How about this?!!!!
10-30-2014, 08:23 AM
#26
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They could put the limit at ten miles or twenty miles it would not help anything, If someone wanted to fly a model over a venue they would still do it. As I
said I understand saying you can't overfly someplace but if you are flying on your own property that just happens to be within three miles of a venue
that should be OK.
said I understand saying you can't overfly someplace but if you are flying on your own property that just happens to be within three miles of a venue
that should be OK.
10-30-2014, 08:55 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: , ON, CANADA
Posts: 974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. Just how stupid and ballsy can the FAA be?
And what a stretch of their authority!
And to try to issue that "rule" in a NOTAM???
Like R/C pilots read NOTAMS? Or NOTAMS are sent to R/C pilots??? What a joke!
This hobby is completely outside the authority of the FAA. What a bunch of ignorant people!
What will those fools try next? Require licenses for the purchase of simulators? Or voilate Santa under some FAR Part 121 or Part 61 rule on Christmas Eve? Or perhaps go after Barbie and Ken dolls?
Geeze!
And what a stretch of their authority!
And to try to issue that "rule" in a NOTAM???
Like R/C pilots read NOTAMS? Or NOTAMS are sent to R/C pilots??? What a joke!
This hobby is completely outside the authority of the FAA. What a bunch of ignorant people!
What will those fools try next? Require licenses for the purchase of simulators? Or voilate Santa under some FAR Part 121 or Part 61 rule on Christmas Eve? Or perhaps go after Barbie and Ken dolls?
Geeze!
Ignoring critical information about full-scale activity in the skies we fly our models in is pure ignorance and turning a blind eye. We all know what a serious accident could do to our hobby, especially in todays climate.
It seems the crowd that's so openly dismissing NOTAMs and the FAA regulations is the same group that's claiming lawless FPV hooligans are the problem.
At the end of the day, there's no difference if it's a Quaker Flash that causes a high profile accident, or a DJI Phantom - especially if the modeller claims they didn't know what a NOTAM was, or worse, did, and chose to ignore it.
Ignorance is no excuse, but we aren't ignorant, so we have even less of an excuse.
Last edited by DeferredDefect; 10-30-2014 at 08:58 AM. Reason: formatting
10-30-2014, 09:02 AM
#28
How many times has a Quaker flash made the news? Focus on the problem, not what could be. Especially if it has never been.
I get AMA, email alert NOTAMS. Obama landed at a somewhat close airport to our field and it was shut down for a day or two. That was a 30 NM radius, which is just ridiculous IMO, in that it is way beyond line of sight. The Gov. just goes too far with this stuff at times.
This situation concerns me to a great degree.
I get AMA, email alert NOTAMS. Obama landed at a somewhat close airport to our field and it was shut down for a day or two. That was a 30 NM radius, which is just ridiculous IMO, in that it is way beyond line of sight. The Gov. just goes too far with this stuff at times.
This situation concerns me to a great degree.
Last edited by vertical grimmace; 10-30-2014 at 10:04 AM.
10-30-2014, 09:10 AM
#29
When I lived on Long Island there was a knucklehead RC pilot that started his glow powered RC plane and piloted it directly in line with the good year blimp that was flying. The plane tore through the blimp and the blimp needed to be landed. The pilot was caught and arrested shortly thereafter. It is not a quesiton of what normal people do, it is a question of what some not so nice people can do it they wanted to...
It's not really. Sometimes these stories and the interpretations of clearly involved, and to some degree biased participants, are as alarmist and hyperbolic as the news stories we keep seeing on these machines. CBS did one this morning that had some obvious gaps in it. I couldn't find a full link to the segment on CBS this morning, but this is a summary of it:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/drone-te...cern-for-nypd/
Of course this is going to be a concern of theirs, and it's a valid one. Sure the small units can barely carry a 2200 battery, but most folks have seen the larger ones that can carry much heavier payloads. And if it ever happens it's not so much the payload, it's going to be the fact that it was done, and god forbid LE didn't at least try to get out ahead of it before it happened. It's a no win for them if they do nothing, and the same if they do something.
I have no issues with a NOTAM for a sporting event, who would want one of these flying over their head if they were at a game. And I mean any RC aircraft, helis and planes too. It would also be a temp thing, not a standing one like DC. And the AMA being involved or not involved is irrelevant, this is a LE deal. AMA distancing itself from UAV's would have no bearing on anything. The technology, some seriously irresponsible people, and the scary possibility of what might happen has gotten us to this stage. Anyone remember this:
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party...merkel-130917/
Ya, they were smirking and smiling because it looked like a toy and crashed harmlessly and caused no damage to person or property. What if it had been more sinister though?
As for Disney, they have plenty of legitimate reasons to not have RC stuff flying over their property. As someone alluded to, no doubt they pulled strings to make that happen. Wouldn't be surprised to see other outfits like that do it as well.
It's a shame that specific rules and laws have to be carved out, and our freedoms curtailed because of a few. I'd like to see the folks that ignore these rules/laws, or damage property or injure someone be held accountable, financially and criminally. Fine them, then throw of couple of these people in jail and set a big example.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/drone-te...cern-for-nypd/
Of course this is going to be a concern of theirs, and it's a valid one. Sure the small units can barely carry a 2200 battery, but most folks have seen the larger ones that can carry much heavier payloads. And if it ever happens it's not so much the payload, it's going to be the fact that it was done, and god forbid LE didn't at least try to get out ahead of it before it happened. It's a no win for them if they do nothing, and the same if they do something.
I have no issues with a NOTAM for a sporting event, who would want one of these flying over their head if they were at a game. And I mean any RC aircraft, helis and planes too. It would also be a temp thing, not a standing one like DC. And the AMA being involved or not involved is irrelevant, this is a LE deal. AMA distancing itself from UAV's would have no bearing on anything. The technology, some seriously irresponsible people, and the scary possibility of what might happen has gotten us to this stage. Anyone remember this:
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party...merkel-130917/
Ya, they were smirking and smiling because it looked like a toy and crashed harmlessly and caused no damage to person or property. What if it had been more sinister though?
As for Disney, they have plenty of legitimate reasons to not have RC stuff flying over their property. As someone alluded to, no doubt they pulled strings to make that happen. Wouldn't be surprised to see other outfits like that do it as well.
It's a shame that specific rules and laws have to be carved out, and our freedoms curtailed because of a few. I'd like to see the folks that ignore these rules/laws, or damage property or injure someone be held accountable, financially and criminally. Fine them, then throw of couple of these people in jail and set a big example.
10-30-2014, 11:35 AM
#30
their game so anything is possible now. I also think instead of the FAA just coming up with rules they need to work with the AMA to come up with rules that are
needed and make sense and to educate modelers about the rules and the best way to follow them.
Last edited by ira d; 10-30-2014 at 11:40 AM.
10-30-2014, 11:55 AM
#31
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Up untill this year I would agree with you that you would be less likley to be arrested for not knowing about or obeying a notam but the FAA has been stepping up
their game so anything is possible now. I also think instead of the FAA just coming up with rules they need to work with the AMA to come up with rules that are
needed and make sense and to educate modelers about the rules and the best way to follow them.
their game so anything is possible now. I also think instead of the FAA just coming up with rules they need to work with the AMA to come up with rules that are
needed and make sense and to educate modelers about the rules and the best way to follow them.
10-30-2014, 01:44 PM
#33
said yes but the multi rotors are quite so you don't hear them coming.
I think we should be able to fly what ever RC craft we would like but the media has turned many people against FPV and multi rotor craft as a type but
we need to be looking at who is flying whatever type of craft in an unsafe manner. So far IMO most of the the new proposed rules the FAA has come
up with will do nothing to increase safety for anyone.
10-30-2014, 02:46 PM
#34
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just today at my field someone was saying the FAA should outlaw multi rotor RC, I pointed out you could use the large gas models the same way and he
said yes but the multi rotors are quite so you don't hear them coming.
I think we should be able to fly what ever RC craft we would like but the media has turned many people against FPV and multi rotor craft as a type but
we need to be looking at who is flying whatever type of craft in an unsafe manner. So far IMO most of the the new proposed rules the FAA has come
up with will do nothing to increase safety for anyone.
said yes but the multi rotors are quite so you don't hear them coming.
I think we should be able to fly what ever RC craft we would like but the media has turned many people against FPV and multi rotor craft as a type but
we need to be looking at who is flying whatever type of craft in an unsafe manner. So far IMO most of the the new proposed rules the FAA has come
up with will do nothing to increase safety for anyone.
If push comes to shove it will be model aviation that will take the hit. ...................... the bad publicity from the "hey look at my cool video" FPV morons are all noticed by these companies.
The AMA cannot control the activities of idiots never had and never will.,
10-30-2014, 03:37 PM
#35
The AMA does not have to underwrite the activity of FPV and autonomous flight. I agree that it is not a multi rotor thing, it is an autonomous and FPV thing. This technology can be used on any type of aircraft. The ability to fly an aircraft, long distances, using a video screen to maintain orientation for the pilot, is where the rubber meets the road. That is where the problem lies. The only limitation is the battery/ engine duration. Yes, the AMA has rules, but they are not being followed.
10-30-2014, 04:57 PM
#37
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
The AMA does not have to underwrite the activity of FPV and autonomous flight. I agree that it is not a multi rotor thing, it is an autonomous and FPV thing. This technology can be used on any type of aircraft. The ability to fly an aircraft, long distances, using a video screen to maintain orientation for the pilot, is where the rubber meets the road. That is where the problem lies. The only limitation is the battery/ engine duration. Yes, the AMA has rules, but they are not being followed.
10-30-2014, 05:51 PM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: , ON, CANADA
Posts: 974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not an FPV thing.
It's a change in society.
A recap of the past five years:
The hobby has a new renaissance, with thousands of new modellers jointing the fray with cheaper electronics and a new, enormous resource called the internet.
Crashes happen, but most of these new hobbyists are flying small foam models that weight about a pound - much less limiting (and dangerous in the wrong hands) than the 0.40 sized trainer of five years earlier.
The traditional hobbyists press on, as they have for 60 years, cutting balsa capstrips and flying at the club they have been a part of for decades. This is well suited for their tastes in larger gas or glow models, but not necessary for the park flyers that explode on the scene.
As a result, the two groups - The glow/ gas/ balsa/ clubfield educated guys, and the electric/ foam/ FPV/ internet educated guys - never really bother with one another, and exist as almost entirely separate hobbies. There is some crossover, but most of the newcomers will never be tuning a finicky K&B .61, nor will they need to.
One or two high profile incidents happen to FPV pilots who are both experienced and should have known better. These aren't newbies with no respect to the hobby, but otherwise respected modellers who acted dangerously and gained widespread attention.
A clueless media steps in and starts making things worse, demonizing the hobby as a whole and reporting on every "drone" scare they can come up with. Most are completely bogus.
Legislators get involved and implicitly use the terms FPV and Drone, not knowing the slightest about what they actually are.
The traditional hobbyist, having never been a part of the new wave of the hobby, nor really been interested, begins hearing these horror stories, and assumes it must be the result of these new technological developments.
In reality, it's the huge resurgent of interest in the hobby that's allowed these accidents to happen.
The fact is, we've been trying for years to get people interested in our hobby, and it has finally paid off. Advances have been made in materials and technology that just aren't being adopted by the traditional modeller, and as a result, the scope of the hobby has expanded enormously, easily the biggest change since the onset of proportional radios and glow engines.
The hobby can no longer be judged by what we hold as "R/C modelling", in the same way that you can't expect a carriage builder to conform to automotive crash-test standards.
Maybe we do need some new regulation, but that isn't going to exempt the minority traditional modeller, nor should it; 99% of the new guys fly as safely as 99% of our guys, and are just as involved and passionate about it as us.
It's a change in society.
A recap of the past five years:
The hobby has a new renaissance, with thousands of new modellers jointing the fray with cheaper electronics and a new, enormous resource called the internet.
Crashes happen, but most of these new hobbyists are flying small foam models that weight about a pound - much less limiting (and dangerous in the wrong hands) than the 0.40 sized trainer of five years earlier.
The traditional hobbyists press on, as they have for 60 years, cutting balsa capstrips and flying at the club they have been a part of for decades. This is well suited for their tastes in larger gas or glow models, but not necessary for the park flyers that explode on the scene.
As a result, the two groups - The glow/ gas/ balsa/ clubfield educated guys, and the electric/ foam/ FPV/ internet educated guys - never really bother with one another, and exist as almost entirely separate hobbies. There is some crossover, but most of the newcomers will never be tuning a finicky K&B .61, nor will they need to.
One or two high profile incidents happen to FPV pilots who are both experienced and should have known better. These aren't newbies with no respect to the hobby, but otherwise respected modellers who acted dangerously and gained widespread attention.
A clueless media steps in and starts making things worse, demonizing the hobby as a whole and reporting on every "drone" scare they can come up with. Most are completely bogus.
Legislators get involved and implicitly use the terms FPV and Drone, not knowing the slightest about what they actually are.
The traditional hobbyist, having never been a part of the new wave of the hobby, nor really been interested, begins hearing these horror stories, and assumes it must be the result of these new technological developments.
In reality, it's the huge resurgent of interest in the hobby that's allowed these accidents to happen.
The fact is, we've been trying for years to get people interested in our hobby, and it has finally paid off. Advances have been made in materials and technology that just aren't being adopted by the traditional modeller, and as a result, the scope of the hobby has expanded enormously, easily the biggest change since the onset of proportional radios and glow engines.
The hobby can no longer be judged by what we hold as "R/C modelling", in the same way that you can't expect a carriage builder to conform to automotive crash-test standards.
Maybe we do need some new regulation, but that isn't going to exempt the minority traditional modeller, nor should it; 99% of the new guys fly as safely as 99% of our guys, and are just as involved and passionate about it as us.
10-30-2014, 08:16 PM
#41
I think we can all agree that advances in technology has made many things easy for the average modeler to do that was not possible twenty years ago.
That being said I can understand why we need some laws in place to deal with concerns we did not have a few years ago, However the FAA's failure to
sat down with the AMA and the modeling community and come up with some common sense rules has caused the concerns that we have today.
That being said I can understand why we need some laws in place to deal with concerns we did not have a few years ago, However the FAA's failure to
sat down with the AMA and the modeling community and come up with some common sense rules has caused the concerns that we have today.
10-30-2014, 08:35 PM
#42
AMA and most RC aircraft clubs have realized a decline in memberships over the last several years. It is impossible to track actual RC activity otherwise. We have discussed this issue and researched it greatly within our club to try to increase memberships, and why there is a decline. We ended up writing it off mainly to the economy, and for beginners, the lack of need for an established club with the advent of truly viable park flying models, that do not require a clubfield with runway. With that said, I am not convinced that RC activities have increased. Maybe small electrics, but that is tough to know without maybe getting sales figures from industry.
10-31-2014, 03:02 AM
#43
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I could be wrong but I think the AMA membership numbers have increased over the past few years, youth memberships accounting for the largest growth isegment. As for club memberships, I think some are up, some are down. I'd guess there are numerous reasons why that is happening. I can say that many of our new members are showing up primarily with PNP or RTF great from hobby shops, sometimes though it's an older modeler getting back into the hobby. Our club has had some fantasic growth over the past 3 years, we've gone from a "capped" membership of 125 to just over 180. We have 5 events a year, activity promote the hobby at other events, schools etc, encourage the public to attend our events, host schools and boy scouts/ cub scouts, and get them and any visitors that show up on buddy boxes. We also give a portion of all of our events to local charities. Although I like any type of member to join, the ones I like the best are "family" memberships and those that are brand new to the hobby that decided to join after one of our events. There are tons of things clubs can do to get membership. I do recognize however that CT is a densely populated state with some measure of affluence, and many clubs too, so there's that.
10-31-2014, 05:21 AM
#45
If you have a problem with something, you focus on that which is giving you trouble. Line of sight RC is not the problem and has not been giving anyone trouble. FPV has been. That is the problem. Go after them, not line of sight.
It would seem this may be an excuse to go after line of sight RC as well. Even though we are not creating an issue.
Kind of reminds me of fire arms, except we do not have a constitutional right protecting our ability to fly.
It would seem this may be an excuse to go after line of sight RC as well. Even though we are not creating an issue.
Kind of reminds me of fire arms, except we do not have a constitutional right protecting our ability to fly.
10-31-2014, 05:29 AM
#46
They tried that - it didn't work. All through the congressional discussions and event he bill that was passed those flying under the "guideline's" of the AMA were exempted. Unfortunately, FPVers were very vocal about telling the FAA to stuff it, many on this forum. You think FAA doesn't read this forum? And since it is next to impossible for someone on the ground to determine if a small vehicle in the air is being controlled line-of-sight the FAA extended the rules to everyone. It was inevitable because some people just had to have their "fun" at any cost. "Fun" is the word they used over and over again.
10-31-2014, 05:47 AM
#47
The problem is these NOTAM's are now effecting line of site RC because of what a completely different type of model is doing. So what happens if I am flying at my model airplane club, and a NOTAM has been issued, that I was not aware of? In all reality, this would have no effect on anyones safety, but I would be subject to arrest for not complying to the NOTAM? Again, who would I be dealing with? Feds in black suits, local law enforcement? Someone has to enforce this unreasonable set of rules.
If the exchange went "Hi , the airport called and reported RC plane activity during a temporary flight restriction , I have to ask you to land until the restriction passes" and your answer was "Sure thing officer , I'm sorry I didn't realize there was a temporary restriction and won't fly again till the restriction passes" them I'm sure the police officer would be happily on to his next call and that would be that .
But !
If your response was to get all defiant and get up on your high horse about your "right" to fly a toy airplane in the face of an established restriction , Well , then , He'd likely club ya like a seal , and drag ya in for being defiant in the knowingly ignoring the no fly order .
10-31-2014, 06:00 AM
#48
What would happen would likely depend on your response to the person ( Police officer I guess ) who would be sent to notify you of your non compliance with the NOTAM .
If the exchange went "Hi , the airport called and reported RC plane activity during a temporary flight restriction , I have to ask you to land until the restriction passes" and your answer was "Sure thing officer , I'm sorry I didn't realize there was a temporary restriction and won't fly again till the restriction passes" them I'm sure the police officer would be happily on to his next call and that would be that .
But !
If your response was to get all defiant and get up on your high horse about your "right" to fly a toy airplane in the face of an established restriction , Well , then , He'd likely club ya like a seal , and drag ya in for being defiant in the knowingly ignoring the no fly order .
If the exchange went "Hi , the airport called and reported RC plane activity during a temporary flight restriction , I have to ask you to land until the restriction passes" and your answer was "Sure thing officer , I'm sorry I didn't realize there was a temporary restriction and won't fly again till the restriction passes" them I'm sure the police officer would be happily on to his next call and that would be that .
But !
If your response was to get all defiant and get up on your high horse about your "right" to fly a toy airplane in the face of an established restriction , Well , then , He'd likely club ya like a seal , and drag ya in for being defiant in the knowingly ignoring the no fly order .
But!
There is a possibility that you would get a "Seal clubbing" regardless of how polite you are. Then arrested without the opportunity to cease the activity.
10-31-2014, 06:14 AM
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could be wrong but I think the AMA membership numbers have increased over the past few years, youth memberships accounting for the largest growth isegment. As for club memberships, I think some are up, some are down. I'd guess there are numerous reasons why that is happening. I can say that many of our new members are showing up primarily with PNP or RTF great from hobby shops, sometimes though it's an older modeler getting back into the hobby. Our club has had some fantasic growth over the past 3 years, we've gone from a "capped" membership of 125 to just over 180. We have 5 events a year, activity promote the hobby at other events, schools etc, encourage the public to attend our events, host schools and boy scouts/ cub scouts, and get them and any visitors that show up on buddy boxes. We also give a portion of all of our events to local charities. Although I like any type of member to join, the ones I like the best are "family" memberships and those that are brand new to the hobby that decided to join after one of our events. There are tons of things clubs can do to get membership. I do recognize however that CT is a densely populated state with some measure of affluence, and many clubs too, so there's that.
In my opinion, and from what I've read, the AMA still has a long way to go, and yet the current board is spending way too much money for the amount of revenue taken in. Kind of like the corporate leaches that suck the life out of a company for their own greed, then leave the company "high and dry" so that when the new members take over failure is inevitable and blamed on the new members.
Nonetheless, I feel the FAA has overstepped its boundry in thinking it should/could control/regulate R/C aircraft and R/C pilots. NOTAMs are not issued to R/C pilots, R/C pilots are not required to be registered with the FAA (and never will be), R/C pilots do not need a license to operate their planes, etc. Anyone who feels otherwise has fallen into the misconception created by the FAA.
The FAA uses the concept that if they create a false premise and keep hammering at it, it will eventually fuel rumors that morph themselves into fact or accepted concepts.
The FAA imposing NOTAMs regarding the use of R/C aircraft is totally bogus.
Last edited by BobbyMcGee; 10-31-2014 at 06:25 AM.
