astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Please clarify. Which proposals of mine have no merit?

rcmiket

"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?"

I don't want to "get rid of the drones". I just don't see them ever joining our (the AMA) ranks. As usual you take it to the extreme.

Mike

Duncman

Guys, thanks for your answers, if I may trouble you with one more question? Would an RC Model similar to what is in rcmike's link be considered a Model Aircraft in the traditional sense if it were scratch built and scale?

Silent-AV8R

I see that you are focused on the type of aircraft rather than the intended use and operation. You keep trying to play a game where you want each and every thing that can be flown with a radio to be sharply defined as one type of modeling or another. That misses the point, and I think you know it. Answer me this, are you really trying to say that you see zero difference between a guy at the local flying field flying an FMS warbird and the guy with a Phantom 3 flying over a crowded beach, playground, etc.??

rcmiket

I would think it would be considered "traditional" if built scale. That's just my opinion.

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

LOL...I admire your righteous indignation, So powerful, so moving, the only thing missing is a soapbox (a traditional one of course). You've taken a discussion and made it so personal, it's a mix of being funny and sad/pathetic at the same time. Relax, it's all gonna be o/k.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I hesitate to even write this, as I know it will prompt yet another response, and will probably miss the point...but take a look at what you just wrote, and circle back with your concept of tactic, and berating, discrediting etc etc.

Were those positive comments to the thread?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I'm not playing any game here, and I'm not moving the goalpost as you are doing with this comment. When did we start talking about intended use and operation? Thought we were discussing "traditional RC modeling" no? I purposely selected those specific planes to challenge someone to think about that nebulous concept of "traditional RC modeling" juxtaposed next to a flying wing that lifts of vertically, then transition into horizontal flight. Or a foamy plane made to look like a cartoon character. Or perhaps a foamy plane called a Nutball. I've asked like what, 4 times if these would be considered "traditional RC modeling" and not one answer. Or better yet, what is "traditional RC modeling". It's a hard question to answer isn't it? Of course it is, because there is no standard here, and everyone has their own opinion as to what is traditional.

To your question, yes, there might be times when there is no difference between someone flying a warbird and DJI over a crowd, safe to say we've both seen people do this. Before joining a club and learning about AMA safety guidelines I flew a small foamy glider with a keychain camera over our neighborhood to get video of a kids annual activity. Everyone loved it, thought it was cool, and asked for copies of the footage. In retrospect, it was a really stupid thing to have done, and I'm lucky nothing bad happened.

For the most part yes, two very different intents in the specific example you gave. Both bad ideas too!

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

This thread is starting to read like an old Abbot and Costello routine.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I was thinking Three Stooges.....

Duncman

Nyuk, nyuk!!!

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

actually, intended use is the one and only thing that defines/separates traditional model aviation from commercial drone operation.
and anything that both flys and has the ability to be used for money making or carrying a camera, or other sensors, or delivery of goods, is capable of being a commercial drone.
from one who has made a good bit from operation of commercial drones, fixed wing, rotor wing, and multi rotor

TimJ

I know you are a good guy, I'm not attacking you.

I am also smack in the middle of Multi-Rotor with actual experience. I am also very comfortable with my opinion. I am out flying, involved with clubs and meet ups based only on Multi-Rotor aircraft, not just traditional AMA clubs. Forums don't appeal to me like they did last century.

You missed my point. Which was applying the same tech to any platform, Heli or fixed wing, we would be having the same conversation depending on what would catch on, tech applied to fixed or rotary-wing. The technology now allows for anyone who would like to fly, do so with little to no practice. The enemy here is NOT the technology or the platform. The problem is the total lack of education of the world of aviation.

Say it with me. THE ENEMY OF OUR HOBBY IS NOT THE PLATFORM, BUT A TOTAL LACK OF EDUCATION OF THE WORLD OF AVIATION.

Separation of commercial operations and our hobby have already been establish. Although I don't agree with exactly how the FAA has established the differences, the line is down.

TimJ

I see a few of you are arguing the platform.......



Argument blown...........

I've often thought about building a scale model of this. This would blow the mind of the Scale Community. LOL

Sport_Pilot

OK, I think, I am confused. Do you mean lack of education of the world and aviation. Or the world has a lack of education of aviation? Too many of's to keep track of.

Silent-AV8R

It is the platform to some degree. An aircraft whose sole purpose is aerial photography or some other type of remote sensing to me is outside what I think of when I think of the hobby of model aviation. Beyond that I think the idea that you can "educate" the majority of people who could not care less about the AMA, our rules, or long standing safety measures is a bit of a pipe dream.

So you do not agree with the FAA interpretation that the people who work at Hobbico, Horizon, etc. are all commercial operators and thus subject to Part 107 when finalized and Section 333 exemptions currently? BTW, according to the FAA the same applies to sponsored pilots, we are not hobby related but rather non-hobby and thus subject to those same restrictions. But you say the FAA has drawn the line. I'n lost, are model related hobby companies and sponsored pilots hobby or commercial operators?

TimJ

General knowledge of aviation lacking there of.

cj_rumley

You are making good sense. IOW, you are totally off-topic in this thread.

TimJ

You cannot blanket the community as a whole with your statement of "Beyond that I think the idea that you can "educate" the majority of people who could not care less about the AMA, our rules, or long standing safety measures is a bit of a pipe dream." Unless you are implying that educating only those whom don't want to follow safety code or FAA rules is a pipe dream. Do you mean the community as a whole, or the MINORITY of Multi-Rotor pilots that don't care about rules, or think rules don't apply to them? Don't forget there's a minority of AMA members that would still fly their models even if it was against the law.

The community as a whole CAN be taught the "do's and don'ts" of R/C aviation. Remember this is a new group of people wet behind the ears with R/C aviation.

I believe that the FAA was really short sighted in their blanket interpretation and the PL needs to be amended. I do not think the FAA rule makers fully understood our hobby when they released their interpretation. Theres black, white and grey. The grey should have been included. Meaning people who are sponsored, work in the industry or are flying competition should have been included as hobby related and NOT lumped into the commercial side. Specific verbiage should have been included either in the PL or in the interpretation by the FAA. The intent of the law was to draw a line for Commercial operations that involve surveillance, search and rescue and the dreaded camera carrying "drone", used for real estate motion or still photography or film making.

rgburrill

Many years ago when FPV first came out is was primarily on fixed wing models so platform isn't really the problem. It was the blatant misuse of model aircraft in flying beyond the line of sight and for commercial use. Think back to when we would hear about people flying 20 miles or more away - total disregard for safety. It is that attitude with FPV that is still the problem. Again, FPV is the problem, not superstable quadcopters. They certainly sustain the problem wut the problem is misuse of FPV! AND THAT IS AN FCC PROBLEM, NOT AN FAA PROBLEM.

TimJ

FPV is NOT the problem either. Depending on the operator of FPV, he could be licensed by the FCC to operate RF transmitters that allow long distance flight. BUT the FAA has put an end to that by ruling that all FPV pilots must maintain VLS of their aircraft. What's happening that IS A PROBLEM, is transmitters are being sold to people that DO NOT have a FCC license to legally uses the 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz, 900mhz or 450mhz at the power output it takes to fly great distances, ie outside of VLS. The same standards that applied to those who would want to purchase a HAM radio were not applied to these RF transmitters and should have. ie having to show proof of your FCC license before selling the product.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

There are now laws that I'm aware of against selling, purchasing, or owning amateur radio equipment without having an amateur radio license.

73

lfalsetto

My Feedback: (10)

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Do you see this loop hole as being something to celebrate...?
How does this improve your quality of life or your ability to enjoy this hobby as a flyer who follows AMA rules religiously...?

rcmiket

The stuffs being bought direct from China and used here.

Mike