franklin_m

I'm inclined to agree. After I sent an email to one of the AMA EVPs, he contacted me by phone to discuss thoughts on their effort as well as pick my brain from an aviation safety management and policy making perspective. I told him that I feel we're losing if not already lost the PR battle -- as evidenced by the symptom you mentioned.

NorfolkSouthern

Here is what I would like to see: The FAA should step down from the medical requirements for flying lighf-sport aircraft. This means getting rid of the catch-22, so people can learn to fly, as long as they have a valid driver's license. This would enable pilots who have lost their medical certificates to STILL fly, as long as they are fit to drive a car. For example: Self-certification has ALWAYS worked for motor gliders, balloons, and standard gliders that are towed by airplanes.

Then, if the AMA will just BUD OUT, the FAA can regulate RC flying the same way they do gliders and hot air balloons, keeping the same medical certification requirements for them, light-sport, and gliders. Anybody who can learn the rules of the road and are healthy enough to drive a car, should be able to fly a model aircraft. Of course, that would be a different story for winos, druggies, and bums on bikes. I would be all good with that, because it would give the majority of us the opportunity to enjoy aviation to its fullest extent, while keeping the nut jobs and wackos out of it.

franklin_m

While that would probably work, the FAA has no incentive to loosen requirements on other types of flying.

NorfolkSouthern

And if they don't have incentives to loosen requirements for other types of flying, I don't see them loosening requirements for drones either, including model airplanes. This hobby is done as we know it, at least as long as these people keep flying their RC planes with GPSs continues. And it will continue. There is no stopping it.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Commercial Quads if used for delivery as proposed by Amazon and others will be entirely autonomous and no pilot what so ever. it will grab the package read the GPS address in bar code and off it will go all for a price. Too expensive for Pizza delivery but great for those that think they absolutely need it right now. For that mater your car will drive it self ostarting on the free ways in special lanes but it will happen. Every air liner is capable of that right now but prohibited for take off and landing by the FAA/NTSB but as soon as possible the auto pilot is engaged, mainly to conserve fuel. with the advance in electronics all flying things except for birds will avoid each other automatically. Ever here ot TCAS and now ADS-B Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast?

blhollo2

My Feedback: (278)

I fly quad copters not "drones" and R/C airplanes with common sence and I will continue to do so with or without FAA regulations. Now, I do also realize "common sence" is not common.

benjack71

That is exactly where this is heading. They will start making our receivers incapable of going over a preset altitude. It will limit you to flying at your zipcode so to speak.That is just my opinion, but that would be par to course for in my opinion government over reach

benjack71

This leads to the elephant in the room no one is talking about. These drone sightings are accepted as factual with no thought that the pilot could be wrong. The commercial and civilian pilots are being "trained" to spot drones, to look for them. Now, I am afraid everything that was at one time a seagull as example is becoming a drone. Can you imagine a quad keeping up with a landing commercial jet? Really? Its zipping along fpv at 150mph aside the landing 737? I am not saying that there has not been idiot operators and that there has not been any times that they have not been somewhere they shouldn't. I just think its foolish to accept drone near miss sightings as absolute truth 100% of the time. Example. This has not happened, so ok ok call it straw man but...Im at my club flying my 60 size p-47. I am probably flying at most 150-200 above ground altitude. Just flying. Along comes Cessna at around 900-1100 feet above ground. They look down. They see my plane. They report it as a near miss. Is there report questioned? Can I defend myself? Well, yeah maybe I can..but in reality right now its a witch hunt for anything unmanned in the air. FPV or line of sight

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

Something similar with UFO sightings....at one time there was a sighting once a day....now days.....you don't hear about them....maybe the 'green men from Mars' couldn't handle our FAA and left????

benjack71

This is probably where its going. Establish SOME fields for that flying. The problem will be the government. They will require this of all fields and with the slash of a pen it will become unlawful to fly at probably 70% of the rc clubs with anything as much as a paper airplane. But, with that said, your approach is in the right idea. It probably would be the best thing. The criteria to establish the little bubble would be the crux of it all and again I think that it would be limited number that would by the time the fed dissects and bottom feeds it. So, I would look to the AMA to say ok these are the approved fields to fly at, and the other fields you can fly but no fpv flying. You must show an AMA card when you purchase FPV equipment. This is some good ideas in my opinion that would maintain our freedom, and would give the fed a sense of control which all good bottom feeding bureaucrats love.

VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

Flying my Phantom 2 at the edge of the golf course this afternoon. Experimenting with the Nav waypoint capability (more me learning how to set it up and execute). Golfer stopped after I landed it, and asked if it was a "drone."

Don't think I'd have got that question if I'd been flying my Pulse XT or PZ T-28. In fact, golfers have watched me fly these, and never mentioned "drone." IMO, to the 'layman', a "drone" = a quadcopter flying apparatus...regardless of formal definitions.

EDIT: Before someone gets wound up, I was not on golf course property, and did not fly over an open air gathering of people or over houses. Funny thing, in 1975 the accepted definition of "open air gathering" was 3 people. Looks like it's 2 now. But then again, that's just one FAA guy's opinion, or that of his FSDO...which points to a whole 'nuther problem about the FAA: too much 'opinion' allowed from the judge/jury/executioner FAA inspector

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

I'm more concerned with the "new" 5 mile radius as two, no make that three of our fields are just at or slightly more than 3 miles from an airport.....where did that come from all of a sudden???

benjack71

Bottom feeding unelected federal government employees who have been ordained by your elected representative to pass and enforce law by merely calling it a regulation.

benjack71

Which is a good thing so far. Again the problem is going to be the fed and the fact they wont see a difference. They will take a one size fits all approach sooner or later. In my opinion, what the AMA needs to do is attempt to become a legally recognized licensing body for the hobby. This part sucks, but I think its our best option. Upon doing so, then they will have to have different classifications of membership, and will probably limit a lot of the flying to ama sanctioned fields. Not eliminating the parkflying or private property per say, but without a doubt curtailing it greatly. How you would do this, is once the ama is recognized as a licensing/governing authority by the fed, you would require a current ama "membership" to purchase FPV equipment. Again, it comes back to the memberships become part of a classification. If you do not intend to fly FPV, then probably not a lot changes. IF you do, then there would probably be a minimum a test, conducted at certain FPV approved fields xx amout of times a year to receive the classification, that would allow you to purchase FPV equipment. Again, all of that hinges on the AMA convincing the fed to allow us to become a licensing body for those permits.

CESSNA 421

My Feedback: (17)

I have always been reluctant to limit an activity, however if fixed wing or helicopter flyers were acting as irresponsibly as the drone flyers have been operating then I would make the same statement. I believe the time is now for the AMA to step up to the plate and disassociate itself from all drone activity. This would mean if an AMA member flies a drone in any manner or under any circumstances then they will no longer be covered by AMA insurance. If the AMA took this stance then there would be no AMA sanctioned club or AMA event that would allow drones to operate and they would have to go elsewhere to fly their drones. This would demonstrate to the FAA and the government in general that the responsible modeling community is no longer condoning those that fly drones and will no longer support their irresponsible activity.

benjack71

that is one approach. I actually understand where you are coming from. What I think is, the AMA should go just the opposite. They should begin a licensing process now for FPV recreational pilots. They should require you to have that license to fly fpv at ama fields. Then, they should petition the FAA to accept them as the licensing body for recreational FPV. If we can pull that off, then you have trained responsible, at least in theory, people enjoying the hobby, and increasing the ranks of the AMA. Then you can turn loose the fed dogs on the youtube fpv idiots.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Who administers the tests do U endorse the FPV pilot like a Turbine waver. I think the AMA should require all instructors to be certified and all AMA members should have a biannual every 2 years from a designated examiner or certified flight instructor just like full scale pilots ... Now let's talk about the 3rd class medical certificate for RC Flyers. along with a certificate to solo any RC type flying object. with special endorsements for FPV, Quads, jets, planes over 25 lbs, gasoline motors, and Lectrics of 5S or more.

That should ruffle a few feathers. LOL OOPS for got the endorsment for Helis sorry

franklin_m

US Airspace definitions...class D is smallest, with radius generally 5SM. However, there can be extensions for arrival and departure corridors, so one really has to check a sectional to be sure.

See: http://flighttraining.aopa.org/learn.../airspace.html (among others)

HunkaJunk

The government as a whole is incapable of just making a simple rule to be followed or enforced, it's very nature is to grow the control that some stupid, pencil pushing, t-crossing, chair squashing bureaucrat has over that particular thing. In this case it's air space. Mark my words! If you let them ban "drones", the next guy will want "xxxx" banned, restricted, or regulated. The next guy wants "yyyy". It's a never ending cycle of government bureaucratic flatulence!

Just for the sake of full disclosure, I admit that sometimes I am blinded by my seething hatred for government, but history has proven me correct countless times.

tmulligan

I think this may prove to be a terrific idea.

Maximilionalpha

"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!"

VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

^^^^^^ +1

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/loc...dra-1664794021

Uncas

My Feedback: (1)

I do not think we have much to worry about.
I do not believe that we are the center piece of drone regulation. There seems to be a huge push to use drones commercially for all sorts of activities. I saw an FAA Administrator interview on a TV News show today. He spoke about the dangers to airplanes and about the commercial advantages to using this technology. He mentioned the 400 foot limit and restrictions about flying near airports and about the concerns of pilots. He mentioned the AMA as an after thought

Sport_Pilot

Why? There is no need for this. No major incidents at all. See and avoid works just fine.