Dues increase coming? 1 million spent on government relations.....
11-04-2015, 09:28 PM
#1626
Originally Posted by [email protected] 
tell you club you dont want anyone to pay the [ama] see what happend to the ama then
Originally Posted by [email protected]
dont call me stupid drop dead
People on glass planets throwing meteors , I've truly now seen it all ..........
11-05-2015, 05:59 AM
#1628
11-05-2015, 06:47 AM
#1629
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your comments. I was not speaking about the FAA's definition, I was talking about reality. If you have been reading the other active posts in this forum, you will see where I have posted my thoughts and opinions at length.
In short, I believe the AMA HAD (and still MAY HAVE) an opportunity to create separation from the drones and show the FAA that the drones are not. "us". and then the drones may not have been lumped in with model aviation.
I don't think it is too late to change the FAA's definition, as the "team" that has been assembled to look into the registration thing convenes, I think they will find that the definition of model aircraft and drones falls woefully short of defining what needs to be defined in order to provide effective legislation in the future.
The AMA needs to step up NOW and call for more distinct definitions of the different TYPES (or uses) of craft being flown BEFORE any more legislation takes place. I think it is clear to all of us that whatever the definition is now, falls well short of clearly defining the different type of vehicles that we are all operating. Just makes sense to me that CLEARLY DEFINING WHAT they are trying to regulate is the ONLY way that any future legislation will have any real meaning or value.
Regards,
Astro
In short, I believe the AMA HAD (and still MAY HAVE) an opportunity to create separation from the drones and show the FAA that the drones are not. "us". and then the drones may not have been lumped in with model aviation.
I don't think it is too late to change the FAA's definition, as the "team" that has been assembled to look into the registration thing convenes, I think they will find that the definition of model aircraft and drones falls woefully short of defining what needs to be defined in order to provide effective legislation in the future.
The AMA needs to step up NOW and call for more distinct definitions of the different TYPES (or uses) of craft being flown BEFORE any more legislation takes place. I think it is clear to all of us that whatever the definition is now, falls well short of clearly defining the different type of vehicles that we are all operating. Just makes sense to me that CLEARLY DEFINING WHAT they are trying to regulate is the ONLY way that any future legislation will have any real meaning or value.
Regards,
Astro
What essentially came out of the meeting is they are very concerned with GA and Commercial Aircraft(our local municipal is Class D airspace) safety, they accept the fact that there is a segment of the Drone(MR) community that is renegade and little to nothing can be done about short of apprehension and punishment, their concern is the honest uneducated user and if we can educate them on Drone safety and they are looking straight at the 3 local clubs to help them in this effort, no where else. Their logic is simple, A Drone(MR) is operated in the airspace and it Radio Controlled so it is an RC Aircraft, that is the general accepted perception of Drones, no more complicated than that. They all agreed that MR's are the problem and not the so called traditional models primarily due to the dedication it takes to operate traditional models versus MR's. To say that a more defined definition of the types of vehicles is needed before anymore legislation is passed is a nice thought but it is not going to happen and it might even take a judicial decision to separate the MR's from other vehicle types or as someone here pointed out an act of Congress and they will most assuredly act faster on a Regulation than a definition. Bear in mind that there is now a bill before Congress to require all Drones to have onboard GPS and it is requiring a retrofit for existing aircraft. The goal is to give the system an ability to track them, and guess what, it says Drones, refer back to that pesky definition and assess for yourself the potential impact of that legislation on RC Modeling as a hole.
11-05-2015, 07:06 AM
#1630
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problems with "what the local RC Clubs policies are in offering safe places for these folks to operate their Drones" is IMHO 3 fold:
1. Quad/Drone/FPV get's "BORING" Real Quick looking the same Corn/Been fields. That's unless U are doing some form of compition such as Quad FPV obstacle racing. Think for a second how that would go over at your local R/C field.
Response: We have 20 acres and have allowed the southwest part of our property to be used as a quad copter track, out of 130 members I have yet to hear a negative voice.
2. It's tough to convince people (That fly Things that can literally fly anywhere) that they must pay $75/year plus another $X dollar amount only to be told by some O'l FART, they have to adhere too as set of SAFETY Rules and fly with certain boundaries.
Response: Only the honest folk will come to the fold so to speak, we look at it as our job to make it available to them. The rest are going to do whatever they want and it is their consequences to deal with.
3 Then there's the difference in the mix of different "Traditional and NONtraditional" Toy flying objects, in the same air space. We all know what problems when we mix Helies,Fomies, 3D's and Traditional together. People get upset real fast.
Response: We have all these problems at our field just like anywhere else and are responding and resolving these issues as they arise, can't ask anything more, besides, like all fads the MR's will subside to a more sedate level in the future with only the more dedicated to remain active.
Not being critical of your Idea but These are just 3 Things I can foresee f we admit undisciplined flyers to our/you club.
Now if it's a club member (especially one of the IN CROWD), well that's completely different and the Quad/Drone/FPV will be accepted with open arms just because they are one of the "Exalted". <--- Enfamous intended ...
1. Quad/Drone/FPV get's "BORING" Real Quick looking the same Corn/Been fields. That's unless U are doing some form of compition such as Quad FPV obstacle racing. Think for a second how that would go over at your local R/C field.
Response: We have 20 acres and have allowed the southwest part of our property to be used as a quad copter track, out of 130 members I have yet to hear a negative voice.
2. It's tough to convince people (That fly Things that can literally fly anywhere) that they must pay $75/year plus another $X dollar amount only to be told by some O'l FART, they have to adhere too as set of SAFETY Rules and fly with certain boundaries.
Response: Only the honest folk will come to the fold so to speak, we look at it as our job to make it available to them. The rest are going to do whatever they want and it is their consequences to deal with.
3 Then there's the difference in the mix of different "Traditional and NONtraditional" Toy flying objects, in the same air space. We all know what problems when we mix Helies,Fomies, 3D's and Traditional together. People get upset real fast.
Response: We have all these problems at our field just like anywhere else and are responding and resolving these issues as they arise, can't ask anything more, besides, like all fads the MR's will subside to a more sedate level in the future with only the more dedicated to remain active.
Not being critical of your Idea but These are just 3 Things I can foresee f we admit undisciplined flyers to our/you club.
Now if it's a club member (especially one of the IN CROWD), well that's completely different and the Quad/Drone/FPV will be accepted with open arms just because they are one of the "Exalted". <--- Enfamous intended ...
11-05-2015, 07:21 AM
#1631
I have been following this thread and are very familiar with your position and definition distinctions. I do not necessarily disagree with you on the definition of Drones, in my meeting yesterday there was a representative of the local EAA, Pilots Association and our local Airport Manager as well as 3 of us from the local clubs, the GA representatives constantly referred to Drones and I was constantly trying to correct and them to refer to them as Multi Rotor or MR. They finally understood my distinction but I assure you it ended at that table.
What essentially came out of the meeting is they are very concerned with GA and Commercial Aircraft(our local municipal is Class D airspace) safety, they accept the fact that there is a segment of the Drone(MR) community that is renegade and little to nothing can be done about short of apprehension and punishment, their concern is the honest uneducated user and if we can educate them on Drone safety and they are looking straight at the 3 local clubs to help them in this effort, no where else. Their logic is simple, A Drone(MR) is operated in the airspace and it Radio Controlled so it is an RC Aircraft, that is the general accepted perception of Drones, no more complicated than that. They all agreed that MR's are the problem and not the so called traditional models primarily due to the dedication it takes to operate traditional models versus MR's. To say that a more defined definition of the types of vehicles is needed before anymore legislation is passed is a nice thought but it is not going to happen and it might even take a judicial decision to separate the MR's from other vehicle types or as someone here pointed out an act of Congress and they will most assuredly act faster on a Regulation than a definition. Bear in mind that there is now a bill before Congress to require all Drones to have onboard GPS and it is requiring a retrofit for existing aircraft. The goal is to give the system an ability to track them, and guess what, it says Drones, refer back to that pesky definition and assess for yourself the potential impact of that legislation on RC Modeling as a hole.
What essentially came out of the meeting is they are very concerned with GA and Commercial Aircraft(our local municipal is Class D airspace) safety, they accept the fact that there is a segment of the Drone(MR) community that is renegade and little to nothing can be done about short of apprehension and punishment, their concern is the honest uneducated user and if we can educate them on Drone safety and they are looking straight at the 3 local clubs to help them in this effort, no where else. Their logic is simple, A Drone(MR) is operated in the airspace and it Radio Controlled so it is an RC Aircraft, that is the general accepted perception of Drones, no more complicated than that. They all agreed that MR's are the problem and not the so called traditional models primarily due to the dedication it takes to operate traditional models versus MR's. To say that a more defined definition of the types of vehicles is needed before anymore legislation is passed is a nice thought but it is not going to happen and it might even take a judicial decision to separate the MR's from other vehicle types or as someone here pointed out an act of Congress and they will most assuredly act faster on a Regulation than a definition. Bear in mind that there is now a bill before Congress to require all Drones to have onboard GPS and it is requiring a retrofit for existing aircraft. The goal is to give the system an ability to track them, and guess what, it says Drones, refer back to that pesky definition and assess for yourself the potential impact of that legislation on RC Modeling as a hole.
11-05-2015, 07:42 AM
#1632
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear in mind that there is now a bill before Congress to require all Drones to have onboard GPS and it is requiring a retrofit for existing aircraft. The goal is to give the system an ability to track them, and guess what, it says Drones, refer back to that pesky definition and assess for yourself the potential impact of that legislation on RC Modeling as a hole.
Thanks
Mike
11-05-2015, 07:54 AM
#1633
Are we sure we are not talking about the bill to put GPS on commercial drones which are intended to be autonomous? I know of such but I believe the bill I know about does not include recreational radio control models.
11-05-2015, 11:51 AM
#1634
11-05-2015, 12:01 PM
#1635
I have been following this thread and are very familiar with your position and definition distinctions. I do not necessarily disagree with you on the definition of Drones, in my meeting yesterday there was a representative of the local EAA, Pilots Association and our local Airport Manager as well as 3 of us from the local clubs, the GA representatives constantly referred to Drones and I was constantly trying to correct and them to refer to them as Multi Rotor or MR. They finally understood my distinction but I assure you it ended at that table.
What essentially came out of the meeting is they are very concerned with GA and Commercial Aircraft(our local municipal is Class D airspace) safety, they accept the fact that there is a segment of the Drone(MR) community that is renegade and little to nothing can be done about short of apprehension and punishment, their concern is the honest uneducated user and if we can educate them on Drone safety and they are looking straight at the 3 local clubs to help them in this effort, no where else. Their logic is simple, A Drone(MR) is operated in the airspace and it Radio Controlled so it is an RC Aircraft, that is the general accepted perception of Drones, no more complicated than that. They all agreed that MR's are the problem and not the so called traditional models primarily due to the dedication it takes to operate traditional models versus MR's. To say that a more defined definition of the types of vehicles is needed before anymore legislation is passed is a nice thought but it is not going to happen and it might even take a judicial decision to separate the MR's from other vehicle types or as someone here pointed out an act of Congress and they will most assuredly act faster on a Regulation than a definition. Bear in mind that there is now a bill before Congress to require all Drones to have onboard GPS and it is requiring a retrofit for existing aircraft. The goal is to give the system an ability to track them, and guess what, it says Drones, refer back to that pesky definition and assess for yourself the potential impact of that legislation on RC Modeling as a hole.
What essentially came out of the meeting is they are very concerned with GA and Commercial Aircraft(our local municipal is Class D airspace) safety, they accept the fact that there is a segment of the Drone(MR) community that is renegade and little to nothing can be done about short of apprehension and punishment, their concern is the honest uneducated user and if we can educate them on Drone safety and they are looking straight at the 3 local clubs to help them in this effort, no where else. Their logic is simple, A Drone(MR) is operated in the airspace and it Radio Controlled so it is an RC Aircraft, that is the general accepted perception of Drones, no more complicated than that. They all agreed that MR's are the problem and not the so called traditional models primarily due to the dedication it takes to operate traditional models versus MR's. To say that a more defined definition of the types of vehicles is needed before anymore legislation is passed is a nice thought but it is not going to happen and it might even take a judicial decision to separate the MR's from other vehicle types or as someone here pointed out an act of Congress and they will most assuredly act faster on a Regulation than a definition. Bear in mind that there is now a bill before Congress to require all Drones to have onboard GPS and it is requiring a retrofit for existing aircraft. The goal is to give the system an ability to track them, and guess what, it says Drones, refer back to that pesky definition and assess for yourself the potential impact of that legislation on RC Modeling as a hole.
11-05-2015, 01:02 PM
#1636
Sore loser?
11-05-2015, 03:44 PM
#1637
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No sir it was not but Diane Feinstein authored it. I have more meetings tonight, afterwards I will see if I can find it and post the number if no one beats me to the draw.
11-05-2015, 03:47 PM
#1638
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds like you are referring to ADS-B, not GPS. And that is already required to be installed on all aircraft, with some exceptions such as habby aircraft, in the next few years. It is an adabptation of this technology that could be required on all sUAS especially since some company has already come up with a reduced size and cost version. I think they are also more concerned about aircraft avoidance rather than tracking - tracking would require a more powerful, thus larger, transmitter.. I am surprised that Congress already has a bill without waiting for the FAA to give its recommendations.
11-05-2015, 03:49 PM
#1639
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure, only thing he said is that it was recently introduced. Sorry about scant info but there has been a lot happening so pretty busy for a retired fart.
11-05-2015, 03:55 PM
#1640
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
11-05-2015, 06:12 PM
#1641
It sounds like you are referring to ADS-B, not GPS. And that is already required to be installed on all aircraft, with some exceptions such as habby aircraft, in the next few years. It is an adabptation of this technology that could be required on all sUAS especially since some company has already come up with a reduced size and cost version. I think they are also more concerned about aircraft avoidance rather than tracking - tracking would require a more powerful, thus larger, transmitter.. I am surprised that Congress already has a bill without waiting for the FAA to give its recommendations.
If U mean by habby Aircraft Experimental they certainly will have to have ADS-B OUT by 1 January 2020.
ADS-B out only, doesn't keep planes with out ADS-B IN (Receive) safe from any collision from another craft because U only broadcast your position and altitude but don't see any one else broadcast. So the only ones that are protected are those that have both IN & OUT but this still doesn't gearrintee some one with OUT only doesn't hit U.
11-05-2015, 07:10 PM
#1643
It is truly ignorant to label ALL multi-rotor craft drones.
The number of blades whirling away is NOT what makes a small aircraft a drone.
A drone is ANY aircraft that is equipped to be flown beyond line of sight...period.
It can be a Telemaster with a weedeater engine.
The last thing we need are "AMA Reps" who identify themselves as some sort of expert, presenting such misinformation to the general aviation community.
The number of blades whirling away is NOT what makes a small aircraft a drone.
A drone is ANY aircraft that is equipped to be flown beyond line of sight...period.
It can be a Telemaster with a weedeater engine.
The last thing we need are "AMA Reps" who identify themselves as some sort of expert, presenting such misinformation to the general aviation community.
11-06-2015, 05:40 AM
#1644
Yeah it's weird. I've got a quadcopter I fly in the backyard or out at the field but to the general public, they consider it a drone. Always thought drones were aircraft that are flying autonomously.
11-06-2015, 11:01 AM
#1645
Gary is a good friend of mine.. We,Gary and Dave had a conversation about this very thing and i suggested and told them i support and encourage a dues increase. You can't counteract any legal action without enough income . I felt it was a good "investment" in the future of our hobby.
11-06-2015, 08:14 PM
#1646
Future investment ? Like inviting drones to join and then having to defend them$ / teach them$ / pay for lawyers for them $ OK ! lmao The AMA has made some bad choices in the last 10 years to the point that i dropped my card of 30 plus years and wont renew it again . joe
11-07-2015, 05:34 AM
#1647
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-07-2015, 08:41 PM
#1648
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also looked it up and like you drew a blank. There is record of her on submitting legislation but nothing as I stated so I'm also wondering if it is tacked on somewhere. I am considering contacting that Airport Manager next week for more info on it but I got to admit that I hate to bother him on something that in the grand scheme of things is probably pretty trivial.
11-07-2015, 08:50 PM
#1650
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA definition is: "any vehicle that operates in the airspace that is unmanned and radio controlled either line of sight or not". That is not word for word but it is pretty close. That is one of the issues of this thread, that is the accepted definition by the lawmakers and it does not care if it is fixed wing, rotary wing or multi rotor, all drones even though the ones everyone is concerned with are MR's. Any regulation they pass on the Drone issue is across the board.
