Are you ready to register your aircraft?
10-29-2015, 01:05 PM
#776
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.
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.
the original decision AMA made to attempt to embrace the "drone", mr, fpv, crowd, were made a few years prior to the expenditure decision.
most of us bemoaning the decision to embrace those folk, are referring to the original decision.
10-29-2015, 01:21 PM
#777
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
10-29-2015, 01:39 PM
#778
I hear the actual drone registration process will require a DNA sample. Certainly much more involved and costly than registering a car, boat, or trailer.
10-29-2015, 01:57 PM
#779
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not at all and I said no such thing. I simply used an example where previously purchased items were registered just as future items to be purchased can be registered.
I hear the actual drone registration process will require a DNA sample. Certainly much more involved and costly than registering a car, boat, or trailer.
I hear the actual drone registration process will require a DNA sample. Certainly much more involved and costly than registering a car, boat, or trailer.
10-29-2015, 02:00 PM
#780
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not at all and I said no such thing. I simply used an example where previously purchased items were registered just as future items to be purchased can be registered.
I hear the actual drone registration process will require a DNA sample. Certainly much more involved and costly than registering a car, boat, or trailer.
I hear the actual drone registration process will require a DNA sample. Certainly much more involved and costly than registering a car, boat, or trailer.
God I hope so it will help some pull their heads out.
Mike
10-29-2015, 02:49 PM
#783
In New Zealand U must belong to Model Flying New Zealand (Their equivalent of the AMA). To fly within 4 km of an airport U One also requires for lack of a better term an Endorsement referred to I Believe as WINGS. They allow U to fly right on small untowered airports with adhering to special procedures. Again I say every one that wants to fly an R/C model of any description should have to take a written (Computer administered) test and receive an ID number that must be on/in the craft. i.e. just like the AMA requires to have in/on your plane when flying at an AMA field. A Current AMA Card should suffice but one would still be required to take the Computer issued Test, Just to prove that one knows the proper rules laws and FAR's pertinent to model flying. It Looks like we might have to do that by government Edict sooner than later. Who among us thinks that they could not pass a test on the proper, where and when to fly an R/C toy?
10-29-2015, 04:36 PM
#785
I am sure the AMA wants to exempt anything but quads. So buying a regular fixed-wing will avoid all the registration and paper work hassle, because it's a "model airplane". Attach a camera and video downlink, and there you go: drone photography on the cheap, no registration required. Good job, AMA.
10-29-2015, 05:19 PM
#786
10-29-2015, 06:02 PM
#787
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure AMA wants to exempt anything except what is flown by non-dues-paying outlaws.
Data from FAA's enforcement ops will be able to show how many offenders are AMA vs. non-members, as a percentage of the population of each of those subgroups. Good job, AMA.
So buying a regular fixed-wing will avoid all the registration and paper work hassle, because it's a "model airplane". Attach a camera and video downlink, and there you go: drone photography on the cheap, no registration required. Good job, AMA.
10-29-2015, 07:37 PM
#788
10-29-2015, 07:51 PM
#789
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?
9.c.(2)(a) - "Fly at or below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles"
9.c.(2)(f) - "Do not fly an aircraft that weighs 55 lbs. or more"
9.c.(3) - "However, if the airport operator or or the air traffic control facility believes the operation could impact safety, the facility may deny the operation and notify the UAS operator of the specific objection"
Nothing over 400 feet, nothing over 55 lbs., and airport / ATC can deny flight. No reference to CBO, no reference to programming. Nice...well done indeed. That's definitely language to be proud of.
10-29-2015, 07:54 PM
#790
Yep. The original bad decision to make these part of "us" was then compounded by spending $1,000,000 to get language in law, after which they turned around and spent even more money to sue the FAA for their interpretation of the very language the AMA asked for!
10-29-2015, 09:00 PM
#791
When did this 400 foot rule become the proposed rule for all unmanned aircraft flying anywhere? Initially the 400 foot rule was only suppose to be for commercial operations or for model aircraft within 5 miles of an airport. Outside of that 5 mile distance there was no altitude limit. When did this change?
10-29-2015, 09:31 PM
#792
When did this 400 foot rule become the proposed rule for all unmanned aircraft flying anywhere? Initially the 400 foot rule was only suppose to be for commercial operations or for model aircraft within 5 miles of an airport. Outside of that 5 mile distance there was no altitude limit. When did this change?
make mandatory
http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/m...ular/91-57.pdf
ADVISORYAC 91-57DATE June 9, 1981CIRCULARDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFederal Aviation AdministrationWashington, D.C.Subject: MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDSL1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular outlines, and encourages voluntarycompliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators.2. BACKGROUND. Modelers, generally, are concerned about safety and do exercisegood judgement when flying model aircraft. However, model.aircraft canat times pose a hazard to full-scale aircraft in flight and to personsandproperty on the surface. Compliance with the following standards will helpreduce the potential for that hazard and create a good neighbor environmentwith affected communities and airspace users.3 0 OPERATING STANDARDS.a. Select an operating site that is of sufficient distance from populatedareas. The selected site should be away from noise sensitive areas such asparks, schools, hospitals, churches, etc.b. Do not operate model aircraft in the presence of spectators until theaircraft is successfully flight tested and proven airworthy.CO Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface.When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator,or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the controltower, or flight service station.d. Give right of way to, and avoid flying in the proximity of, full-scaleaircraft. Use observers to help if possible.erv4R. J.Direc0 Do not hesitate to ask fVANVURENtor, Air Traffic Serviceor assistance from any airport traffic controlconcerning compliance with these standards.Initiated by: AAT-
10-29-2015, 09:50 PM
#793
That AC 91-57 was canceled. This is how that line reads now:
AC 91-57A
September 2, 2015
e. Model aircraft operators should follow best practices including limiting operations to 400 feet above ground level (AGL).
AC 91-57A
September 2, 2015
e. Model aircraft operators should follow best practices including limiting operations to 400 feet above ground level (AGL).
10-30-2015, 03:59 AM
#794
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-30-2015, 04:12 AM
#795
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
So you like 9c? Did you read the exact words?
9.c.(2)(a) - "Fly at or below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles"
9.c.(2)(f) - "Do not fly an aircraft that weighs 55 lbs. or more"
9.c.(3) - "However, if the airport operator or or the air traffic control facility believes the operation could impact safety, the facility may deny the operation and notify the UAS operator of the specific objection"
Nothing over 400 feet, nothing over 55 lbs., and airport / ATC can deny flight. No reference to CBO, no reference to programming. Nice...well done indeed. That's definitely language to be proud of.
9.c.(2)(a) - "Fly at or below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles"
9.c.(2)(f) - "Do not fly an aircraft that weighs 55 lbs. or more"
9.c.(3) - "However, if the airport operator or or the air traffic control facility believes the operation could impact safety, the facility may deny the operation and notify the UAS operator of the specific objection"
Nothing over 400 feet, nothing over 55 lbs., and airport / ATC can deny flight. No reference to CBO, no reference to programming. Nice...well done indeed. That's definitely language to be proud of.
It is what it is. The language isn't perfect, it's never going to be. Is what you see above horrendously damaging to the hobby? Is being asked to remain clear of surrounding obstacles completely outrageous? Oh the humanity. I guess the ATC facility should just let anyone who wants to fly a 50 pound MR linger at the end of a runway to get those great shots of arrivals and departures?
To some degree what you see there isn't that much different than what we are doing now, and won't adversely affect a disproportionate amount of hobbyists who are more than likely operating that way now anyway. Yes yes, I know about soaring and pattern and IMAC etc etc.
And although you are no doubt aware, their are waivers too that can be applied for.
10-30-2015, 04:35 AM
#797
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intel poured 60 million into a well know drone maker not too long ago so it might just be correct.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/28/intel-...n-drone-maker/
Mike
10-30-2015, 05:33 AM
#798
With this exception of Rich Hanson from the AMA, I'm not sure how many of the others on the list are accessible. I speak to Rich regularly when I see him at the various trade shows, but besides Brenden, I'm not sure how many are even remotely interested in model aviation.
10-30-2015, 05:38 AM
#799
So you like 9c? Did you read the exact words?
9.c.(2)(a) - "Fly at or below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles"
9.c.(2)(f) - "Do not fly an aircraft that weighs 55 lbs. or more"
9.c.(3) - "However, if the airport operator or or the air traffic control facility believes the operation could impact safety, the facility may deny the operation and notify the UAS operator of the specific objection"
Nothing over 400 feet, nothing over 55 lbs., and airport / ATC can deny flight. No reference to CBO, no reference to programming. Nice...well done indeed. That's definitely language to be proud of.
9.c.(2)(a) - "Fly at or below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles"
9.c.(2)(f) - "Do not fly an aircraft that weighs 55 lbs. or more"
9.c.(3) - "However, if the airport operator or or the air traffic control facility believes the operation could impact safety, the facility may deny the operation and notify the UAS operator of the specific objection"
Nothing over 400 feet, nothing over 55 lbs., and airport / ATC can deny flight. No reference to CBO, no reference to programming. Nice...well done indeed. That's definitely language to be proud of.
There are four kinds of people:
1) Those who make things happen
2) Those to whom things happen
3) Those who watch things happen
4) Those who don’t even know things are happening
10-30-2015, 05:39 AM
#800
