EloyM

My Feedback: (194)

VF84sluggo - re Model Aviation magazine. Did you see the latest issue with the picture of our AMA president in his Santa hat and holding a *&^%$ "drone"!.
I mentioned it somewhere else - I wondered if poster sized prints would be available. Or maybe, like they did with those crappy DVDs some time back - every AMA member would get one with instructions where to send payment. Bah Humbug!

General comment. It is not so much the hardware that is causing the problem, it is the users. How many traditional R/C'ers have we ever see do any of the really stupid things the MR's have done with their toys.

cj_rumley

I hear that and fully agree with you that a camera used as said is fun and innocuous. Several clubmates have done that, vids posted on the club web site for all to enjoy and no legitimate ***** from anybody with a modicum of tolerance for others having fun. OTOH see the post by mr_matt above. I see his point as well taken, and read it as 'it would be regrettable to say no cameras because a freedom of some small percentage of modelers would be arbitrarily infringed, yet it is a way to establish a tangible distinction between a traditional RC model and a drone that is sorely needed to sharpen the line.' I suppose it might serve both purposes with some wordsmithing to say, for example, that a camera may be used on a TRC to provide for a video log of a flight. Possibly TMI for a simple KISS distinction, tho - more something to keep in a hip pocket while negotating on definition of terms.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Yes, I understand that it would be much clearer to simply say NO to all camera equipped planes. This DOES serve to differentiate all drones from TRC, without the need for any long winded exceptions.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

InIt
Have U ever tried FPV PLEASE don't condemn something Just because U don't care to do it or have never even tried it. ... It's really cool to be in the cockpit and it takes much more skill to land than U would think but following another plane is one of the neatest part of FPV. Done with in the confines of the flying field and down on the deck is tons of fun. On should be on a buddy box (Just as a student) until one gains the expertise to do it safely alone, just like a student pilot should be allowed to solo til determined compenent by a club Instructor. There a few that should have been allowed off the buddy box, but that's for another forum..

As for the definition of sUAS, UAS / Drone / Model airplane/ Quads/ MR's / ect. If it flown fo Fun and/or education it should be referred to and definitely is a "TOY" and be considered as a "TOY" and nothing more. Referring to them as TOYS might get the Idea that they aren't a danger to the public if flown according to the AMA Safety code and the operator/Pilot adheres to all pertinent FAR's / Rules. Again this is just my opinion and it won't change anyone mind that has it made up that if it's not Traditional no one should be allowed to participate in the new improved version of R/C.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

[QUOTE=EloyM;

General comment. It is not so much the hardware that is causing the problem, it is the users. How many traditional R/C'ers have we ever see do any of the really stupid things the MR's have done with their toys.
[/QUOTE]
Eloy U are partially correct but I have seen
Countless times Traditional AMA MACK pilots do stupid stuff. I know of one person that used to fly in a subdivision with no houses t roads ...well when the first house was rected U guessed it, he Embedded his motor right in the other side of the New House. Then he asked for his motor back. just this week one of our members got so far out he couldn't control his bug stick with a i80 on it and cashed on a road .46 miles away another 165 feet he would have hit the house across the street from where he crashed I see Traditional flyers in parks flying all over the place over people cars parking lots all the time. One hobby shop here is famous for checking out these little planes in the full parking lot in front of the store. One manager even took out the little bay window not ounce but 3 times before he left for better opportunities. Yes there are a lot of DUMB Traditional R/C flyers out there and yes most of the/our problems with the FAA is because of STUPID Uneducated people flying Quads (Drones to the FAA and the Public). Just saying all the DUMMIES aren't flying MR's.

cj_rumley

Hound,
We have discussed why, where, how, and what are differing attributes of model airplanes and drones, and you and Eloy have stepped in to add 'who' as to what should be considered. Certainly it does factor into the ongoing discussion, so thanks for bringing it in. Referring back to my OP in this thread, 'who' is the central issue in my (opinionated) summary of status quo of where AMA and FAA stand, devisively, on the question. The AMA response to FAA on the latest proposal from regulatory agencies, as it has been for general regulatory issues, is based on 'who' to the exclusion of any other considerations. How much do you think 'who' is operating model aircraft and likewise for drones really matters? I have a bias on the question and might as well be open about it: I have doubts about whether AMA is serious about advocating for aeromodelers, as in their actions I see their priorities focused on marketeering instead.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

They can both advocate and market simultaneously.

ira d

being a member of the AMA should not have anything to do with if your model is or is not a drone, From a common sense perspective it should be where you operate your model and the purpose you operate model
and I'm sure there will be some that are AMA members that will still operate models for non hobby reasons so we need to look at where and what a model is doing. Also I don't think having a camera on board or
GPS should come into play either.

thepamster

I thought I would chime in here as I was sort of mentioned earlier in this thread as I was the one who claimed a glider tug to be considered a drone in my attempts to easily redefine the word drone as any unmanned aircraft the can perform a job, duty, or task "mission" other than flying.
Obviously I don't really consider a glider tow plane a drone but it would fall into that class due to my definition of the word drone and would be subject to stricter guidelines and/or regulations.
It was just and idea, perhaps a bad one, though basically the same definition I tried to throw out there very early on in the "another drone pilot does it again thread".
I just believe that we do need a separation of the two distinctly different hobbies. I could probably be convinced that anything that can fly BLOS be considered a drone and everything else not a drone.
I may even by that a multi rotor can be considered a model aircraft even though I personally feel they are just drones turned into something else. This is just my opinion. I have nothing against any of these types of aircraft but rather I only have a problem with dumb *****es. Lol.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

If the AMA's didn't havepriorities focused on marketeering instead. Just think how much they would have to raise the ANNUAL DUES to cover all the stuff they don't do now for AEROMODELERS.

cj_rumley

Pleased to have you join the discussion, even though you were wrong. Seriously, your views are welcome. Just overnight a few of us with different notions of what MA and drones are have, I think, swayed each other to either agree and expand our individual perceptions, or where we have disagreed have at least come to communicate better via understanding where the other guy is coming from. We are each better prepared to tell AMA and FAA what we expect of them, as the opportunity may arise.

cj_rumley

Maybe I should clarify............it's not AMA's business to sell AMA to the regulators, but to advocate on behalf of modelers. Even though they have chosen to advocate for members only, the rest of the modelling community is affected by how they influence federal agencies, or fail to influence because the stock response 'AMA can do it without you' has become stale and so erodes credibility.
As for separating drones and model aircraft, perhaps an organizational separation between advocacy and marketing at AMA HQ is in order. These are currently interests in conflict with each other, IMHO.

init4fun

Hound , buddy , did you actually READ my post that you quoted ?

Although I was joking , obviously , in my third sentence , my first sentence ;

"Nope , no flying cameras whatsoever THAT AREN'T PART OF AMA DOC . # 550 CONDONED FPV"

clearly reads that i do NOT condemn AMA doc #550 approved FPV !

Now , I DO condemn "unrestricted" FPV , of the sort where ANY facet of the #550 guideline is not adhered to , once beyond #550 a flyer has crossed from FPV into drone territory , and has become part of "the problem"

Tell me , Hound , DO you fly your FPV equipped model aircraft beyond your spotter's line of sight ? Answer honestly please .....

If you do NOT fly beyond your spotter's line of sight , great ! I'd love to try that sort of FPV sometime and have no real issue with that .....

If you DO fly beyond your spotter's LOS , or have no spotter , or fly over folk's heads , or any other mode of flight beyond # 550 , then your NOT FLYING FPV as condoned by AMA , your flying a DRONE , simple as that .......

Sport_Pilot

Pointless debate. The FAA does not use the term drone and never will.

cj_rumley

I presume then you won't be posting to this thread anymore.

bye

Todd D

My Feedback: (51)

Consider taking some time to review this web page and the associated links within.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/

init4fun

Hi CJ ,

While our friend Sport just loves to belabor the point that the FAA has thus far not officially used the word drone , there is no reason to believe that their upcoming ruling may not include the use of that word . At some point a distinction WILL need to be made further subdividing the different U.A.S. types just as there are subdivisions of the manned aircraft classification into smaller groups such as "General Aviation" (small Cessna type craft) and "Commercial Aviation" (jetliners & such) .

Tell ya what , when the FAA finally DOES use the word , I think I'll throw a drone party in Sport's honor ..... Naa , I hate the flippin things , but it sounded good for a moment there , eh ?

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Once it is made abundantly clear how uhh..."ignorant" it is to cling to an outdated and incomplete definition of the term DRONE as it applies to us, I'll bet that the Feds will "embrace" the definition that draws a well defined line between Traditional RC and Drones.
After all, no one in our "progressively enlightened" government of 2015 wants to think of themselves as being ignorant and uninformed, right...?

cj_rumley

Follow the link provided by Todd D above. When does the party start? Will there be dips?

thepamster

I plan on eating before I arrive but I will definitely bring Whiskey.

rgburrill

Have you ever watched Red Bull pilot cameras? They are constantly moving their heads to see what's around them. I don't know if the other racers do the same thing but I assume they do. Only an idiot would think FPV racing is safe.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Have you done anything FPV? Have you even watched an FPV race? Not sure how you are arriving at the conclusion that folks are idiots for thinking a style of racing that is very popular now is unsafe. Have you ever attended a fixed wing pylon race? Are those any more safe than FPV racing? Those pylon racers sure do go fast, and crash a lot. They even have steal cages for judging.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Aren't the very ones U want the AMA advocate for the ones causing all the problems we are having with the FAA? Just asking. Looks like a Damned if they do or Dammed if they don't situation here.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Sarcasm RIGHT?

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Originally Posted by rgburrill
Have you ever watched Red Bull pilot cameras? They are constantly moving their heads to see what's around them. I don't know if the other racers do the same thing but I assume they do. Only an idiot would think FPV racing is safe.

Well then there a whole lot of idiots that do FPV racing and quickie 500 or just plane pylon racing. I contend that it is more dangerous at your local fields where some of the so called PILOTS are always going over the pits and crashing in the pits Parking Lot ect.


Red Bull Full Scale Racing is done on a closed course one plane at a time against the clock. The only thing the Pilots are looking for is the next GATE and the ground/Water. Now the real racing is Reno Style Racing where they are all bunched up for the start. There situianl awareness and your head on a swivle is the only way to survive.