a deep search of all of the AMA documents you will find that many of them have no clue what is said in other documents that affect the one you're working from.
Old 09-15-2014, 06:47 AM
  #273  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
Thanks. Interesting! It doesn't say a word about line of sight but does refer the reader to doc 550 for FPV instructions.
Not sure why the hang-up with "line of sight" however the statement "operator of a radio-controlled model aircraft shall control it during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact..." seems pretty clear to me. At the time this was written the 550 buddy box rule had the PIC/spotter on the primary control which would be in compliance with the current FAA interpretation.

Frank
Old 09-15-2014, 06:55 AM
  #274  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by MajorTomski
The AMA is made up of people. If you do a deep search of all of the AMA documents you will find that many of them have no clue what is said in other documents that affect the one you're working from.
True, however a good writer should always insure the references do not conflict with his current statements and/or policies. Exspecially true if said statements or writings may wind up in a court of law.

Frank
Old 09-15-2014, 10:16 AM
  #275  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
Not sure why the hang-up with "line of sight" however the statement "operator of a radio-controlled model aircraft shall control it during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact..." seems pretty clear to me. At the time this was written the 550 buddy box rule had the PIC/spotter on the primary control which would be in compliance with the current FAA interpretation.

Frank
However the FAA "Interpretation" specifically states in footnote 1:

1 For purposes of the visual line of sight requirement, “operator” means the person manipulating the model
aircraft’s controls.
So as soon as the "visual" PIC turned control over to the pilot wearing FPV goggles then the FPV pilot would be in violation of the VLOS Interpretation.


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.