Proposed Drone Law in California
#276
My Feedback: (1)
Who is going to court? I'm not. I practice "traditional" model aviation at a field that my club purchased for the sole purpose of enjoying our hobby. I am an AMA member and fly in accordance with their rules and policies. I do not fly over stadiums, neighbors, parks, airports, public fishing piers, forest fires, or beaches. In other words, I do not impose my hobby on anyone or anywhere that it could cause harm to an unsuspecting victim.
Once again, I could give a rip about the FAA definition. It means nothing to me.
Regards,
Astro
Once again, I could give a rip about the FAA definition. It means nothing to me.
Regards,
Astro
#277
#278
Who is going to court? I'm not. I practice "traditional" model aviation at a field that my club purchased for the sole purpose of enjoying our hobby. I am an AMA member and fly in accordance with their rules and policies. I do not fly over stadiums, neighbors, parks, airports, public fishing piers, forest fires, or beaches. In other words, I do not impose my hobby on anyone or anywhere that it could cause harm to an unsuspecting victim.
Once again, I could give a rip about the FAA definition. It means nothing to me.
Regards,
Astro
Once again, I could give a rip about the FAA definition. It means nothing to me.
Regards,
Astro
#279
My Feedback: (1)
It's really not that simple. You cannot educate the unwilling and it is clear that the vast majority of the drone operators (I refuse to call them pilots) do not want to be educated. WHY in the world would the AMA want to embrace those that do not want what they have to offer?
UMMM...we are already there. They are called DRONES. DRONES are NOT model aviation and should have their very own advocacy group.
Astro
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?
Astro
#280
#282
Who is going to court? I'm not. I practice "traditional" model aviation at a field that my club purchased for the sole purpose of enjoying our hobby. I am an AMA member and fly in accordance with their rules and policies. I do not fly over stadiums, neighbors, parks, airports, public fishing piers, forest fires, or beaches. In other words, I do not impose my hobby on anyone or anywhere that it could cause harm to an unsuspecting victim.
Once again, I could give a rip about the FAA definition. It means nothing to me.
Regards,
Astro
Once again, I could give a rip about the FAA definition. It means nothing to me.
Regards,
Astro
#283
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
I wonder how many visible leaders of communities, property owners, business owners, people with something to lose....would choose to fly the "Reckless Drone Pattern" with only private [or no] insurance, versus flying conventional RC in accordance with AMA guidelines and with the AMA's insurance...?
#284
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
If it's so obvious, why didn't you answer the question? I picked those specifically to have you and the other one tell me if those would be considered "traditional RC". Tell me why they wouldn't. Built from multiple components and flown in the air, remotely controlled right?
If you could, explain again what the universally accepted concept of "traditional RC" is again? I know you have your opinion on it, just want to know how everyone else should be looking at this.
#287
#288
Wow! Creativivity, innovation and engineering. I don't see it on that well known "traditional modeling" retailer website so it's certainly not fit for the conservative tea flyers.
#289
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/nasas-n...er-half-plane/
It is the photo you posted.
NASA hopes the GL-10 design will be the basis for drones addressing a wide variety of use cases. “It could be used for small package delivery … long endurance surveillance for agriculture, mapping and other applications,” says Bill Fredericks, an aerospace engineer with NASA. The team has built 12 prototypes, including 5-pound (foam) and 25-pound (fiberglass) models, as well as the 55-pound carbon fiber version shown in the video above. Some early versions were lost to hard landings as the team perfected flight controls, but the current version seems to be performing very well.
Nope, doesn't sound like a model aircraft for hobby use to me. But thanks for playing.
#294
Are you a mind reader now?
If it's so obvious, why didn't you answer the question? I picked those specifically to have you and the other one tell me if those would be considered "traditional RC". Tell me why they wouldn't. Built from multiple components and flown in the air, remotely controlled right?
If you could, explain again what the universally accepted concept of "traditional RC" is again? I know you have your opinion on it, just want to know how everyone else should be looking at this.
If it's so obvious, why didn't you answer the question? I picked those specifically to have you and the other one tell me if those would be considered "traditional RC". Tell me why they wouldn't. Built from multiple components and flown in the air, remotely controlled right?
If you could, explain again what the universally accepted concept of "traditional RC" is again? I know you have your opinion on it, just want to know how everyone else should be looking at this.
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 09-26-2015 at 03:17 AM.
#295
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
LoL...another swing and a miss, so intent on getting in a zinger that you stepped all over your delivery, even after the edit.
Guess it's easier to go on the attack rather than answering the question eh?
Hows the big "get rid of the drone get the AMA back to traditional modeling" efforts going in your area? Mustering the troops for the battle?
Guess it's easier to go on the attack rather than answering the question eh?
Hows the big "get rid of the drone get the AMA back to traditional modeling" efforts going in your area? Mustering the troops for the battle?
#296
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
You mean this?
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/nasas-n...er-half-plane/
It is the photo you posted.
Nope, doesn't sound like a model aircraft for hobby use to me. But thanks for playing.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/nasas-n...er-half-plane/
It is the photo you posted.
Nope, doesn't sound like a model aircraft for hobby use to me. But thanks for playing.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
How about this one.....traditional RC or no?
#297
I really wish the FAA made modelers get licenses just like amateur radio. Sure would eliminate a lot of the tea flyer nonsense.
Oh well, keep trying.
#298
My Feedback: (1)
Fair enough, that one does have some commercial applications, but I think you know what I was getting at. But like the one above, it's easier to get a "thanks for playing" comment in rather than address the issue or answer the question. You conveniently didn't include the other pictures I added, wonder why? Hard to answer the question about "traditional RM modeling" when looking at them right?
How about this one.....traditional RC or no?
How about this one.....traditional RC or no?
Your line of interrogative questions aren't all that relevant to the issues being discussed. While I applaud you for being hell-bent on defining everything in the rc world as black or white, in the bigger scheme of things, you are intelligent enough to understand the gist of, "traditional model aviation" and what silent, island, Mike, myself and others are saying here.
It's okay to have different viewpoints (you said it yourself). In reality, YOU are the one that is trying too hard, regardless of how many times you accuse others of doing so. Your debate tactics are underhanded and deplorable, they bring nothing but hate and vitriol to these discussions (study logical fallacies much? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ ).
Funny how YOU can say, "I think you know what I was getting at", then turn around and grill others and claim ignorance when it comes to their very straightforward points or terms (i.e. "traditional model aviation"}.
I think we can continue to have an insightful discussion here as long as those engaged keep their posts fair, concise and fact-based. It is a two-way street and it is clear that both sides have tossed their share of grenades.
Regards,
Astro
#299
My Feedback: (1)
What are you, sponsored by the FAA? Or are you just a FAA Fanboi? LOL!
Keep trying to what? And, yes, I would like you to answer that!
You can continue to try and berate and discredit me with your ignorant statements all you want, but those tactics are getting old and transparent and bring nothing positive to this thread.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
Regards,
AStro
Keep trying to what? And, yes, I would like you to answer that!
You can continue to try and berate and discredit me with your ignorant statements all you want, but those tactics are getting old and transparent and bring nothing positive to this thread.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
Regards,
AStro
#300
Porcia,
Your line of interrogative questions aren't all that relevant to the issues being discussed. While I applaud you for being hell-bent on defining everything in the rc world as black or white, in the bigger scheme of things, you are intelligent enough to understand the gist of, "traditional model aviation" and what silent, island, Mike, myself and others are saying here.
Regards,
Astro
Your line of interrogative questions aren't all that relevant to the issues being discussed. While I applaud you for being hell-bent on defining everything in the rc world as black or white, in the bigger scheme of things, you are intelligent enough to understand the gist of, "traditional model aviation" and what silent, island, Mike, myself and others are saying here.
Regards,
Astro