View Poll Results: Was it a mistake or not for the AMA to embrace drones ?
Voters: 356. You may not vote on this poll
Yes or No , Do you think the AMA was right or wrong to embrace DRONES ?
01-02-2016, 07:15 PM
#603
Junior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hereford, AZ
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hound Dog,
I get it bro! You're preaching to the Choir. No matter how we Modelers look at or interpret the FAR's, they are all written for Manned Aviation (unless you look at these..) No where does it tell us in Part 91, or all of Subchapter F for that matter, where we CAN fly our RC Models, it tells Manned Pilots where they CANNOT fly. There are also limited exceptions in Part 91 for Manned, permitting flight all the way to the Ground, with 500 ft horizontal separation, or to a hard deck of 500', with varying horizontal separation from different objects, including clouds! Where does it mention our criteria for separation from Manned?
Looking at the newly proposed legislation on the FAA Website reveals some pretty strict proposals for flight limitations for our models. Considering their proposed 400' altitude limit, we can see that this proposal accounts for a separation of only 100' from the 500' lower limits for manned. Is that enough, probably, provided we don't bust it. Would we be good to 800', if manned were raised to 1000' nationwide?? Sure we would, and there is added buffer of 200' separation, again as long as either side doesn't bust airspace. Unless we (the AMA) can convince the FAA that this is possible, and get them to buy off on it, from what I'm reading, it's a 400' future for us. I'd much rather have 800'!
Look at Part 103. Those rules are about as simple and basic as it gets, and they are for Manned Ultralight Vehicles.. look at all of the restrictions for flight for those Vehicles, especially 103.15.
Want to launch a Model Rocket? Part 101, Subpart C covers these. For all but the most basic rockets, they are considered Commercial Flight, and need waivers submitted 45 days before their planned launch, not to mention launch site location! They're ALL model rockets, just varying levels of capability and power.
Believe me man, I get it.. When (if??) these newly proposed Rules are put into play, where will we fall (under which part)? This is where the AMA has to get what they (reasonably) can for us before it becomes finalized. I'm hoping that someone from the EC is following at least some of this. I'd personally like to know what they're aiming for with regard to airspace agreements. The registration is a given at this point.. it's just a TBD matter of with who.
It's not the average RC Modeler that has caused this.. it's "those" folks that don't know what they're doing, could care less about safety or separation from manned that are causing our grief. Now that the FAA has become involved, I'm really wondering what's going to happen, especially if we try to continue without some sort of Airspace Education to console the FAA. They want to see accountability and educated operators. Yes, simple is great, but currently not really an option.
I'm VERY sure some of Part 103 had to be written, partly due to the Paragliding antics of this idiot! Not to mention countless new(er) Local Ordinances banning PPG activity. This was just one guy!
Unfortunately, I really believe that the FAA is seeing the current "explosion" of sUAS (drones) and the antics being pulled on YouTube as a general indicator of the evolvement (degradation) of our hobby, especially given the 185,000 AMA members vs the million+ new "drones" and operators. My point to all of this is for the AMA to give them some REASONABLE expectations, definitions, and assurances, and hopefully they will work at least with the AMA Members on some viable RC airspace. Yes, it's sad..
I get it bro! You're preaching to the Choir. No matter how we Modelers look at or interpret the FAR's, they are all written for Manned Aviation (unless you look at these..) No where does it tell us in Part 91, or all of Subchapter F for that matter, where we CAN fly our RC Models, it tells Manned Pilots where they CANNOT fly. There are also limited exceptions in Part 91 for Manned, permitting flight all the way to the Ground, with 500 ft horizontal separation, or to a hard deck of 500', with varying horizontal separation from different objects, including clouds! Where does it mention our criteria for separation from Manned?
Looking at the newly proposed legislation on the FAA Website reveals some pretty strict proposals for flight limitations for our models. Considering their proposed 400' altitude limit, we can see that this proposal accounts for a separation of only 100' from the 500' lower limits for manned. Is that enough, probably, provided we don't bust it. Would we be good to 800', if manned were raised to 1000' nationwide?? Sure we would, and there is added buffer of 200' separation, again as long as either side doesn't bust airspace. Unless we (the AMA) can convince the FAA that this is possible, and get them to buy off on it, from what I'm reading, it's a 400' future for us. I'd much rather have 800'!
Look at Part 103. Those rules are about as simple and basic as it gets, and they are for Manned Ultralight Vehicles.. look at all of the restrictions for flight for those Vehicles, especially 103.15.
Want to launch a Model Rocket? Part 101, Subpart C covers these. For all but the most basic rockets, they are considered Commercial Flight, and need waivers submitted 45 days before their planned launch, not to mention launch site location! They're ALL model rockets, just varying levels of capability and power.
Believe me man, I get it.. When (if??) these newly proposed Rules are put into play, where will we fall (under which part)? This is where the AMA has to get what they (reasonably) can for us before it becomes finalized. I'm hoping that someone from the EC is following at least some of this. I'd personally like to know what they're aiming for with regard to airspace agreements. The registration is a given at this point.. it's just a TBD matter of with who.
It's not the average RC Modeler that has caused this.. it's "those" folks that don't know what they're doing, could care less about safety or separation from manned that are causing our grief. Now that the FAA has become involved, I'm really wondering what's going to happen, especially if we try to continue without some sort of Airspace Education to console the FAA. They want to see accountability and educated operators. Yes, simple is great, but currently not really an option.
I'm VERY sure some of Part 103 had to be written, partly due to the Paragliding antics of this idiot! Not to mention countless new(er) Local Ordinances banning PPG activity. This was just one guy!
Unfortunately, I really believe that the FAA is seeing the current "explosion" of sUAS (drones) and the antics being pulled on YouTube as a general indicator of the evolvement (degradation) of our hobby, especially given the 185,000 AMA members vs the million+ new "drones" and operators. My point to all of this is for the AMA to give them some REASONABLE expectations, definitions, and assurances, and hopefully they will work at least with the AMA Members on some viable RC airspace. Yes, it's sad..
Last edited by Renegade_2k; 01-02-2016 at 07:31 PM.
01-02-2016, 07:22 PM
#604
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Don't you see any of this FAA involvement as a result of the potential explosion of commercial use, from companies like Amazon, Walmart, Google. Do you think someone at the FAA saw some goofy videos from folks flying MR/Drones recklessly and decided to mount this campaign? Not sure why our hobby seems to always be the impetus for this regulation.
01-02-2016, 07:50 PM
#605
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you see any of this FAA involvement as a result of the potential explosion of commercial use, from companies like Amazon, Walmart, Google. Do you think someone at the FAA saw some goofy videos from folks flying MR/Drones recklessly and decided to mount this campaign? Not sure why our hobby seems to always be the impetus for this regulation.
01-02-2016, 07:53 PM
#606
Junior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hereford, AZ
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely I DO see that as well Porcia. They will also be operating under 14 CFR, Chapter III.
And YES, I DO think that the FAA saw some bad players in our Hobby, and they’ve looked at the numbers..
Look at what the DOT did to the Rules for the Transportation of Lithium Batteries of all flavors after it became apparent what happens when they are misused or damaged.. and a lot of that admittedly was bad players, again on YouTube. Have you flown (in an Airliner) with Lithiums lately? Have you tried to Ship any in the past two years or worse yet, in the past 6 mos? I have to recertify for Hazardous Materials Shipping every year as part of my job. Lithiums have taken a beating by the DOT! Everyone is scared to death of them!
Do we use these in our Hobby? Yup! Have there been numerous incidents and accidents with these evolving from our hobby? Were some of these posted on Youtube? They were. Unfortunately..
And YES, I DO think that the FAA saw some bad players in our Hobby, and they’ve looked at the numbers..
Look at what the DOT did to the Rules for the Transportation of Lithium Batteries of all flavors after it became apparent what happens when they are misused or damaged.. and a lot of that admittedly was bad players, again on YouTube. Have you flown (in an Airliner) with Lithiums lately? Have you tried to Ship any in the past two years or worse yet, in the past 6 mos? I have to recertify for Hazardous Materials Shipping every year as part of my job. Lithiums have taken a beating by the DOT! Everyone is scared to death of them!
Do we use these in our Hobby? Yup! Have there been numerous incidents and accidents with these evolving from our hobby? Were some of these posted on Youtube? They were. Unfortunately..
01-02-2016, 07:57 PM
#607
Don't you see any of this FAA involvement as a result of the potential explosion of commercial use, from companies like Amazon, Walmart, Google. Do you think someone at the FAA saw some goofy videos from folks flying MR/Drones recklessly and decided to mount this campaign? Not sure why our hobby seems to always be the impetus for this regulation.
01-02-2016, 07:58 PM
#608
Hound Dog,
I get it bro! You're preaching to the Choir. No matter how we Modelers look at or interpret the FAR's, they are all written for Manned Aviation (unless you look at these..) No where does it tell us in Part 91, or all of Subchapter F for that matter, where we CAN fly our RC Models, it tells Manned Pilots where they CANNOT fly. There are also limited exceptions in Part 91 for Manned, permitting flight all the way to the Ground, with 500 ft horizontal separation, or to a hard deck of 500', with varying horizontal separation from different objects, including clouds! Where does it mention our criteria for separation from Manned?
Looking at the newly proposed legislation on the FAA Website reveals some pretty strict proposals for flight limitations for our models. Considering their proposed 400' altitude limit, we can see that this proposal accounts for a separation of only 100' from the 500' lower limits for manned. Is that enough, probably, provided we don't bust it. Would we be good to 800', if manned were raised to 1000' nationwide?? Sure we would, and there is added buffer of 200' separation, again as long as either side doesn't bust airspace. Unless we (the AMA) can convince the FAA that this is possible, and get them to buy off on it, from what I'm reading, it's a 400' future for us. I'd much rather have 800'!
Look at Part 103. Those rules are about as simple and basic as it gets, and they are for Manned Ultralight Vehicles.. look at all of the restrictions for flight for those Vehicles, especially 103.15.
Want to launch a Model Rocket? Part 101, Subpart C covers these. For all but the most basic rockets, they are considered Commercial Flight, and need waivers submitted 45 days before their planned launch, not to mention launch site location! They're ALL model rockets, just varying levels of capability and power.
Believe me man, I get it.. When (if??) these newly proposed Rules are put into play, where will we fall (under which part)? This is where the AMA has to get what they (reasonably) can for us before it becomes finalized. I'm hoping that someone from the EC is following at least some of this. I'd personally like to know what they're aiming for with regard to airspace agreements. The registration is a given at this point.. it's just a TBD matter of with who.
It's not the average RC Modeler that has caused this.. it's "those" folks that don't know what they're doing, could care less about safety or separation from manned that are causing our grief. Now that the FAA has become involved, I'm really wondering what's going to happen, especially if we try to continue without some sort of Airspace Education to console the FAA. They want to see accountability and educated operators. Yes, simple is great, but currently not really an option.
I'm VERY sure some of Part 103 had to be written, partly due to the Paragliding antics of this idiot! Not to mention countless new(er) Local Ordinances banning PPG activity. This was just one guy!
Unfortunately, I really believe that the FAA is seeing the current "explosion" of sUAS (drones) and the antics being pulled on YouTube as a general indicator of the evolvement (degradation) of our hobby, especially given the 185,000 AMA members vs the million+ new "drones" and operators. My point to all of this is for the AMA to give them some REASONABLE expectations, definitions, and assurances, and hopefully they will work at least with the AMA Members on some viable RC airspace. Yes, it's sad..
I get it bro! You're preaching to the Choir. No matter how we Modelers look at or interpret the FAR's, they are all written for Manned Aviation (unless you look at these..) No where does it tell us in Part 91, or all of Subchapter F for that matter, where we CAN fly our RC Models, it tells Manned Pilots where they CANNOT fly. There are also limited exceptions in Part 91 for Manned, permitting flight all the way to the Ground, with 500 ft horizontal separation, or to a hard deck of 500', with varying horizontal separation from different objects, including clouds! Where does it mention our criteria for separation from Manned?
Looking at the newly proposed legislation on the FAA Website reveals some pretty strict proposals for flight limitations for our models. Considering their proposed 400' altitude limit, we can see that this proposal accounts for a separation of only 100' from the 500' lower limits for manned. Is that enough, probably, provided we don't bust it. Would we be good to 800', if manned were raised to 1000' nationwide?? Sure we would, and there is added buffer of 200' separation, again as long as either side doesn't bust airspace. Unless we (the AMA) can convince the FAA that this is possible, and get them to buy off on it, from what I'm reading, it's a 400' future for us. I'd much rather have 800'!
Look at Part 103. Those rules are about as simple and basic as it gets, and they are for Manned Ultralight Vehicles.. look at all of the restrictions for flight for those Vehicles, especially 103.15.
Want to launch a Model Rocket? Part 101, Subpart C covers these. For all but the most basic rockets, they are considered Commercial Flight, and need waivers submitted 45 days before their planned launch, not to mention launch site location! They're ALL model rockets, just varying levels of capability and power.
Believe me man, I get it.. When (if??) these newly proposed Rules are put into play, where will we fall (under which part)? This is where the AMA has to get what they (reasonably) can for us before it becomes finalized. I'm hoping that someone from the EC is following at least some of this. I'd personally like to know what they're aiming for with regard to airspace agreements. The registration is a given at this point.. it's just a TBD matter of with who.
It's not the average RC Modeler that has caused this.. it's "those" folks that don't know what they're doing, could care less about safety or separation from manned that are causing our grief. Now that the FAA has become involved, I'm really wondering what's going to happen, especially if we try to continue without some sort of Airspace Education to console the FAA. They want to see accountability and educated operators. Yes, simple is great, but currently not really an option.
I'm VERY sure some of Part 103 had to be written, partly due to the Paragliding antics of this idiot! Not to mention countless new(er) Local Ordinances banning PPG activity. This was just one guy!
Unfortunately, I really believe that the FAA is seeing the current "explosion" of sUAS (drones) and the antics being pulled on YouTube as a general indicator of the evolvement (degradation) of our hobby, especially given the 185,000 AMA members vs the million+ new "drones" and operators. My point to all of this is for the AMA to give them some REASONABLE expectations, definitions, and assurances, and hopefully they will work at least with the AMA Members on some viable RC airspace. Yes, it's sad..
01-02-2016, 08:12 PM
#609
Junior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hereford, AZ
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Waits to see who will cringe at this one!)
Hmmm.. maybe I could mount this on a BIG drone and ....
Last edited by Renegade_2k; 01-02-2016 at 08:31 PM.
01-03-2016, 06:30 AM
#611
I see no reason the change the rules as it is. We can fly well over 800 feet now. Even 800 feet will be a problem to sailplane competition. There is just no need for it because there has been almost no mid air between full scale and model airplane. And those that have have been minor damage to the full scale. It just isn't enough risk to throw out our freedom to fly above 800 feet.
01-03-2016, 06:36 AM
#612
Hound Dog,
I get it bro! You're preaching to the Choir. No matter how we Modelers look at or interpret the FAR's, they are all written for Manned Aviation (unless you look at these..) No where does it tell us in Part 91, or all of Subchapter F for that matter, where we CAN fly our RC Models, it tells Manned Pilots where they CANNOT fly. There are also limited exceptions in Part 91 for Manned, permitting flight all the way to the Ground, with 500 ft horizontal separation, or to a hard deck of 500', with varying horizontal separation from different objects, including clouds! Where does it mention our criteria for separation from Manned?
Looking at the newly proposed legislation on the FAA Website reveals some pretty strict proposals for flight limitations for our models. Considering their proposed 400' altitude limit, we can see that this proposal accounts for a separation of only 100' from the 500' lower limits for manned. Is that enough, probably, provided we don't bust it. Would we be good to 800', if manned were raised to 1000' nationwide?? Sure we would, and there is added buffer of 200' separation, again as long as either side doesn't bust airspace. Unless we (the AMA) can convince the FAA that this is possible, and get them to buy off on it, from what I'm reading, it's a 400' future for us. I'd much rather have 800'!
Look at Part 103. Those rules are about as simple and basic as it gets, and they are for Manned Ultralight Vehicles.. look at all of the restrictions for flight for those Vehicles, especially 103.15.
Want to launch a Model Rocket? Part 101, Subpart C covers these. For all but the most basic rockets, they are considered Commercial Flight, and need waivers submitted 45 days before their planned launch, not to mention launch site location! They're ALL model rockets, just varying levels of capability and power.
Believe me man, I get it.. When (if??) these newly proposed Rules are put into play, where will we fall (under which part)? This is where the AMA has to get what they (reasonably) can for us before it becomes finalized. I'm hoping that someone from the EC is following at least some of this. I'd personally like to know what they're aiming for with regard to airspace agreements. The registration is a given at this point.. it's just a TBD matter of with who.
It's not the average RC Modeler that has caused this.. it's "those" folks that don't know what they're doing, could care less about safety or separation from manned that are causing our grief. Now that the FAA has become involved, I'm really wondering what's going to happen, especially if we try to continue without some sort of Airspace Education to console the FAA. They want to see accountability and educated operators. Yes, simple is great, but currently not really an option.
I'm VERY sure some of Part 103 had to be written, partly due to the Paragliding antics of this idiot! Not to mention countless new(er) Local Ordinances banning PPG activity. This was just one guy!
Unfortunately, I really believe that the FAA is seeing the current "explosion" of sUAS (drones) and the antics being pulled on YouTube as a general indicator of the evolvement (degradation) of our hobby, especially given the 185,000 AMA members vs the million+ new "drones" and operators. My point to all of this is for the AMA to give them some REASONABLE expectations, definitions, and assurances, and hopefully they will work at least with the AMA Members on some viable RC airspace. Yes, it's sad..
I get it bro! You're preaching to the Choir. No matter how we Modelers look at or interpret the FAR's, they are all written for Manned Aviation (unless you look at these..) No where does it tell us in Part 91, or all of Subchapter F for that matter, where we CAN fly our RC Models, it tells Manned Pilots where they CANNOT fly. There are also limited exceptions in Part 91 for Manned, permitting flight all the way to the Ground, with 500 ft horizontal separation, or to a hard deck of 500', with varying horizontal separation from different objects, including clouds! Where does it mention our criteria for separation from Manned?
Looking at the newly proposed legislation on the FAA Website reveals some pretty strict proposals for flight limitations for our models. Considering their proposed 400' altitude limit, we can see that this proposal accounts for a separation of only 100' from the 500' lower limits for manned. Is that enough, probably, provided we don't bust it. Would we be good to 800', if manned were raised to 1000' nationwide?? Sure we would, and there is added buffer of 200' separation, again as long as either side doesn't bust airspace. Unless we (the AMA) can convince the FAA that this is possible, and get them to buy off on it, from what I'm reading, it's a 400' future for us. I'd much rather have 800'!
Look at Part 103. Those rules are about as simple and basic as it gets, and they are for Manned Ultralight Vehicles.. look at all of the restrictions for flight for those Vehicles, especially 103.15.
Want to launch a Model Rocket? Part 101, Subpart C covers these. For all but the most basic rockets, they are considered Commercial Flight, and need waivers submitted 45 days before their planned launch, not to mention launch site location! They're ALL model rockets, just varying levels of capability and power.
Believe me man, I get it.. When (if??) these newly proposed Rules are put into play, where will we fall (under which part)? This is where the AMA has to get what they (reasonably) can for us before it becomes finalized. I'm hoping that someone from the EC is following at least some of this. I'd personally like to know what they're aiming for with regard to airspace agreements. The registration is a given at this point.. it's just a TBD matter of with who.
It's not the average RC Modeler that has caused this.. it's "those" folks that don't know what they're doing, could care less about safety or separation from manned that are causing our grief. Now that the FAA has become involved, I'm really wondering what's going to happen, especially if we try to continue without some sort of Airspace Education to console the FAA. They want to see accountability and educated operators. Yes, simple is great, but currently not really an option.
I'm VERY sure some of Part 103 had to be written, partly due to the Paragliding antics of this idiot! Not to mention countless new(er) Local Ordinances banning PPG activity. This was just one guy!
Unfortunately, I really believe that the FAA is seeing the current "explosion" of sUAS (drones) and the antics being pulled on YouTube as a general indicator of the evolvement (degradation) of our hobby, especially given the 185,000 AMA members vs the million+ new "drones" and operators. My point to all of this is for the AMA to give them some REASONABLE expectations, definitions, and assurances, and hopefully they will work at least with the AMA Members on some viable RC airspace. Yes, it's sad..
01-03-2016, 06:39 AM
#613
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I see no reason the change the rules as it is. We can fly well over 800 feet now. Even 800 feet will be a problem to sailplane competition. There is just no need for it because there has been almost no mid air between full scale and model airplane. And those that have have been minor damage to the full scale. It just isn't enough risk to throw out our freedom to fly above 800 feet.
01-03-2016, 06:41 AM
#614
Even rights are limited, but check out the 9th and 10th amendment. Where does the Constitution allow regulation of model aircraft?
01-03-2016, 06:56 AM
#615
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
And there you go. You can't seriously look to a document that is over 225 years old and expect that it addresses every issue in current times, nor the future for that matter. Then again, you probably can. Times change...and so has that document.
01-03-2016, 07:27 AM
#616
I think serious education and enforcement of existing regulation need to be done. Not just for drone pilots either. We have cropduster pilots who do not file the required waivers, and helicopter pilots who ignore the helicopter routes. Not to mention the large number of instructors who do not know what an assembly of people are when they do their engine out emergency training.
We've got every kind of Chopper including AH-64 Apaches flying all over the PHX valley Medical Mostly. Lately they have been flying way High or around us. Like they know we are there.
Last edited by HoundDog; 01-03-2016 at 07:30 AM.
01-03-2016, 09:13 AM
#618
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Your point, is that from the new AMA company sales brochure?
I'm appalled! $700.00 for a hovering blender? I'll pass..thanks! I'm saving up my cash for this:
Back to the ad though, I'm going to take a guess that you might have an issue with the AMA tie in promotion right? I'm cool with it...
Head over to Best Buy...they have a similar promotion with their Yuneek offering.
“Safety has always been our number one priority. By teaming up with Best Buy, we hope to help even more new drone operators learn how to fly responsibly,” AMA’s Executive Director Dave Mathewson said in a statement. “We have long said that education is the best way to promote safety, and that’s why we’re excited to enter into this relationship with one of the nation’s leading retailers.”
In addition, the sales associates are required to take an online safety course. Oh, and even better...they now have a brochure attached to the box that explains the whole FAA registration process as well. Isn't that amazing?
An absolute avalanche of WIN WIN WIN. More members for the AMA, and a better educated and safety minded member at that.
I'm appalled! $700.00 for a hovering blender? I'll pass..thanks! I'm saving up my cash for this:
Back to the ad though, I'm going to take a guess that you might have an issue with the AMA tie in promotion right? I'm cool with it...
Head over to Best Buy...they have a similar promotion with their Yuneek offering.
“Safety has always been our number one priority. By teaming up with Best Buy, we hope to help even more new drone operators learn how to fly responsibly,” AMA’s Executive Director Dave Mathewson said in a statement. “We have long said that education is the best way to promote safety, and that’s why we’re excited to enter into this relationship with one of the nation’s leading retailers.”
In addition, the sales associates are required to take an online safety course. Oh, and even better...they now have a brochure attached to the box that explains the whole FAA registration process as well. Isn't that amazing?
An absolute avalanche of WIN WIN WIN. More members for the AMA, and a better educated and safety minded member at that.
01-03-2016, 09:23 AM
#619
Your point, is that from the new AMA company sales brochure?
I'm appalled! $700.00 for a hovering blender? I'll pass..thanks! I'm saving up my cash for this:
Back to the ad though, I'm going to take a guess that you might have an issue with the AMA tie in promotion right? I'm cool with it...
Head over to Best Buy...they have a similar promotion with their Yuneek offering.
“Safety has always been our number one priority. By teaming up with Best Buy, we hope to help even more new drone operators learn how to fly responsibly,” AMA’s Executive Director Dave Mathewson said in a statement. “We have long said that education is the best way to promote safety, and that’s why we’re excited to enter into this relationship with one of the nation’s leading retailers.”
In addition, the sales associates are required to take an online safety course. Oh, and even better...they now have a brochure attached to the box that explains the whole FAA registration process as well. Isn't that amazing?
An absolute avalanche of WIN WIN WIN. More members for the AMA, and a better educated and safety minded member at that.
I'm appalled! $700.00 for a hovering blender? I'll pass..thanks! I'm saving up my cash for this:
Back to the ad though, I'm going to take a guess that you might have an issue with the AMA tie in promotion right? I'm cool with it...
Head over to Best Buy...they have a similar promotion with their Yuneek offering.
“Safety has always been our number one priority. By teaming up with Best Buy, we hope to help even more new drone operators learn how to fly responsibly,” AMA’s Executive Director Dave Mathewson said in a statement. “We have long said that education is the best way to promote safety, and that’s why we’re excited to enter into this relationship with one of the nation’s leading retailers.”
In addition, the sales associates are required to take an online safety course. Oh, and even better...they now have a brochure attached to the box that explains the whole FAA registration process as well. Isn't that amazing?
An absolute avalanche of WIN WIN WIN. More members for the AMA, and a better educated and safety minded member at that.
OH like the picket radar plane U are saving for ...Can ya spot DRONES with it?????
01-03-2016, 09:38 AM
#620
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Not sure what you mean about the FAA being on board yet or not? Can't imagine they would have a problem with BB telling customers about the need to register. Stay tuned..might even see a registering at the point of purchase in the future. Ah technology..exciting times!
01-03-2016, 10:32 AM
#621
I think registering at POS would be great.
01-03-2016, 10:38 AM
#622
Originally Posted by HoundDog 
Man sounds way too good to be true ... Think the FAA is on board yet? Or ever?
OH like the picket radar plane U are saving for ...Can ya spot DRONES with it????
Stop asking the tuff questions But it made perfect sense to me when I wrote it at 10:23 this morning but man that was a long time ago but it's got to be some reference to this:
When U figure it Let me know OK
Originally Posted by porcia83 Your point, is that from the new AMA company sales brochure?
I'm appalled! $700.00 for a hovering blender? I'll pass..thanks! I'm saving up my cash for this:
Back to the ad though, I'm going to take a guess that you might have an issue with the AMA tie in promotion right? I'm cool with it...
Head over to Best Buy...they have a similar promotion with their Yuneek offering.
“Safety has always been our number one priority. By teaming up with Best Buy, we hope to help even more new drone operators learn how to fly responsibly,” AMA’s Executive Director Dave Mathewson said in a statement. “We have long said that education is the best way to promote safety, and that’s why we’re excited to enter into this relationship with one of the nation’s leading retailers.”
In addition, the sales associates are required to take an online safety course. Oh, and even better...they now have a brochure attached to the box that explains the whole FAA registration process as well. Isn't that amazing?
An absolute avalanche of WIN WIN WIN. More members for the AMA, and a better educated and safety minded member at that.
01-03-2016, 11:55 AM
#623
My Feedback: (1)
I"m not all that excited about having to register but I am also not totally against the registration. If you look at the purported reason for the registration it is to educate and identify some of our irresponsible RC flyers when they endanger other people and property. We have to have licenses to drive our cars, to fly full sized aircraft and
drive a boat in some states.
Roo man
drive a boat in some states.
Roo man
01-03-2016, 12:30 PM
#624
I"m not all that excited about having to register but I am also not totally against the registration. If you look at the purported reason for the registration it is to educate and identify some of our irresponsible RC flyers when they endanger other people and property. We have to have licenses to drive our cars, to fly full sized aircraft and
drive a boat in some states.
Roo man
drive a boat in some states.
Roo man
01-03-2016, 03:35 PM
#625
My Feedback: (11)
I would be interested in the results of this question when, and if it were to be properly asked (no matter what combatpigg has to say).
I remind you that you had an opportunity to elect different AMA officials in an election recently completed. If you feel this strongly about the issue, why was there no change in the top leadership?
I remind you that you had an opportunity to elect different AMA officials in an election recently completed. If you feel this strongly about the issue, why was there no change in the top leadership?