Are you ready to register your aircraft?
06-07-2016, 07:37 PM
#5201
So what have you or your club done to educate local politicians about this issue, or better yet find additional places to fly?
More action on behalf of the AMA that will be criticized, what's new.
If they do nothing, then get criticized for doing nothing, then get blamed for whatever someone does who is caught flying a "drone" while not at a field. Do something to help promote the hobby, educate those in power than can adversely affect us, and they get criticized. Surreal.
If I'm not mistaken, some folks feel the AMA hasn't done enough to find new flying fields. Now they do it, and wait for it...it's a bad thing. Go figure.
Your vote at the club level will do nothing from having the AMA note your field as an AMA affiliated field. The nice thing about the AMA however is that they let clubs determine who/what flies there, so you can "ban" anything you want.
More action on behalf of the AMA that will be criticized, what's new.
If they do nothing, then get criticized for doing nothing, then get blamed for whatever someone does who is caught flying a "drone" while not at a field. Do something to help promote the hobby, educate those in power than can adversely affect us, and they get criticized. Surreal.
If I'm not mistaken, some folks feel the AMA hasn't done enough to find new flying fields. Now they do it, and wait for it...it's a bad thing. Go figure.
Your vote at the club level will do nothing from having the AMA note your field as an AMA affiliated field. The nice thing about the AMA however is that they let clubs determine who/what flies there, so you can "ban" anything you want.
06-07-2016, 07:49 PM
#5202
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I look at the way it was written and what has been reported on the local nightly news. In Seattle alone, for example:
1) A drone was flown into Seattle's "Big Wheel", damaging a prop. The drone then fell over 100 feet, landing on and destroying a plastic table at a restaurant below. It was announced that SPD was looking for the owner/operator.
2) A drone was flown around Seattle's Space Needle twice and then down a busy street. It was spotted a few minutes later taking video inside a 15th floor apartment. When the resident saw it and called police, the operator flew it back to his location, packed up and left the area. The SPD was again announced to be looking for the owner/operator
3) A drone was spotted flying above a news helicopter by a second helicopter, followed back to it's operator who, upon retrieving it, ran inside a nearby house. When police arrived at the scene, the resident denied any knowledge but also refused to allow police inside the house to see if the person or drone were inside.
With these reports alone, showing that local law enforcement is taking an active stance in enforcing the FAA rules, it's hard to take the AMA's claim that they are making a difference too seriously
1) A drone was flown into Seattle's "Big Wheel", damaging a prop. The drone then fell over 100 feet, landing on and destroying a plastic table at a restaurant below. It was announced that SPD was looking for the owner/operator.
2) A drone was flown around Seattle's Space Needle twice and then down a busy street. It was spotted a few minutes later taking video inside a 15th floor apartment. When the resident saw it and called police, the operator flew it back to his location, packed up and left the area. The SPD was again announced to be looking for the owner/operator
3) A drone was spotted flying above a news helicopter by a second helicopter, followed back to it's operator who, upon retrieving it, ran inside a nearby house. When police arrived at the scene, the resident denied any knowledge but also refused to allow police inside the house to see if the person or drone were inside.
With these reports alone, showing that local law enforcement is taking an active stance in enforcing the FAA rules, it's hard to take the AMA's claim that they are making a difference too seriously
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-...goodyear-blimp
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/club...control-3.html
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1035732
Check out the dates on those incidents, certainly predates the whole MR thing.
Education is an invaluable part of prevention. Other than AMA and modelers, who else is doing anything to educate the public and anyone else for that matter on safety? I get the animus towards the AMA, it's always been there and always will be, but to say that their educational programs haven't had any affect on safe flying and possible reductions in these incidents seems illogical. Agree to disagree I guess.
06-07-2016, 07:55 PM
#5203
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Just a quick observation about 2 clubs that exist just inside the 5 mile radius of two different air ports in the Milwaukee area. They are both over 4,7 miles from their respective and after being required to call a special number every day at the start of flying and let the towers they were starting and would be active all day. Well as of June First both towers resided that phone call saying that even 1 call per day was unnecessary. As a side note until these clubs contacted their respective Towers the Tower personal never even knew these fields existed and didn't care that they were even there. My guess is that even not knowing the clubs were there they had never ever had any incident with any aircraft they had been controlling, it was not anything to worry about know. A problem that was not a problem in the first place ,,,Solved.
06-07-2016, 07:59 PM
#5204
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Okay, Mr Doom and Gloom, no one has said the post cards are a bad thing. In fact, I think it's a good place to start. It shows that the AMA board is willing to work with communities in setting up flying sites for "drones" as well as standard fixed wing aircraft. If the communities are willing, I see this as a win/win. It really comes down to how the local government reacts or fails to react
06-07-2016, 08:24 PM
#5205
Yep. 10 minutes of the inside of a woman's shirt. The pilot was following her because he was able to track the drone. BUT he was far enough away he did not SEE or his spotter SEE she had picked it up. That's a problem (IMHO).
It should have been in visual the whole time.
It should have been in visual the whole time.
06-08-2016, 04:29 AM
#5206
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick observation about 2 clubs that exist just inside the 5 mile radius of two different air ports in the Milwaukee area. They are both over 4,7 miles from their respective and after being required to call a special number every day at the start of flying and let the towers they were starting and would be active all day. Well as of June First both towers resided that phone call saying that even 1 call per day was unnecessary. As a side note until these clubs contacted their respective Towers the Tower personal never even knew these fields existed and didn't care that they were even there. My guess is that even not knowing the clubs were there they had never ever had any incident with any aircraft they had been controlling, it was not anything to worry about know. A problem that was not a problem in the first place ,,,Solved.
Although it's looking like nothing will get done on either bill right now ( typical government ) that just sucks.
Mike
06-08-2016, 05:32 AM
#5208
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
06-08-2016, 05:51 AM
#5209
06-08-2016, 06:22 AM
#5210
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Wording in the new bill would require all fields within 5 miles of airports to make that call ( every day ) and ask for permission. Chad our new "government go to guy" even brings up that point in his latest video.
Although it's looking like nothing will get done on either bill right now ( typical government ) that just sucks.
Mike
Although it's looking like nothing will get done on either bill right now ( typical government ) that just sucks.
Mike
06-08-2016, 07:22 AM
#5213
They could just as easily approve as well.
06-08-2016, 07:24 AM
#5214
06-08-2016, 07:25 AM
#5215
Wording in the new bill would require all fields within 5 miles of airports to make that call ( every day ) and ask for permission. Chad our new "government go to guy" even brings up that point in his latest video.
Although it's looking like nothing will get done on either bill right now ( typical government ) that just sucks.
Mike
Although it's looking like nothing will get done on either bill right now ( typical government ) that just sucks.
Mike
06-08-2016, 09:40 AM
#5216
06-08-2016, 11:00 AM
#5217
Two words, "Continuing Resolution"
However I believe it is early for that. They will cram through what they want at the last minute.
06-08-2016, 12:37 PM
#5218
06-08-2016, 02:10 PM
#5219
It's my understanding that the present bill has been originated in the Senate and voted on and approved. Now it must go to the house for approval or changes if there are changes then it goes to committee for resolution of a new bill and then goes back to both the house and the sent for a vote then to the President for HER signature making it the law of the land. Also It just may never come up in the house this session and of it does not get approved by this congress it all starts over, if I understand the process correctly.
My suggestion is that we have a massive Letter writing campaign to our Congressmen and state Senators....Telling them that We "Traditional R/C Model Airplane Flyers" are not what the world considers "DRONES" Quads M.R. etc and we are NOT the Problem and should be excluded from this legislation when flying in/at a chartered or designated R/C Model flying field. We have to Inundate them with Paper it's the only thing they might understand. It may be our last chance to save our Hobby/Sport from the regulations that are neither needed nor necessary for 99% of R/C Flying at Designated flying sites. I know I'm Preaching to the choir but What the hell, It's just food for thought.
My suggestion is that we have a massive Letter writing campaign to our Congressmen and state Senators....Telling them that We "Traditional R/C Model Airplane Flyers" are not what the world considers "DRONES" Quads M.R. etc and we are NOT the Problem and should be excluded from this legislation when flying in/at a chartered or designated R/C Model flying field. We have to Inundate them with Paper it's the only thing they might understand. It may be our last chance to save our Hobby/Sport from the regulations that are neither needed nor necessary for 99% of R/C Flying at Designated flying sites. I know I'm Preaching to the choir but What the hell, It's just food for thought.
06-08-2016, 02:41 PM
#5222
Why would it not require a reasonable justification? What makes you think they can just do whatever they want without any justifiable reason?
06-08-2016, 02:47 PM
#5223
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately that's the bottom line. They could just say no and it's done. They aren't required to explain a thing. If we have learned one thing from all this horse crap is the FAA don't care about a bunch of guys with toy airplanes and the AMA try as they may is not a force in any of this.
Mike
06-08-2016, 03:00 PM
#5224
The Idea is that the house doesn't get to it this term and we get them to DROP any requirement for permission from a tower to fly at a Designated Flying site. Look these fields have been in their location in many cases for more than 30 years and the towers never even knew they were even there. WHY because we are not a threat to Full Scale never was never will be, So no need for any approval since they never knew we existed in the first place. U all give up way to easy ... better sell all your JUNK know while it's worth something ... Besides there are thousands of R/C Fields this doesn't even concern. Do U personally fly at a field within 5 miles of a towered field????? How man of actually fly at a field with in 5 miles of a towered airport.
06-08-2016, 03:10 PM
#5225
The Idea here is to get this language out of any legislation .... That was the Intent of the amendment #336 ... Why should the senate or anyone change their minds and require tower approval When we aren't the problem ... It's a fix for a problem that does not and never did exist till the AMA tried to tell the FAA what and what not they could do to R/C Model aircraft. I to thought it was a good thing till I saw the way the FAA Reacted and then Interpenetrated the amendment.
As I see it this is possibly our last chance to get this wording out of any Legislation concerning R/C model aircraft. Don't be so NEGATIVE about our chances at least give it a try.
Last edited by HoundDog; 06-08-2016 at 03:14 PM.