CESSNA 421

My Feedback: (17)

We could give the AMA a second chance to ban multi rotor aircraft and not provide insurance for anyone operating them. The AMA could ban them from any AMA scantioned club or event. The AMA could also remove all multi rotor advertising from the Model Aviation magazine. This would demostrate to the FAA that the AMA is pro active in the suppression of this type of reckless flying activity.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

I've heard of at least one club that decided to do this because the FPV rules were being broken [often enough] and they didn't want to deal with the liability.
The AMA has always been pretty liberal / democratic about letting clubs determine "how much fun" they wish to have while being in accordance with the Official Safety Rules as the upper limit.
I like that.

ira d

Multi rotors are not the problem it's some of the people that fly them that are the problem but it would not be right to ban something from someone that is not doing anything to cause a problem.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Right, instead of banning multi-rotors, that club [I think it was in PA] could have hired 24 / 7 / 365 security guards to ensure that the FPV Code never got broken again.

TimJ

Sure sure! Then we can have the AMA ban all that are 55 years of age and younger. Then we can ban all white males from the AMA too.

Why do you go play in traffic while the adults solve the issue sir........

ira d

A club should know that they can't always 100% control people nor should they have to. When they catch someone breaking the rules they deal with that individual but banning a certain type of aircraft
won't completely stop those that want to break rules anyway.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

This club DOES KNOW they can't control this matter well enough to keep their lease, so they took care of the problem.
If this was YOUR land to lose, then you could have offered them YOUR alternative remedies.

init4fun

Hi Cessna 421 ,

The configuration of the airframe is not "the problem" .......

"The problem" , are airframes that are equipped for beyond line of sight flight abilities . Anything flown traditional line of sight is a model aircraft regardless of it's numbers of rotors or wings . Anything that can possibly be flown beyond line of site is beyond what the AMA should have embraced . It is my belief that had the AMA not enacted #550 FPV the FAA would have gone along with our "inhofe exemption" (sec. 336) because all they were looking to regulate were craft with BLOS abilities . Traditional RC flights are not causing "the problem" . Letting BLOS able craft into the AMA so thoroughly blurred the line between us and "the problem" that the FAA just said "to Hell with ya all" and regulated us all together , the classic "one size fit's all" approach that never really fits anybody .

So can we go for "BLOS able aircraft" ban and I'll sign up right now . ............

init4fun

Come on Tim , You know the rules , No cannibalizing the fellow posters on Christmas eve .

Actually , we save that for New Years !!!!!

ira d

I don't know the particulars of the club you speak of but I would not ban a certain type of craft but I would enforce the no BLOS rule as best as possible. Banning a certain type of craft will not stop those that won't follow
the rules anyway and if the landowner does not understand that then so be it he probably does not really want the club there anyhow.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Please see December Model Aviation Magazine, specifically page 41. Please explain why someone as skilled and creative as Otto Dieffenback, who has been in the hobby since the 60's, should be banned from the AMA because his aircraft are powered and controled by more than one rotor.

After that, please explain why helis, which are also multi rotor aircraft, should be banned as well.

They will never ban multi rotors, and they will never ban helis, so I would suggest you get past that, or consider not being part of the AMA.

poison

I seen some crazy stuff with airplanes just last week some guy hit a car. Should we ban airplanes? No it was the person not the plane, I hate to see things get banned because some people fly quads in a safe manner they should be able to do that. If I drove my car through a store would the ban cars? No they would ban me from driving, so punish the vilotator not RC pilots as a whole.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

I wish I could remember which forum member it was, he was a very sensible sounding man who did not sound like he had a vendetta against drones. One detail about their situation I recall is their field is just a stone's throw from restricted air space.
I doubt that these guys who have to live with the consequences of their actions and coexist happily with their landlord care what any outsiders think and I say rightly so to that.

ira d

As I said I don't know the particulars or the specific nature of what is going on at the club you are talking about and I agree they likely don't care what outsiders think but you did ask what would I do and I answered.

ira d

Exactly, People need to get away from thinking that the best way to solve a problem is to make a sweeping ban of something instead of dealing directly with the problem or the person causing the problem because in the long
run sweeping bans don't work in most cases and sometimes make things worse.

Papa51

My Feedback: (3)

+1000.......I've always believed that the problem is, as is so eloquently (man these modeler guys are quite an intelligent bunch) renumerated in this thread, BLOS is and always will be the thorn that sticks in the craw of the FAA. If there were a bunch of fixed wing flyers flying BLOS/FPV in the same airspace as full scale, the FAA (and just about every other responsible person) would have just as big a problem with them as they now do with the BLOS/FPV multirotor guys. Now I can get down off my soapbox and go open all of my (hopefully) RC Christmas presents.

Merry Christmas to all and to all, good flying

pkoury

My Feedback: (7)

AMA #550 does not allow BLOS operation. https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf

bruceal

That might have been me. Our club is directly across from the largest marina on the east coast, a county park and an active heliport all on the shore of the Hudson River. We do allow multi rotors, but no FPV. I got some grief from some people on these forums in the past because of this rule. However myself and the board have no regrets. This past summer we were paid a visit by the FBI concerning a "drone" that crashed at a nuclear power plant that we can actually see from our flightline. I'd say the domes are about 3 miles up the river. Our county also passed drone legislation this year. All the law basically says is that you can fly on your property, someone else's property with permission or a public park with permission. You cannot fly within 100' of a school, jail or public building. I think this legislation is reasonable and it allows the clubs to operate just as they have in the past. They key is that permission is required.

init4fun

Since you seem to enjoy following me around from thread to thread , posting the same thing while quoting my posts , what say we take care of this right here ; .

The AMA most certainly does allow BLOS ABLE aircraft , which is exactly what I said !

all it takes is distance to turn an AMA #550 FPV flight into a BLOS drone flight , and the FAA don't want that kind of equipment posing as model aircraft .

Now , which part , exactly , DO you have a problem understanding , that an FPV equipped aircraft can become a BLOS aircraft simply by flying it out of visual range ? Or that the FAA don't want flying cameras with BLOS abilities posing as model aircraft ? (which , by the way , are to be flown line of sight only , and to the FAA , you know , the people who actually matter in this , your BLOS the minute you put on your "Fat Shark" goggles no matter how far the flying camera is away from ya)

ps2727

Turbine models are banned at my AMA field. You certainly CAN ban a certain type of model based on configuration.


For the record I don't have a problem with multirotors at my field, if the operators comply with the rules. Just like everyone else.

init4fun

Of course . If turbine models caused , for instance , noise problems well then perhaps a club would ban them to keep from loosing their field due to noise complaints . But in this case , it isn't only multirotors that can be equipped for BLOS flight , and since it's the BLOS ability that's at issue and not any other feature of the aircraft itself , it should be the ability to equip any model aircraft with the equipment to allow BLOS flight that gets banned and not any one particular type of aircraft (since , face it , anything from a fixed wing to multirotor to even a flippin BLIMP can be equipped for BLOS).

So simple , even a caveman can do it .......

DeferredDefect

The BLOS side makes the most sense to me, but even that is a pretty large part of the FPV hobby that would be effectively banned. Just like any hobby, it's the few bad eggs that hurt the majority.

The vast majority of FPVers and multicopter pilots are as safety conscious and informed as we are of our niche of the hobby.

The issue is that those discussions tend be be kept separate because of certain attitudes towards it on sites like RCU, which is a shame. If you think that there's some huge divide in attitudes, check out the DIYDrones, FliteTest and Reddit FPV and Multicopter forums. These guys have their own hobby that they are fighting to keep, and have a lot more to lose than us. Every time a clueless Phantom pilot (which has become something of a running joke) causes a problem, it's met the same way by that community as by us.

Get out of the RCU echo chamber. Nobody is critically thinking or even having a productive discussion at this point when the same buzzwords and talking points are reiterated on what's got to be a hundred homepage threads.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Thanks for chiming in Bruceal, hope you had a nice Xmas..!
Amazing how many folks there are who think they could have handled your situation better than you fellows did...?

init4fun

Hey Double D ,

Believe me , I don't want anything to have to be banned ! I really do wish all the flying camera folks had behaved themselves from day one and there wouldn't be an issue today . But , "If wishes were Horses , Beggars would ride" . The flying camera guys DID misbehave . In great enough numbers to get notice from the FAA . Now , I don't consider ANY one subset of the hobby as being worth risking all the rest of the hobby being regulated (possibly , eventually , to death) just to try to save that one subset ! Even Mr. Spock said it ; "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" . Multirotors and all other types of aircraft aren't the problem the FAA is after , it's the ability to fly BLOS that's got their regulatory pen scribbling on the paper . Because of the bad actions of some of the BLOS flyers , we all are at risk .

Is it really fair to jeopardize the entire hobby over a mode of flight that the FAA is determined to regulate out of civilian hands , whether we throw the rest of the hobby away over it or not ?

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Very well stated [once again].
My hope is that many onlookers who haven't given this issue much thought yet will read posts like yours and be able to identify with the wisdom.