Sport_Pilot

Wouldn't registration require regulation? And didn't Congress say that there would be no regulation of recreational aircraft except to follow CBO rules? Are that already ignoring that?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

ONE SIMPLE QUESTION:

WHY would the FAA go after traditional models?

Traditional models have been around for 80+ years. They have an impeccable track and safety record. Why would the FAA all of a sudden go after traditional models? Makes no sense.

Astro

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

The PROOF is in the pudding folks.

FOR 80+ YEARS, we have enjoyed model aviation with little to no restrictions put on us by the Government. Our CBO has acted on our behalf as a liaison to the Government in the past.

Enter "drones". A whole new "hobby" in itself. It is NOT about the sheer enjoyment of building or flight, it is about technology. The vast majority of "droners" practice their hobby in their backyard (or their neighbors'), a public fishing pier, State or National Park, college campus, tennis or football stadium, downtown out of a high-rise hotel or condo, public beaches, approaches to busy airports, etc. It is pretty clear that it is this movement of rc activity from our relatively remote, private, purpose-use flying fields into the public arena that has caused our hobby to be thrust into the spotlight.

If the AMA had distanced and distinguished itself from the droners, it would be very easy to say (and PROVE), "We have practiced our hobby responsibly and safely, with little to no public or Government outcry for 80 years, and we intend to do the same for many, many more, please leave "us" alone."

Why do the "droners" feel entitled to buzz those things around in the public space when it bothers others? Entitlement? "right?" What about a little respect for the others that use that space (or choose not to, for the sake of peace and privacy)?

You see, it has been proven that the general public will not shun model aviation (actually, the reaction is quite the opposite!) when the participants were responsible enough to secure a place set aside for that purpose.

Regards,

Astro

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Try asking for something that exists or has ever existed, instead of playing your games.

joancmigneault

Think about it! Any RC aircraft is considered a DRONE. Quad copters without cameras are DRONEs. ANY, ANY RC aircraft falls into the "DRONE" classifacation. Period!!!!!!!!

[email protected]

My Feedback: (1)

PRIVILEGEsome one is all wet the more people talk about things the more it might happen iam 84 and tired off all the stupid laws that people think up just go fly and have a good time

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

This is only true if you are not afraid to be known as an ignorant, misinformed idiot.

Silent-AV8R

FWIW - here's the link to the announcement. It will begin at 12:30 EDT today

https://www.transportation.gov/fastl...n-announcement

rcmiket

Surprised there is nothing on the AMA website about this whole registration deal.

Mike

Sport_Pilot

What you and others are failing to understand is that both "drones" and "traditional model aircraft" are recreational UAV to the FAA. They come under the same law and the same regulation. For example both must now fly under 400 feet everywhere. So no large scale aerobatics, no pattern aerobatics, no sailplane completion, and certainly no turbine aerobatics are allowed. That the AMA is trying to represent recreational drones has nothing to do with this.

franklin_m

I was just reading the President's Perspective in the October issue of MA. at the very end of the first column, our enlightened and wise leader says, and I quote : "I HOPE [emphasis added] the government will be able to differentiate between true hobbyists and the acts of a few irresponsible drone operators."

Two thoughts immediately come to mind:

- As a flag officer once told me many years ago when I was a brand new junior officer: "HOPE is not a plan son."

- Imagine how easy it would be for the "government to differentiate between true hobbyists and ... irresponsible drone operators" if AMA had gone on record from the very beginning saying that drones (quads etc. types that are causing the majority of the problems) are NOT hobby equipment.

So, let's all just "HOPE" right along with our esteemed leader, since that seems to be what it's come down to despite spending over $1,000,000 of our money. Just think about how many flying fields that could have enhanced, purchased, etc.

rgburrill

The FAA is part of the DOT.

rm1963

I wonder if U/C will be exempted from all this?

rgburrill

84? Really? And I thought that complete failuure to use punctuation was a kid thing.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Perhaps you can enlighten us? In my neck of the woods you'd be lucky if you could purchase enough property for a single flying field for $1M.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Say, did that flag officer say anything about "imagining" what might have been as being as useless as just "hoping" for something?

So did you renew your AMA or will you be sticking to flying in your yard and local parks now?

rgburrill

Your second post answers your first. The AMA had an opportunity 20 or so years ago to shut down, or at least put some control, on the FPV issue an instead stuck it's head int he sand. Then when FPV started to blossom the AMA chose to support it instead of tryng to control it. The FAA is grouping everything under the auspices of the AMA together.

rgburrill

BTW, the FAA is also lookiing at three general locations: urban use, somewhat rural use and very rural use. Guess where they want to mst control.

franklin_m

As I said in a prior post, my plan was to renew for 2016. Since the flying I do now doesn't require AMA field (scale type heli flying / .25 size and below electrics), if I don't fly at an AMA field in 2016, it'll be the last year I give them money. No sense paying for something you don't use...especially given that my local AMA field requires an additional $100 membership! That alone nearly pays for 4 gallons of fuel for my .50 heli.

franklin_m

Exactly. It's much easier to distinguish activities when those those activities are not supported in any form by the CBO.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

There will be no enlightenment, although it would be interesting to see how that would work in that make believe world. You pay dues to a national organization, and then they buy land somewhere else for other people to have a club. Sounds like a big govt hand out program...socialist perhaps. And aren't these ideas coming from people who feel the AMA is to big, and have to many employees, and spend to much money on luxury items for their staff? Sounds like more of that can't win no matter what you do situations. Of course, the AMA already gives out money for site improvements and disaster relief, in limited situations of course. But I guess they should open the spigot and just hand cash out. That won't generate to many complaints! Can you imagine?

The deep seeded resentment and contempt comes in part from being rejected by the AMA on multiple fronts, one being a proposed business opportunity. Ya, that whole COI thing again. It's a reoccurring theme.

franklin_m

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Had AMA not been involved, I'm sure there would have been an alien invasion, a few major asteroid impacts, perhaps even the coming of another ice age.

What I'm not imagining is that today DOT will be announcing something that will impact our hobby in some way, precisely what AMA said they were using our money to prevent.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Wow...you don't say? So this has been brewing for 20 years.......20 years. Where has all the outrage been, where have all the suggestions and groundswell of support for excluding FPV/MR been for 20 years. Should we go back and figure out who was running the AMA for the past 20 years and castigate them?

Sport_Pilot

IMO the drone operators are hobbyist, some are irresponsible. But the Prez should not be hoping, he should be telling.

Sport_Pilot

And the regulation applies to any federal agency.