porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Wha? I didn't say anything even remotely close to that. I read the ordinance and I think it left some room in there for AMA clubs to operate when in communications with airport tower. How does that equate to thinking a ban was good? I think any banning or restrictive ordinances as a result of knee jerk reactions is horrible. I hate the fact that some towns and cities are doing this, even across the country from where I am. Nothing I've ever that I can recall is in favor of this. Now...some areas should be closed off for obvious reasons, but wholesale "banning" isn't the way to go.

jws_aces

My Feedback: (33)

Ok lets look at how stupid the laws and be and is in case is.

Here is the first line of the LA law -

(b) The following shall apply to the operation of any Model Aircraft within the City of Los Angeles:
1. No Person shall operate any Model Aircraft within the City of Los Angeles and within 5 miles of an airport without the prior express authorization of the airport air traffic control tower.


If I remember correctly there is hardly no part of LA that is not with in a 5 miles of an airport.

So the way I have it figured that it's pretty much a ban on any flying remote controll vehicle in LA. That means on Christmas Morning there will be more law breaking citizens in LA that any other place in the country LOL!!

I sure you are thinking I am crazy but just think about it. How many people young and old will have anything from DJI phantoms to mini palm size remote quads, helicopters that you would fly indoors.

This law shows no exceptions on any of these types of RC aircraft.

Yup a quick knee jerk reaction.

How many guns, cars or many other items that are not getting this kinda of blanket regulation will kill people in LA compaired to toy?

F4u5

My Feedback: (81)

It's called sensationalized journalism

jws_aces

My Feedback: (33)

[QUOTE=jws_aces;12119789]Ok lets look at how stupid the laws and be and is in case is.

Here is the first line of the LA law -

(b) The following shall apply to the operation of any Model Aircraft within the City of Los Angeles:
1. No Person shall operate any Model Aircraft within the City of Los Angeles and within 5 miles of an airport without the prior express authorization of the airport air traffic control tower.

So here is the answer to solve this one. Have everyone call in to ATC to get premission. ATC will tell FAA they don't need the extra work load.

They better hire more controllers soon

rcmiket

Isn't that the reason the AMA should have mobilized the troops on this? Yes it's "stupid" but does that change anything?

Mike

Sport_Pilot

[QUOTE=jws_aces;12119800]Most likely they would just deny permission. Workload problem solved.

jws_aces

My Feedback: (33)

I would hope that any other state, city or town goverments will put more thought in to this before passing laws like this. There was already a altitude restriction before by the AMA with in 5 miles of airport. Even drone manufactures like DJI have soft ware to pervent the qaud from flying with 1 mile of a ATC controll airport not all airports. I know the AMA is not law but why can't the laws follow the their guide lines?

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

I'll bet if U lived at the dawn of the 20th century U'd be against Cars as opposed to horse and buggies or the Wright Brothers and their new fangled machine buzzing around scaring Man and Beast alike. Or radios in cars nothing but a distraction and disturbance. If it saves time and makes a profit it will
become commonplace. Just like cell phones and driving today but much safer.

rcmiket

These kinds of restrictions are going to start popping up across the country from local government.
From what you have posted in the past you been a supporter of the AMA's spending and how they have handled this since day one.
How are you feeling about it now?
As for me even worst than before this is going backwards as I see it.

Mike

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

[QUOTE=jws_aces;12119800]There already is a huge ATC shortage and it's not going to end anytime soon. I'm sure the ATCs would love to field thousands of more requests from modelers in their already overwhelming schedules.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/14/news...c-controllers/

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

even someone as dense as i, recognized that "so happy" bit as SARCASM. dude, lighten up.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Drones *Quads" are just like a hopped up car or any car for that mater. It's illegal to Speed, Drag race or any number of things. The people that are responsible are not going to knowingly misuse them by breaking the traffic laws. Even though it against the law to Drag Race on city streets Irresponsible individuals do it. We don't ban all Hot cars because of it now do we. Drag racing carries some very stiff penalties and if there is lose of life then the consequences rise exponentially. So should it be for R/C Toys that fly in the NAS. There is a place and time for Drag Racing and so it is for all R/C Toys that fly in the NAS,if they can't be flown in a responsible and safe manor. We as responsible AMA members very seldom fly or helis and/or fixed wing R/C toys any where that might put our selves or others in danger. OH I for got it some times with certain AMA members it unsafe to be at the flying field with them, But nothing ever seems to be done about incompetent and/or dangerous flyers. But that's another story for another time and another forum. JUST MHO

Gota SS&S and clean the gutters it's one of the days that ends in a "Y" that i don't go to the R/C field. "RainY"

TimJ

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...in_the_NAS.pdf

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

So we're clear, I never said anything close to it being "good" that the ordinance was passed. I get misinterpretation, but that was a complete misread and stretch.

Ordinances will continue to be passed, and laws and legislation will continue to be modified and enacted as well. This was going to happen, and will continue to happen, absolutely nothing anyone person or organization could have done to stop this. The technology and safety issues were the drivers to this activity.

Now to the AMA. Not that I had any specific input that would have changed the course of the decision, but I had no problem after the fact with the decision our leadership made with regards to expenditures. It was a close decision, but it was made and locked in. Opening the doors to quad/MR users into the hobby and AMA makes perfect sense to me, although I have no interest in either of them. It makes sense because of what they are, and yes, because it means more members in the AMA. I don't see the decision to spend money, in part on education programs, was some nefarious money grab to get tons and tons of new members. ymmv.

If I read the comments here and elsewhere it seems that some feel that since "x" amount of money was spent, that this should have somehow precluded the hobby from being scrutinized or held to some national legislation. It's impossible to quantify what they spent versus what they have accomplished to date. They didn't buy a product, they spent money to be part of a process, to contribute, to have a voice in the process. They are not perfect in everything they do, I've never claimed that. I have however claimed that being outside of the process looking in would have been a poor decision on their part. Ignoring reality, and having others potentially make long lasting poor decision that affect us and our hobby by "banning" quad/mr from the AMA would have been a mistake, imo.

Holding the AMA responsible for every bad piece of legislation that pops up, then turning around and saying gee why didn't they do something after all that money we spent isn't realistic or fair, again, imo. I'd rather them concentrate on federal issues first, then state issues next. I hate the fact that the FAA has even hinted that all of our planes might need to be registered. Insanely complicated, time consuming, and won't do a thing to stop someone from acting like a dope. I can't image me having to register a Parkzone Ember. I hate the fact that any of my dues have to go to fighting my govt against more intervention, but it is what it is. I will continue to fly like I always have, and enjoy the hobby as much as possible. I'll continue to voice my concerns to my AMA reps. If I feel that strongly about whats going on, I might get more involved, time dependent.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

The language noted in that .pdf, specifically 9 a,b,c. Does anything think that this language would be in there if not for the work of the AMA? Would someone from the FAA or DOT, or any other entity involved have worked to get that specific language in there, or perhaps it would just happen to be inserted for no specific reason?

rcmiket

The AMA isn't saying anything. That bothers me.

Mike

rcmiket

That's right now and it may change at any time. Lets see what the "task force" comes up with.

Mike

jws_aces

My Feedback: (33)

The one think that jumps out at me is that in 9 C modelaircraft classification they appear to be referring to Quad or MR vehicles.There is no distinction between fixed wing, helicopter or multirotor. What I don't understand is why the AMA didn't get the FAA to put in the wording of allowing all types as long as it were flown at a AMA sanction flying site and or event? That would take a lot of pressureoff of the clubs and CD of events. I am sure there will need to be some type ofclarification.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I don't follow what you mean there. I think they have said plenty, are you referring to one situation or issue?

Agree, it's not done yet, but would you agree in any part that the language was inserted there as a result of the efforts of the AMA? Is the AMA going to get blamed if there isn't a perfect result from this task force? Does it bear mentioning that this task force will be making recommendations, not drafting the legislation?

Silent-AV8R

And here is your sUAS Registration Task Force:

Task Force Members include:
Nancy Egan – 3D Robotics
Richard Hanson – Academy of Model Aeronautics
George Novak – Aerospace Industries Association
Chuck Hogeman and Randy Kenagy – Air Line Pilots Association
Jim Coon – Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Sean Cassidy – Amazon Prime Air
Ben Gielow–Amazon Retail
Justin Towles – American Association of Airport Executives
Brian Wynne – Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
Parker Brugge – Best Buy
Douglas Johnson – Consumer Electronics Association
Brendan Schulman – DJI
Paul Feldman – General Aviation Manufacturers Association
Dave Vos – GoogleX (Co-Chair)
Tony Bates – GoPro
Matt Zuccaro – Helicopter Association International
Mike Fergus – International Association of Chiefs of Police
John Perry – Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors
Brandon Declet – Measure
Randall Burdett – National Association of State Aviation Officials
Sarah Wolf – National Business Aviation Association
Baptiste Tripard – Parrot
Tyler Collins – PrecisionHawk
Gregory McNeal – Small UAV Coalition
Thomas Head – Walmart

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

If you're referring to the recently announced "task force", it's my understanding the "task force" has only been "tasked" with registration.

rcmiket

Anything on paper right now means nothing, You watched the hearing the other day. They are out for blood,

Mike

rcmiket

Yea short of redefining the hobby,. that's all they are "tasked" with. None of us knows what's on the horizon and only a complete fool would think everything's just fine.

Mike

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Perhaps they're short staffed and overburdened fielding questions about the dues increase.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

In the meantime lets start a "what if" thread so the "sky is falling" folks have something to do on a regular basis until the task force releases their results. Those folks can work themselves into a lather and since few, if any, actually remember anything from yesterday, it will be like a fresh start every day.

Oh wait, we have have several of those threads already!