Originally Posted by rcmiket

Time travel rules don't allow me to make changes that effect future events.
Geezz, it was a joke.

Mike

Originally Posted by rcmiket

Time travel rules don't allow me to make changes that effect future events.
Geezz, it was a joke.

Mike

Originally Posted by Andy_S

Sorry, I thought you meant there was something I missed to link it to the registration issue.

Originally Posted by porcia83

Even I got it...ha! Must have been confusing given the 10-21-2015 anniversary date.

Originally Posted by rcmiket

No problem sir. I try to find a bit of humor here and there or I'd go nuts.

Mike

Originally Posted by franklin_m

(1) Embrace registration of all sUAS flown outdoors, and registrations will be done by the Feds. Concurrently, push that rather than registering each individual aircraft, a single registration number would be issued to the pilot (which is really the source of the problem isn't it?). Add the requirement that registration numbers shall be displayed on the exterior, and that sUAS owners shall remove their number upon sale or transfer. Demonstrate support for the DOT/FAA by requiring proper display of registration data for flight at AMA charted clubs, AMA sponsored events, etc. Show that AMA is willing to enforce on it's own to prove we want to be part of the solution. Premise is that if we're as good at putting AMA numbers in/on planes as we say we are, it's no big change. (For scale competitions, the number is an allowed exception).

(2) Put in place mishap data collection at all AMA chartered clubs as a condition of the charter. Data would be entered by club safety officer for events at the club, and create a way for individuals to enter data for events that are not at club fields (park fliers, private land, etc.). If the data is used in a non-punitive way, and if AMA puts in place ways to ensure / encourage reporting, then the data will become very useful. IF, and I say IF, we're as safe as we've been saying we are, then what's to fear? We could, I'd argue in the space of a year, be able to go back to the FAA with data that says though our sUAS crash, they seldom if ever crash off an AMA field (for those flights), seldom if ever crash close to humans on the ground, or seldom, if every cause property damage or injury. Mountains of data create a powerful argument for rebutting government / media / public policy makers.

(3) Embrace altitude deconfliction. Restrict AMA programming to be flights below 400' AGL. I think this will meet with some resistance, but that is the surest way to minimize chances that AMA programming sUAS will not come in conflict with full scale. If some activities have a compelling need to exceed this, then apply for a NOTAM.

(4) Present waiver revocations, large aircraft crash history info where CDs and such can make risk management decisions. As an operation officer scheduling flight crews, I knew which pilots and aircraft required more attention / care in scheduling than others. Contrast this with our system now where AMA only publishes who's waiver is currently expired. I can speculate that a CD who's looking at pilots might look differently at someone who's had his waiver pulled a couple times than someone who has a clean record. Now, I'm sure some will say "but we know in the community." I don't disagree, but people behave differently when they know their name might appear on a list. If the goal is safe operations in compliance with rules, isn't that the desired effect anyway? Again, I'd add that if we're as good as we say, it shouldn't be an issue.

(5) Self police. We need to be each other's keeper and stop tolerating behaviors that are not in compliance with AMA programming. I'm going to generalize, but I know we've all seen it, done it, etc. The point here is that nobody enjoys doing this, but the reality is that we're one major incident away from draconian oversight. Let's work together, actively police ourselves, and "not hand them a stick to beat us with."

Originally Posted by Andy_S

That's a service Porcia and Combatpigg provide!

Originally Posted by Andy_S

I think there is a viable culture of safety in traditional modelling, AMA fields, etc. I don't mean to imply anything about your club, but as we talked about it earlier, there often isn't an active crash reporting program to provide real data, I think Franklin called it Leading data about our safety track record. I can tell you we implemented a rule at our club requiring the reporting of out of bounds crashes and it went over like a stink bomb. Among the things said were that the board didn't have the authority to mandate who needed assistance with their flying and who didn't. You almost have to look at registration and say well, shucks, I hope the FAA is a high enough authority for you guys. It sure is rough when the AMA charter isn't good enough to manage its own crashes.

Originally Posted by Andy_S

I think there is a viable culture of safety in traditional modelling, AMA fields, etc. I don't mean to imply anything about your club, but as we talked about it earlier, there often isn't an active crash reporting program to provide real data, I think Franklin called it Leading data about our safety track record. I can tell you we implemented a rule at our club requiring the reporting of out of bounds crashes and it went over like a stink bomb. Among the things said were that the board didn't have the authority to mandate who needed assistance with their flying and who didn't. You almost have to look at registration and say well, shucks, I hope the FAA is a high enough authority for you guys. It sure is rough when the AMA charter isn't good enough to manage its own crashes.

Originally Posted by franklin_m

Not nearly so difficult I think. It's just a matter of book keeping.

Originally Posted by Hinckley Bill

"Officer, I have no idea who was flying the drone, as it was stolen from my vehicle!"......prove otherwise if you can

Originally Posted by astrohog

I vehemently disagree! (with the exception of #5. this has been in place and has proven to be VERY effective). Those of us that practice "traditional" model aviation have an impeccable, 80-year history of enjoying our hobby without any issues. The restrictions you mention are completely unacceptable and unnecessary in my opinion. OUR TRACK RECORD (pre-drone) is IMPECCABLE and there is no data to merit ANY of these changes. The AMA needs to distance itself from drones, and drones (that are operated in any way OTHER than traditional modeling activities, or away from fields that are associated with AMA affiliated clubs) should be regulated by however the FAA sees fit, and should start their own CBO to lobby on their behalf.

Regards,

Astro

Originally Posted by HoundDog

Originally Posted by flyer7007

Here is an idea how about just outlawing the drones. I have flown for 40 years never needed a camera, never programmed my plane where I wanted it to go. I see no need for them in our hobby, learn to fly or find something else to do.

Originally Posted by franklin_m

Houndog. The point here is that this data collection system is not intended to target members, but rather to be able to defend the AMA's "programming" effectiveness with hard data. As I said early on, the FAA was, is, and will continue to collect data showing that sUAS are increasingly a problem for full scale aircraft. Our hobby responds by saying that "We're safe, we've been so for XX years." Well, the FAA can google just as easily as I can, and it takes almost no effort to find examples of serious RC mishaps and injuries. So, if you're an FAA regulator, policy maker, or legislator and you have an organization saying "we're safe," but you easily find examples that cause you to question that, it creates a disconnect.

So, the collecting of mishap data from clubs is intended to fight data with data.

Originally Posted by HoundDog

Originally Posted by HoundDog

Originally Posted by franklin_m

Houndog. The point here is that this data collection system is not intended to target members, but rather to be able to defend the AMA's "programming" effectiveness with hard data. As I said early on, the FAA was, is, and will continue to collect data showing that sUAS are increasingly a problem for full scale aircraft. Our hobby responds by saying that "We're safe, we've been so for XX years." Well, the FAA can google just as easily as I can, and it takes almost no effort to find examples of serious RC mishaps and injuries. So, if you're an FAA regulator, policy maker, or legislator and you have an organization saying "we're safe," but you easily find examples that cause you to question that, it creates a disconnect.

So, the collecting of mishap data from clubs is intended to fight data with data.
[/SIZE]

Originally Posted by franklin_m

So is this an example of that "IMPECCABLE" record of flying without issues?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrBl3eDxgH4


Or perhaps this is an example of flying without issues?
http://www.theledger.com/article/20150306/NEWS/150309544

Or this one?
http://www.suasnews.com/2011/03/4833...cident-report/

Or maybe this one? (My understanding he was VP of his club...my point is that if the VP doesn't follow rules, what are chances others do?) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/ny...park.html?_r=0


With such an "IMPECCABLE" record, I was surprised to see how easy it was to find video and stories of accidents. (FYI, there's plenty more out there but some of the photos are a bit explicit).

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon

There was no municipal violation. A neighbor complained about the noise to the owner of the property that the club uses. The property owner and club president made the decision to follow the AMA's noise abatement recommendations:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/927.pdf