Ama should have left faa alone!
03-20-2015, 09:58 PM
#2
I have alway felt the CBO bill that AMA pushed through Congress was just as much about increasing membership as it was helping modelers. I also have felt that whatever laws
that the FAA come up with should apply equally to AMA members and non members alike. IMO if something is unsafe it's just that being a AMA does not make the act more or
less safe.
that the FAA come up with should apply equally to AMA members and non members alike. IMO if something is unsafe it's just that being a AMA does not make the act more or
less safe.
03-21-2015, 06:59 AM
#3
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I think the AMA was 100% correct to engage in the process with the FAA, it would have been silly not to have done this. Sit on the sidelines while others have a say in our possible future? No way.
They did it right, and on our behalf, and the results are bearing that out. The head in the sand approach is never a good move.
They did it right, and on our behalf, and the results are bearing that out. The head in the sand approach is never a good move.
03-21-2015, 07:17 AM
#4
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the AMA was 100% correct to engage in the process with the FAA, it would have been silly not to have done this. Sit on the sidelines while others have a say in our possible future? No way.
They did it right, and on our behalf, and the results are bearing that out. The head in the sand approach is never a good move.
They did it right, and on our behalf, and the results are bearing that out. The head in the sand approach is never a good move.
03-22-2015, 11:06 AM
#5
My take on it is this: The AMA has never had any real rules, or a protocol for any type of regulation. A modeler can do anything he wants, because the 400' altitude, according to the AMA, only extends 3 miles away from an airport. That was over the location of a period in a sentence in an advisory circular. The FAA meant 400' regardless of location. Anyway. The activity has proven to be nearly harmless for over 75 years. Although the FAA put out their advisory circular in 1981, that did not change club activities in any form that I am aware of. Everything was radio control by then. This is just my opinion, but I feel the biggest mistake the AMA made, was to promote RC instead of control-line flight. Control-line and free-flight is where it all began. The models were far smaller than they are today, and some were CO2 powered, while others were glow and some gas with spark-plug ignition. There was almost nothing in existence that could interfere with a full-scale aircraft.
RC didn't come into view until the 1950's. As technology changed, RC increasingly came under the FAA's radar beginning in 1981. It escalated in the late 1990's when GPS was made available, first-person view came on the scene, and batteries improved, thus allowing for electric flight on the spur of the moment. As park flyers became more widely available, RC became more readily accessible by anyone with the money, the resulting larger population of operators also invited more carelessness among the less initiated. Then quad copters were added to the mix. The AMA, wanting to maintain and improve its ranks, stepped in to try to halt the FAA's attempts to regulate the use of drones. This may have been a poor decision, aggravating and galvanizing the FAA into taking action against anybody who would tread on its territory. So now we have their proposed rule making, that will call for looser regulations for those who are licensed to fly commercial drones, but very tight restrictions on model airplanes. I seriously doubt, however, that the new rules will have much of an impact on club operations. I honestly think the FAA has been fairly kind to modelers, even allowing the operation of HUGE 30 pound 125CC gassers with no requirement of any kind of license. That's pretty generous!
RC didn't come into view until the 1950's. As technology changed, RC increasingly came under the FAA's radar beginning in 1981. It escalated in the late 1990's when GPS was made available, first-person view came on the scene, and batteries improved, thus allowing for electric flight on the spur of the moment. As park flyers became more widely available, RC became more readily accessible by anyone with the money, the resulting larger population of operators also invited more carelessness among the less initiated. Then quad copters were added to the mix. The AMA, wanting to maintain and improve its ranks, stepped in to try to halt the FAA's attempts to regulate the use of drones. This may have been a poor decision, aggravating and galvanizing the FAA into taking action against anybody who would tread on its territory. So now we have their proposed rule making, that will call for looser regulations for those who are licensed to fly commercial drones, but very tight restrictions on model airplanes. I seriously doubt, however, that the new rules will have much of an impact on club operations. I honestly think the FAA has been fairly kind to modelers, even allowing the operation of HUGE 30 pound 125CC gassers with no requirement of any kind of license. That's pretty generous!
03-22-2015, 01:54 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackstock, SC
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the AMA was 100% correct to engage in the process with the FAA, it would have been silly not to have done this. Sit on the sidelines while others have a say in our possible future? No way.
They did it right, and on our behalf, and the results are bearing that out. The head in the sand approach is never a good move.
They did it right, and on our behalf, and the results are bearing that out. The head in the sand approach is never a good move.
Last edited by FlyWheel; 03-22-2015 at 01:58 PM.
03-22-2015, 02:27 PM
#7
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Rich Hanson should have walked from the sUAS ARC as soon as the talk of regulating model aircraft came up. That had nothing to do with the announced purpose of the ARC or his purpose in being there, and he was clearly unprepared for it. BUT, that is water over the dam.
03-23-2015, 12:09 PM
#8
My take on it is this: The AMA has never had any real rules, or a protocol for any type of regulation. A modeler can do anything he wants, because the 400' altitude, according to the AMA, only extends 3 miles away from an airport. That was over the location of a period in a sentence in an advisory circular. The FAA meant 400' regardless of location. Anyway. The activity has proven to be nearly harmless for over 75 years. Although the FAA put out their advisory circular in 1981, that did not change club activities in any form that I am aware of. Everything was radio control by then. This is just my opinion, but I feel the biggest mistake the AMA made, was to promote RC instead of control-line flight. Control-line and free-flight is where it all began. The models were far smaller than they are today, and some were CO2 powered, while others were glow and some gas with spark-plug ignition. There was almost nothing in existence that could interfere with a full-scale aircraft.
RC didn't come into view until the 1950's. As technology changed, RC increasingly came under the FAA's radar beginning in 1981. It escalated in the late 1990's when GPS was made available, first-person view came on the scene, and batteries improved, thus allowing for electric flight on the spur of the moment. As park flyers became more widely available, RC became more readily accessible by anyone with the money, the resulting larger population of operators also invited more carelessness among the less initiated. Then quad copters were added to the mix. The AMA, wanting to maintain and improve its ranks, stepped in to try to halt the FAA's attempts to regulate the use of drones. This may have been a poor decision, aggravating and galvanizing the FAA into taking action against anybody who would tread on its territory. So now we have their proposed rule making, that will call for looser regulations for those who are licensed to fly commercial drones, but very tight restrictions on model airplanes. I seriously doubt, however, that the new rules will have much of an impact on club operations. I honestly think the FAA has been fairly kind to modelers, even allowing the operation of HUGE 30 pound 125CC gassers with no requirement of any kind of license. That's pretty generous!
RC didn't come into view until the 1950's. As technology changed, RC increasingly came under the FAA's radar beginning in 1981. It escalated in the late 1990's when GPS was made available, first-person view came on the scene, and batteries improved, thus allowing for electric flight on the spur of the moment. As park flyers became more widely available, RC became more readily accessible by anyone with the money, the resulting larger population of operators also invited more carelessness among the less initiated. Then quad copters were added to the mix. The AMA, wanting to maintain and improve its ranks, stepped in to try to halt the FAA's attempts to regulate the use of drones. This may have been a poor decision, aggravating and galvanizing the FAA into taking action against anybody who would tread on its territory. So now we have their proposed rule making, that will call for looser regulations for those who are licensed to fly commercial drones, but very tight restrictions on model airplanes. I seriously doubt, however, that the new rules will have much of an impact on club operations. I honestly think the FAA has been fairly kind to modelers, even allowing the operation of HUGE 30 pound 125CC gassers with no requirement of any kind of license. That's pretty generous!
03-31-2015, 05:23 AM
#9
Well put! And I'm happy to see someone else noticed that the FAA guidelines stated the 400' regulation regardless of location.
03-31-2015, 12:24 PM
#11
Very true, Sport Pilot. The AMA would have died long ago had they not promoted RC. It's what everybody wanted back then, and they got it. Today, everybody wants a quad copter and it's either adapt, or die for the AMA. That's capitalism.
04-01-2015, 06:51 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/
It also specifies 400 feet.
Frank
04-01-2015, 08:07 AM
#14
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget the Know before you Fly document.
http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/
It also specifies 400 feet.
Frank
http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/
It also specifies 400 feet.
Frank
04-01-2015, 08:51 AM
#15
It also says if you opt out of following safety programming of a CBO, follow FAA guidance here. That guidance does not specify a ceiling for model aircraft operations. Knowbeforeyoufly.org seems to address recreational sUAS 'drones' as something different from model aircraft, but FAA makes no such distinction.
04-01-2015, 08:56 AM
#16
Don't forget the Know before you Fly document.
http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/
It also specifies 400 feet.
Frank
http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/
It also specifies 400 feet.
Frank
04-01-2015, 11:44 AM
#18
04-01-2015, 11:48 AM
#19
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04-01-2015, 03:28 PM
#21
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now Sporty, provide a citation of a document where FAA said "they were good with" corruption of what the AC said in the AMA SC.
Last edited by cj_rumley; 04-01-2015 at 06:21 PM.
04-01-2015, 05:54 PM
#22
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Apple River IL
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=cj_rumley;12014901]FAA said ceiling of 400' for model airplane operations in AC 91-57, dtd 1981.
"I think you pulled this out of your arse, as usual."
Now that' the most accurate statement made regarding the whole messy subject, yup!
"I think you pulled this out of your arse, as usual."
Now that' the most accurate statement made regarding the whole messy subject, yup!
04-01-2015, 07:36 PM
#23
My Feedback: (10)
The AMA went inway too heavy handed trying grab conrtol and really messed things up. Before they got involved the FAA thought we were all flying trainer 40's and werent a problem. Water under the bridge at this point. The advent of cheap quadcopters and the idiots doing stupid things with them would have got us here anyway... Of course we are now tied up in the middle of all ofit. If the commercial rules were already established we would probably not been had as much risk as we face now when the time came to regulate us. Right Now itis too easy to reallt overly restrict us all over the FPV issues currently driving the bus..
04-01-2015, 11:15 PM
#24
Now Sporty, provide a citation of a document where FAA said "they were good with" corruption of what the AC said in the AMA SC.
per Rich Hanson and Frank.
Which came first, the comma or the period?
In recent years there has been a frequent discussion about the infamous comma versus period and some people saying the AMA has been ignoring the FAA guidelines (AC 91-57) for thirty years. Here is a little history behind AC 91-57.
Thirty four years ago in Jan 1976 then AMA Executive Director, John Worth wrote in part:
F.A.A. REQUESTS AMA COOPERATION AGAIN
A few years ago, in 1972, the Federal Aviation Administration responded to some reports of near misses between models and full-scale planes by asking AMA cooperation to alert modelers to the need for vigilance in their operations. At the time, much controversy arose because it appeared that the FAA was trying to limit model flying to altitudes less than 400 feet.
That was cleared up when AMA-FAA discussions indicated that the altitude figure was not a limit but a warning point. What it boiled down to was the fact that the FAA was (and still is) concerned about any model flying over 400 feet, to the extent that they wanted to be informed when and where such flying might take place-- particularly if this was within 3 miles of an airport.
Once the air was cleared on this point there began a general movement toward dialogue between modelers and FAA personnel on the local scene. The FAA was pleased by this because they gained a much better idea of the location and nature of model flying actives and they also got to know many modelers and gained an appreciation for their activities. At the same time, many modelers got to know about FAA problems concerning aircraft traffic control and the need to be conscious of full-scale activity near their flying sites.
The FAA record since 1972 has been noticeably free of any incidents between models and full-scale aircraft...
It was because of those discussions in the 70’s between the AMA and FAA that the AMA safety code was written as it is today. AC 91-57 was published in 1981 and several AMA officials have discussed it since then.
It was mentioned in Mar 1977 by then AMA President, John Clemems
It was mentioned in Jan 1981 by then AMA President, Earl Witt
It was mentioned in MA articles by AMA PR representative Geoffrey Styles in Jun 1982, Jan 1990 and Jan 1992.
More recently I quote;
You are correct in that a difference does exist between the language in the current FAA Advisory Circular, AC 91-57, and AMA's implementation of this guideline in the AMA Safety code. AMA believes the only significant risk to the manned aviation community posed by aeromodeling is when model aircraft are flown in close proximity to an airport. As such, the AMA Safety Code advises modelers to remain at or below 400' AGL when within 3 miles of an airport. AMA believes this meets the intent of the Advisory Circular in creating a means by which model airplanes can operate in a safe and cooperative manner without imposing an undue restriction on the modeling community.
AMA's experience has shown that the risk posed by model aviation diminishes significantly at distances greater than 3 miles and any residual exposure can be mitigated almost entirely by proper safety training and the modelers ability to see and avoid the manned aircraft when a conflict exists. This has been AMA's position since the AC was published in June, 1981, and this is AMA's position going forward.
That having been said, there are some unique aeromodeling activities such as thermal soaring and Free Flight where additional risks do exist due to the nature of the operations. In these incidences AMA is considering additional means for mitigating the risks while essentially allowing the modelers to continue to enjoy these activities. We will work directly with the modelers, the Special Interest Groups and the FAA in developing these procedures. Once the concepts are developed and put forward for consideration more information will be made available through this forum and the AMA web site.
Though there are as yet no guarantees, AMA is confident we will be able to work through these issues, resolve any remaining concerns and ultimately provide a safe and effective program that allows the modelers to continue to enjoy the hobby in much the same way as they have in the past. “
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs
To say that this issue has been ignored by the AMA for thirty years and the FAA is going to punish us for it is just wrong.
Regards
Frank R Phelps
In recent years there has been a frequent discussion about the infamous comma versus period and some people saying the AMA has been ignoring the FAA guidelines (AC 91-57) for thirty years. Here is a little history behind AC 91-57.
Thirty four years ago in Jan 1976 then AMA Executive Director, John Worth wrote in part:
F.A.A. REQUESTS AMA COOPERATION AGAIN
A few years ago, in 1972, the Federal Aviation Administration responded to some reports of near misses between models and full-scale planes by asking AMA cooperation to alert modelers to the need for vigilance in their operations. At the time, much controversy arose because it appeared that the FAA was trying to limit model flying to altitudes less than 400 feet.
That was cleared up when AMA-FAA discussions indicated that the altitude figure was not a limit but a warning point. What it boiled down to was the fact that the FAA was (and still is) concerned about any model flying over 400 feet, to the extent that they wanted to be informed when and where such flying might take place-- particularly if this was within 3 miles of an airport.
Once the air was cleared on this point there began a general movement toward dialogue between modelers and FAA personnel on the local scene. The FAA was pleased by this because they gained a much better idea of the location and nature of model flying actives and they also got to know many modelers and gained an appreciation for their activities. At the same time, many modelers got to know about FAA problems concerning aircraft traffic control and the need to be conscious of full-scale activity near their flying sites.
The FAA record since 1972 has been noticeably free of any incidents between models and full-scale aircraft...
It was because of those discussions in the 70’s between the AMA and FAA that the AMA safety code was written as it is today. AC 91-57 was published in 1981 and several AMA officials have discussed it since then.
It was mentioned in Mar 1977 by then AMA President, John Clemems
It was mentioned in Jan 1981 by then AMA President, Earl Witt
It was mentioned in MA articles by AMA PR representative Geoffrey Styles in Jun 1982, Jan 1990 and Jan 1992.
More recently I quote;
You are correct in that a difference does exist between the language in the current FAA Advisory Circular, AC 91-57, and AMA's implementation of this guideline in the AMA Safety code. AMA believes the only significant risk to the manned aviation community posed by aeromodeling is when model aircraft are flown in close proximity to an airport. As such, the AMA Safety Code advises modelers to remain at or below 400' AGL when within 3 miles of an airport. AMA believes this meets the intent of the Advisory Circular in creating a means by which model airplanes can operate in a safe and cooperative manner without imposing an undue restriction on the modeling community.
AMA's experience has shown that the risk posed by model aviation diminishes significantly at distances greater than 3 miles and any residual exposure can be mitigated almost entirely by proper safety training and the modelers ability to see and avoid the manned aircraft when a conflict exists. This has been AMA's position since the AC was published in June, 1981, and this is AMA's position going forward.
That having been said, there are some unique aeromodeling activities such as thermal soaring and Free Flight where additional risks do exist due to the nature of the operations. In these incidences AMA is considering additional means for mitigating the risks while essentially allowing the modelers to continue to enjoy these activities. We will work directly with the modelers, the Special Interest Groups and the FAA in developing these procedures. Once the concepts are developed and put forward for consideration more information will be made available through this forum and the AMA web site.
Though there are as yet no guarantees, AMA is confident we will be able to work through these issues, resolve any remaining concerns and ultimately provide a safe and effective program that allows the modelers to continue to enjoy the hobby in much the same way as they have in the past. “
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs
To say that this issue has been ignored by the AMA for thirty years and the FAA is going to punish us for it is just wrong.
Regards
Frank R Phelps
Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 04-01-2015 at 11:17 PM.