franklin_m

Porcia, I'm happy to get involved, and in fact I have in fact contacted AMA with recommendations, provided a SWOT analysis, and recommended actions to recapture the PR initiative. Now, mind you that this was coming to them from someone who ran a major military air station (250,000 events annually); formerly taught policy making and implementation as well as strategy and resource allocation in an accredited Master's program; who not just graduated from a formal military aviation safety program, but also managed and was accountable for aviation safety programs for nearly 20 years, is a modeler and full scale pilot --- and yet I did not receive even the professional courtesy of a response.

What that tells me is that they don't want my help. I'm ok with that, but you need to at least acknowledge that when the help was offered, the AMA refused.

That failure to respond also tells me that it's not worth my time. One of the things I learned leading large organizations, is that you have to make decisions about where to put your precious resources, your time and your talent. What issues are worthy of that time, which are not. Which ones are winnable, and which are not. Some that may not be winnable get your time because they're critically important. This issue doesn't meet that latter standard, so it comes down to whether it's worth my time to try and move an organization that seems unwilling to consider a strategy change. In my opinion, AMA is losing this battle, and will continue to do so unless they fundamentally change their approach.

This organization you seem to say is so altruistic, that welcomes engagement, new ideas, etc., is not nearly so in practice as perhaps some believe them to be.

franklin_m

Gee, perhaps AMA could be a "leader" by enthusiastically welcoming registration, and "get ahead of the curve," and find a way to make it work for all sUAS -- planes, helis, quads, gliders, toys, etc. so that they can prove, once and for all, that it's not AMA members that are the problem?

rcmiket

Give it time. It ain't over yet. Maybe if we spend a couple of million more we can get confiscation along with registration.

Mike

Andy_S

Right now, they are welcoming registration of models above the traditional model/ minimal capability drone threshold.

Sport_Pilot

Our side should be against the geo fence? Seems like this should help us not hurt us. Is there something I am missing here?

[email protected]

My Feedback: (1)

ill go back to u control

Sport_Pilot

I think I will take up another hobby. Competitive shooting. I may need the skill in the future..

rcmiket

It's about them using high profile individuals to get their thoughts on the subject out there.

Mike.

Andy_S

Whether or not high profile pilots are getting there word out simply because it suits the FAA's agenda, I think he makes an interesting point, Mike.
After all, AMA charters exist as airspace where model flying is permitted and maintain there status as such by not overflying/endangering neighboring land and property. For this reason, I am receptive to the concept of a geo fence, especially for extremely vulnerable airspace such as airports.
Now, what does that mean when it's an actual plan put into action? How about Geofence-upgraded receivers? Talk about lock-out threads on the forums.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Um...have they said they are against registration? Are they not working on a committee to deal with that exact issue now? Usually you criticize after the fact, are we doing this now before they even finish the task at hand? That's being proactive I guess..lol

franklin_m

So what would you propose as the definition of a "traditional model / minimal capability drone" and what makes them less of a risk to manned aircraft than others? Also, from a human behavior standpoint, why create different definitions of what needs to be registered and what doesn't?

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

I already have. If a drone flies over my house .......... BANG !!

LOL

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Right...let's continue to speculate about all the bad things the guvmunt might do in the future. One only has to look at how long the gun folks have been talking about their guns and ammo being confiscated. That's been going on for what, 8 years now. But like you said it ain't over yet...time will tell.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Telemetry for my HiTec RCD Aurora 9 is all add on and I've even placed a 7 channel receiver, 4.8 Volt battery, HTS-SS Advance Sensor Station, A GPS and Air Speed Module in a Bomb case for my GS P-47 and several different release attachments so I can attach it to anyone's plane that has a bomb release.
I can even record the whole flight on a computer and play it back. It can even be played back and watched from any angle on Google Earth. U have to have a wi-fi connection though. If U use a smart phone as a hot spot it works great. There is even a way to have the info displayed (In gauge Form) to your Smart phone. Most modern radio systems have Telemetry systems Heck if they can build in 3 axis stabilization to a foam airplanes receiver
they certainly can do Geo Fencing.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Should the AMA hire a famous person to get our message out there? Who would you suggest? Should our dues go for that?

franklin_m

The easy thing would be to blame the messenger, the message etc. I can assure you that emails were cogent, polite, and professional. I suspect that since I was not 100% aligned with their desired approach, they chose not to respond at all.

As for the get out, press the flesh, etc., I'm doing that, in fact I had contact with media the other day. But I'm not supportive of AMA's position. I think their approach of trying to set some lower end threshold is problematic from a public policy perspective. A Blade 180QX ingested into a turbine is problematic not because of its capability or lack thereof, but where it is flown. The issue here is behavior.

While it's interesting that AMA is saying that it's not their members, at this point quibbling over the "who" is moot. The reality is there's evidence that the risk to manned aircraft, as measured by reported encounters, is increasing. FAA has data, and they're gathering more each day. With the possible huge increase in sales over the next few months, not only should DOT/FAA act, I feel they're compelled to.

I think that if AMA is to prevail, they have to fight data with data. I advocated adding a requirement for clubs to collect and report basic mishap data as part of their charter. Aircraft type, size, radio type, injury/non-injury, crash on club property / not, and general type of flight regime (aerobatics, landing/takeoff, etc.), and nearest human to crash site (in feet). In the aviation safety profession, this sort of data is called a leading indicator. In general safety circles, they call it "weak signals." (e.g. http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/W...ty_Performance ).

Of course as soon as a reporting requirement is postulated, then all sorts of "so much work," "can't do it," etc. Ok, but that means the organization has no data. Imagine how powerful it would be if the AMA were able to say, "Our data shows that AMA members operating within the programming of our organization, crash off club grounds less than 1% of the time. And even then, in less than 0.001% of all crashes was there any human closer than 100 feet away."

I humbly submit that data like that is very powerful, but an organization can't use what they don't collect. As for honesty in reporting, that would be a culture that would have to be built. It won't be easy granted, but clubs have to be held accountable for accuracy. Random checks is probably a good tool in the beginning. Such reporting would also help identify trends that may be actionable before a serious event. People respond to data. When you put data in front of them that they can actually influence, they will most often do the right thing. I practice this as part of my vocation and can assure you it works.

rcmiket

Well what we've spent so far has netted us what? Did you see the registration thing coming or the DOT becoming involved? As I see it this is a new game with the DOT and any "deals" we had are now on the table. Only a complete fool would think that we are not in danger of our hobby being changed forever. Maybe distancing our organization for the whole "drone"/ UAV thing may not have been a bad thing after all.

Mike

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Better be a paint ball gun or the like ... I'm sure Queensbury NY has laws against discharging of fire arms (guns with real bullets or Shot) in the city or surrounding subs.
let me ask, How many Quad Flyers U have in your local R/C club?

franklin_m

I don't disagree that being part of the process is better than not being part of it. My major disagreement is that the AMA is trying to carve out a definition that makes the public policy enforcement aspect unenforceable. I believe that the registration of objects that fly in the national airspace is inherently governmental, and I think AMA would be wise to cede that point.

As for their concern that the registration requirement become burdensome? Only the assignment of a registration number by government is anything different than what AMA is already doing, and I'd argue minimally so. AMA already assigns a "registration number" after collecting data (and money) from the pilot. DOT/FAA registration would merely move the data collection and number assignment piece to the government, which is where I personally think it should reside if we're going to be forced to do it.

I think the AMAs real concern, and I'm speculating, is that they fear that if they're not able to carve out some part of the registration role for themselves, then people will see declining value in AMA membership -- and thus potentially declining money for AMA. Like I said, speculation, but it would seem to follow the DC metaphor that "Form follows funding."

franklin_m

Agree. I'm of the mindset that embracing quads / FPV / GPS aided navigation, etc. blurred the distinction between what has become the problematic "drones" and the model aircraft community of just five years ago. AMA has made a good faith effort, albeit expensive one. But what I see now is that they've spent $1,000,000, are suing the FAA at who knows how much additional expense, and facing the "thousand cuts" of increasing regulation at the local, state, and federal level, loss of flying locations as a result of "drones," and now this registration thing. I argue that it is time to change strategy before it's too late.

Andy_S

As a flyer whose flying is restricted to AMA chartered fields, I see the value in differentiating between models which do not fly in designated airspace and those that do. You yourself said there should be a way that works for all sUAS. As has been humorously highlighted here, a single blanket approach probably will not work efficiently.`

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Well then, Just what is the "New Strategy" U would implement? PLZ Explain.

Andy_S

He already explained that he thinks the AMA should promote a registration program so that they can have a say in its implementation. Not a horrible idea, I don't think.
I personally would like to see a provision which allows AMA fields to be a haven for onerous registration and restrictions, since we have been MODEL (sorry) citizens of safe and responsible flying. Not necessarily regarding AMA Number registered models, which would simply expand on a rule already in place, but for the crazier crap coming down the pipe regarding software requirements, geo fence measures, etc.

franklin_m

While I see the direction you're heading with this line of logic, and it's not irrational, the problem is that AMA fields are not recognized as special use airspace by the FAA. My proposal would distinguish between sUAS flown entirely indoors vs. anything flown outdoors. Outdoors, and thus flying in the federally regulated national airspace would require registration.

Sport_Pilot

.

I believe the team is to figure what the minimum size and type of UAV would be registered. So they may come up with additional definitions.