Proposed Drone Law in California
09-25-2015, 10:29 AM
#251
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I think I see the core of the issue here. You apparently think that we are saying that MR, etc. are detrimental to the hobby. That is categorically NOT what I am saying. What I am saying, and I think many others as well, is that lumping THAT hobby with OUR hobby is causing our hobby problems. MR/aerial camera platforms are very cool and can be an amazing hobby in their own right. However, it is NOT the hobby we mostly all enjoy. It is NOT model airplanes."
Hit the nail right on the head.
Mike
Hit the nail right on the head.
Mike
09-25-2015, 11:10 AM
#252
"I think I see the core of the issue here. You apparently think that we are saying that MR, etc. are detrimental to the hobby. That is categorically NOT what I am saying. What I am saying, and I think many others as well, is that lumping THAT hobby with OUR hobby is causing our hobby problems. MR/aerial camera platforms are very cool and can be an amazing hobby in their own right. However, it is NOT the hobby we mostly all enjoy. It is NOT model airplanes."
Hit the nail right on the head.
Mike
Hit the nail right on the head.
Mike
09-25-2015, 11:24 AM
#253
I think I see the core of the issue here. You apparently think that we are saying that MR, etc. are detrimental to the hobby. That is categorically NOT what I am saying. What I am saying, and I think many others as well, is that lumping THAT hobby with OUR hobby is causing our hobby problems. MR/aerial camera platforms are very cool and can be an amazing hobby in their own right. However, it is NOT the hobby we mostly all enjoy. It is NOT model airplanes.
Yes, by the Section 336 they are considered model aircraft for the sake of regulations, just like a golf cart is considered a motor vehicle by the DMV, but I think most of you can see the difference between a golf cart and the family truckster!!
What I am saying is that by not making a clear distinction between our hobby and their hobby we are paying the price for all the bad actors who will never have an interest in model aviation like we have. What is so difficult to understand about that concept ??
What criteria are you going to use to make this clear distinction?
Estimates show that perhaps as many as 750,000 MR camera platforms were sold in the US in 2014 alone. That does not include the toy market.
Where does this number come from and what's the size breakdown?
AMA has seen a modest increase in membership, maybe 10,000 or so, if that. So maybe 1% of the drone owners cared enough to join the AMA, which also means that 99% of them are likely not to give one wit about our rules for safe operation, or even know about them.
1) So what's the breakdown of what you consdier "tradition modelers" who not AMA members? You know damn well there are plenty of the them too.
2) What's the average age of the AMA member before these 10k joined and what is the average age of the 10k that joined that you consider "drone" operators.
Yes, by the Section 336 they are considered model aircraft for the sake of regulations, just like a golf cart is considered a motor vehicle by the DMV, but I think most of you can see the difference between a golf cart and the family truckster!!
What I am saying is that by not making a clear distinction between our hobby and their hobby we are paying the price for all the bad actors who will never have an interest in model aviation like we have. What is so difficult to understand about that concept ??
What criteria are you going to use to make this clear distinction?
Estimates show that perhaps as many as 750,000 MR camera platforms were sold in the US in 2014 alone. That does not include the toy market.
Where does this number come from and what's the size breakdown?
AMA has seen a modest increase in membership, maybe 10,000 or so, if that. So maybe 1% of the drone owners cared enough to join the AMA, which also means that 99% of them are likely not to give one wit about our rules for safe operation, or even know about them.
1) So what's the breakdown of what you consdier "tradition modelers" who not AMA members? You know damn well there are plenty of the them too.
2) What's the average age of the AMA member before these 10k joined and what is the average age of the 10k that joined that you consider "drone" operators.
09-25-2015, 11:59 AM
#254
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-25-2015, 12:21 PM
#255
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crispy wrote:
Put an octocopter down next to a just about anything you see on a normal day at the flying field and I think the distinction becomes crystal clear.
If your main interest is flying a remotely operated aircraft equipped with cameras or other sensors that, to me, is not traditional model aviation. Again, are you being purposefully obtuse for the sake of sustaining the argument? Or, can you really not see or understand the difference??
http://dronelife.com/2015/04/16/drone-sales-numbers-nobody-knows-so-we-venture-a-guess/
As far as your other 2 points, I am not sure what bearing average age has, unless you are trying to make some sort of argument that us FOGs "don't get it" or some other such nonsensical argument.
I'd say that up until about a year ago almost 100% of the AMA was comprised of what I call "traditional" modelers. People who like to build and fly model airplanes. Most of the recent increase are the 1% or less of new members are almost certainly from the drone group. Not hard to figure out. THey are NOT a significant segment of the AMA, nor will they ever be. So why spend any more time and money on them pretending that they will "come into the fold"?
What criteria are you going to use to make this clear distinction?
If your main interest is flying a remotely operated aircraft equipped with cameras or other sensors that, to me, is not traditional model aviation. Again, are you being purposefully obtuse for the sake of sustaining the argument? Or, can you really not see or understand the difference??
Where does this number come from and what's the size breakdown?
As far as your other 2 points, I am not sure what bearing average age has, unless you are trying to make some sort of argument that us FOGs "don't get it" or some other such nonsensical argument.
I'd say that up until about a year ago almost 100% of the AMA was comprised of what I call "traditional" modelers. People who like to build and fly model airplanes. Most of the recent increase are the 1% or less of new members are almost certainly from the drone group. Not hard to figure out. THey are NOT a significant segment of the AMA, nor will they ever be. So why spend any more time and money on them pretending that they will "come into the fold"?
Last edited by Silent-AV8R; 09-25-2015 at 12:25 PM.
09-25-2015, 12:36 PM
#257
Crispy wrote:
Put an octocopter down next to a just about anything you see on a normal day at the flying field and I think the distinction becomes crystal clear.
If your main interest is flying a remotely operated aircraft equipped with cameras or other sensors that, to me, is not traditional model aviation. Again, are you being purposefully obtuse for the sake of sustaining the argument? Or, can you really not see or understand the difference??
http://dronelife.com/2015/04/16/drone-sales-numbers-nobody-knows-so-we-venture-a-guess/
As far as your other 2 points, I am not sure what bearing average age has, unless you are trying to make some sort of agist argument that us FOGs "don't get it" or some other such nonsensical argument.
I'd say that up until about a year ago almost 100% of the AMA was comprised of what I call "traditional" modelers. People who like to build and fly model airplanes. Most of the recent increase are the 1% or less of new members are almost certainly from the drone group. Not hard to figure out. THey are NOT a significant segment of the AMA, nor will they ever be. So why spend any more time and money on them pretending that they will "come into the fold"?
Put an octocopter down next to a just about anything you see on a normal day at the flying field and I think the distinction becomes crystal clear.
If your main interest is flying a remotely operated aircraft equipped with cameras or other sensors that, to me, is not traditional model aviation. Again, are you being purposefully obtuse for the sake of sustaining the argument? Or, can you really not see or understand the difference??
http://dronelife.com/2015/04/16/drone-sales-numbers-nobody-knows-so-we-venture-a-guess/
As far as your other 2 points, I am not sure what bearing average age has, unless you are trying to make some sort of agist argument that us FOGs "don't get it" or some other such nonsensical argument.
I'd say that up until about a year ago almost 100% of the AMA was comprised of what I call "traditional" modelers. People who like to build and fly model airplanes. Most of the recent increase are the 1% or less of new members are almost certainly from the drone group. Not hard to figure out. THey are NOT a significant segment of the AMA, nor will they ever be. So why spend any more time and money on them pretending that they will "come into the fold"?
As for the FOGs comment, hopefully you're well aware the hobby dying have a good idea of what the average age of your typical "traditional modeler" is. Sure AMA numbers are up now, after a solid 10 year decline, now that they give 50k kids free memberships, but how many of those will be sticking with it, espeically when they can do something like FIRST and not have to listen to the FOGs compalin about everything.
This reminds me a lot about when the FCC eliminated the morse code requirement for amateur radio. All the "traditional hams" bitiched and complained that it was the end of amateur radio. Now look at how many who never intended to learn the code have learned it and that hobby has survived.
09-25-2015, 12:45 PM
#258
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Let me help you Porcia! Here is a definition of a model: (and it doesn't really describe MOST drones)
mod·el
ˈmädl/
noun
noun: model; plural noun: models
1.
a three-dimensional representation of a person or thing or of a proposed structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original.
"a model of St. Paul's Cathedral"
[TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
[TR]
[TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
[TD]replica, copy, representation, mock-up, dummy, imitation, duplicate, reproduction, facsimile[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Not too hard for most of us to wrap our heads around, "traditional model aviation" I am sorry you are having such a hard time with it! Maybe YOU should try a little harder! LOL
Astro
mod·el
ˈmädl/
noun
noun: model; plural noun: models
1.
a three-dimensional representation of a person or thing or of a proposed structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original.
"a model of St. Paul's Cathedral"
[TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
[TR]
[TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
[TD]replica, copy, representation, mock-up, dummy, imitation, duplicate, reproduction, facsimile[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Not too hard for most of us to wrap our heads around, "traditional model aviation" I am sorry you are having such a hard time with it! Maybe YOU should try a little harder! LOL
Astro
But hey...speaking of "traditional model aviation", I'm glad you seem to have a firm grasp on what that is. Not that it makes a difference in the large scheme of things, as that definition can be numerous and varied depending on who you ask. But...along those lines, do these aircraft meet your definition of "traditional model aviation"? If not, should each of them be treated the same as the MRs? Per the definition you quoted above, would be interested to see your logic. Regardless, this is an example of how it might not be so easy to define "traditional model aviation".
09-25-2015, 12:55 PM
#260
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
"I think I see the core of the issue here. You apparently think that we are saying that MR, etc. are detrimental to the hobby. That is categorically NOT what I am saying. What I am saying, and I think many others as well, is that lumping THAT hobby with OUR hobby is causing our hobby problems. MR/aerial camera platforms are very cool and can be an amazing hobby in their own right. However, it is NOT the hobby we mostly all enjoy. It is NOT model airplanes."
Hit the nail right on the head.
Mike
Hit the nail right on the head.
Mike
Or this one, darn it's cute!
09-25-2015, 01:00 PM
#261
Nothing screams desperation more than a copy and paste of a random definition...and not even sourced! What's next, a link to a Wiki page to bolster a point? Another swing and a miss.
But hey...speaking of "traditional model aviation", I'm glad you seem to have a firm grasp on what that is. Not that it makes a difference in the large scheme of things, as that definition can be numerous and varied depending on who you ask. But...along those lines, do these aircraft meet your definition of "traditional model aviation"? If not, should each of them be treated the same as the MRs? Per the definition you quoted above, would be interested to see your logic. Regardless, this is an example of how it might not be so easy to define "traditional model aviation".
But hey...speaking of "traditional model aviation", I'm glad you seem to have a firm grasp on what that is. Not that it makes a difference in the large scheme of things, as that definition can be numerous and varied depending on who you ask. But...along those lines, do these aircraft meet your definition of "traditional model aviation"? If not, should each of them be treated the same as the MRs? Per the definition you quoted above, would be interested to see your logic. Regardless, this is an example of how it might not be so easy to define "traditional model aviation".
09-25-2015, 01:59 PM
#262
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-25-2015, 02:06 PM
#263
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
09-25-2015, 02:06 PM
#264
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANd again, you spout what you think is the truth, but the easily verified facts say something else. This is from the January 2015 Minutes:
So 12 years ago we were 3,000 below now, so how have we have a "solid 10 years of decline"??
Oh, and BTW, this is from the January 2014 minutes and speaks to a perfect example of where AMA is going astray in my mind:
Seems diametrically opposed to the long standing history of the AMA being about hobby/recreation flying.
In 2003 membership numbers were about 172,000; we are 175,000 now.
Oh, and BTW, this is from the January 2014 minutes and speaks to a perfect example of where AMA is going astray in my mind:
Personal Use/Light Commercial sUAS Program
Hanson noted that within the FAA there are varying viewpoints on what constitutes commercial use and what constitutes personal use. Hanson is of the opinion that the FAA is leaving the door open for the industry to drive the issue. If AMA moves forward and establishes a viable program that encompasses this community and draws people’s interest in it, he feels the FAA will not push back. If we do not establish a program, the issue will languish and be unresolved until the FAA comes up with the rule. Hanson feels that if the rule already contained a definition of commercial UAS operation they would be talking more specifics as to what they view to be commercial.
The Executive Director reported HQ is moving forward with developing the program. There are already companies out there selling insurance to the light commercial community; AMA’s intent is to put together a package that is more attractive to that community from a cost perspective. The ED hopes to have more to report at the next meeting.
Hanson noted that within the FAA there are varying viewpoints on what constitutes commercial use and what constitutes personal use. Hanson is of the opinion that the FAA is leaving the door open for the industry to drive the issue. If AMA moves forward and establishes a viable program that encompasses this community and draws people’s interest in it, he feels the FAA will not push back. If we do not establish a program, the issue will languish and be unresolved until the FAA comes up with the rule. Hanson feels that if the rule already contained a definition of commercial UAS operation they would be talking more specifics as to what they view to be commercial.
The Executive Director reported HQ is moving forward with developing the program. There are already companies out there selling insurance to the light commercial community; AMA’s intent is to put together a package that is more attractive to that community from a cost perspective. The ED hopes to have more to report at the next meeting.
Seems diametrically opposed to the long standing history of the AMA being about hobby/recreation flying.
09-25-2015, 02:53 PM
#265
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You say lumping in. We would be having this same argument if the same type of technology was applied to helicopters instead of Multi-Rotors.
The BIGGEST underlying issue is education. NOT lumping. What has happened is a few photographers figured out after seeing one of our MRs in it's infancy stage
and thought WOW, what a great way to carry a camera. The same thing happened with helicopters. Except heli's required an abundance of skill and had a learning curve. So that died fairly quick. Then MRs exploded and started showing up everywhere. Showing up in the hands of people that don't care about aviation. It could have happened just the same but with a helicopter. The tech allowed anyone with a set of thumbs and index fingers to fly with little to no flight experience. These same people don't give a rats ass about aviation or our hobby. At this point the only logical distinction between us and them is where we choose to fly. Basing any of it on the platform is ridiculous on it's face.
Distinction between the commercial photographer and the Radio Control hobbyist have been set. NOW the distinction between a Photographer and a Radio Control hobbyist needs to be put in place.
The platform can't be tossed out to the wind because you will be tossing helicopters out as well. At the end of the day, there will be more regulation no matter if any of us do not like it. Why? Because of
a few people that haven't taken the time to educate themselves about safety and aviation.
EDUCATION is the problem here. NOT the platform.
P.S. We are on the edge of fixed wing aircraft requiring little to no skill to fly. ie. GPS Flight, Waypoint flight, etc. Are you ready for that?
The BIGGEST underlying issue is education. NOT lumping. What has happened is a few photographers figured out after seeing one of our MRs in it's infancy stage
and thought WOW, what a great way to carry a camera. The same thing happened with helicopters. Except heli's required an abundance of skill and had a learning curve. So that died fairly quick. Then MRs exploded and started showing up everywhere. Showing up in the hands of people that don't care about aviation. It could have happened just the same but with a helicopter. The tech allowed anyone with a set of thumbs and index fingers to fly with little to no flight experience. These same people don't give a rats ass about aviation or our hobby. At this point the only logical distinction between us and them is where we choose to fly. Basing any of it on the platform is ridiculous on it's face.
Distinction between the commercial photographer and the Radio Control hobbyist have been set. NOW the distinction between a Photographer and a Radio Control hobbyist needs to be put in place.
The platform can't be tossed out to the wind because you will be tossing helicopters out as well. At the end of the day, there will be more regulation no matter if any of us do not like it. Why? Because of
a few people that haven't taken the time to educate themselves about safety and aviation.
EDUCATION is the problem here. NOT the platform.
P.S. We are on the edge of fixed wing aircraft requiring little to no skill to fly. ie. GPS Flight, Waypoint flight, etc. Are you ready for that?
Last edited by TimJ; 09-25-2015 at 02:58 PM.
09-25-2015, 02:57 PM
#266
ANd again, you spout what you think is the truth, but the easily verified facts say something else. This is from the January 2015 Minutes:
So 12 years ago we were 3,000 below now, so how have we have a "solid 10 years of decline"??
Oh, and BTW, this is from the January 2014 minutes and speaks to a perfect example of where AMA is going astray in my mind:
Seems diametrically opposed to the long standing history of the AMA being about hobby/recreation flying.
So 12 years ago we were 3,000 below now, so how have we have a "solid 10 years of decline"??
Oh, and BTW, this is from the January 2014 minutes and speaks to a perfect example of where AMA is going astray in my mind:
Seems diametrically opposed to the long standing history of the AMA being about hobby/recreation flying.
Model Aviation, January 2014, pg 148:
"As was the case in 2012, AMA saw a growth in paid membership. Although two years in a row may not be defined as a trend, it’s certainly nice to see this reversal after a 10-year membership decline."
09-25-2015, 03:01 PM
#267
Not going to disagree there and I would certainly object to the AMA supporting any commercial operations. Of couse, that would also jeopardize their tax exempt status.
09-25-2015, 03:02 PM
#268
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you seriously trying to say that you do not see any differences between the new generation of aerial camera platform operators and when RC helis came on the scene??
And again, and I am not sure how many different ways I need to say this. I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH MUTLI-ROTORS. I own several. I enjoy flying them. But I have never confused them with my hobby of flying RC airplanes and helicopters. So I feel pretty comfortable with my opinions since I have actual experience in both worlds. Plus, I am active on at least 2 MR forums and am very conversant with the attitudes of the majority of MR AP folks toward the rest of our hobby.
09-25-2015, 04:07 PM
#269
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My focus is not on the FAA. The hobby I participate in has existed without FAA intervention for many decades. My focus is on the AMA. The AMA can define model aviation however it's membership sees fit. The FAA does NOT define who the AMA chooses to invite into their ranks and advocate for.
I never said anything about "removing MR's from the rest of model aviation" LOL
Astro
I never said anything about "removing MR's from the rest of model aviation" LOL
Astro
09-25-2015, 04:15 PM
#271
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 09-26-2015 at 03:05 AM.
09-25-2015, 04:25 PM
#272
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be a multi-rotor model aircraft!! I saw an Osprey model last year at the AMA show, but did not get a chance to talk to them about it. See, it's not just about the rotor count!!
09-25-2015, 04:50 PM
#273
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
