Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

The single reason why drones are causing such problems for the AMA

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

The single reason why drones are causing such problems for the AMA

Old 01-03-2016, 08:16 PM
  #26  
jeffrey solomon
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

It is a problem but was made our problem by inconsistencies in AMA polies.
Appeal to the FAA?
I don't think we appeal to them at all.
The FAA is the like the complainant and we are the defendant.
You got nothing to lose go ahead appeal to the FAA I did.
I think we would be better off appealing to our senators and congressmen
Sooner rather than later

Here is a pretty good letter if you want it

Dear Senator / Congressman


I am a model aviation enthusiast and member of the Academy of Model Aeronautics ("AMA"), recognized as a national community-based organization.

I am very distraught with the recent announcement by the Federal Aviation Administration that as of December 21, 2015, AMA flyers will have to register with the FAA.

This new requirement appears to be a contradiction of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 which was passed by Congress and the Senate. By promulgating new restrictions and requirements for AMA members, the FAA appears to be overriding the existing Congressional directives.
The new registration and identification requirement is a complete redundancy of our registration with the AMA. Combine this with the recent closure of 14 AMA chartered fields and it appears that the FAA is imposing needless hardships on our membership.
We have established an 80 year record of impeccable safety, and in fact have set the standard for safe operation of our model aircraft in our national air space. AMA requirements demand that all pilots follow the AMA safety code, and we utilize training programs to ensure our members fly safely and responsibly.
I would welcome you or any member of your staff to visit our local flying site to witness first hand how we are good stewards of our land and airspace.
I’d be happy to discuss these issues with you or your staff if you have any further questions or concerns.
On behalf of all AMA members I hope that you will look into the legality and the fairness of their actions.
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter,
Old 01-03-2016, 08:27 PM
  #27  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Here's what everyone seems to be missing: The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 refers to "CBO's", NOT the AMA. As yet, the AMA is NOT recognized as a CBO by the FAA. Until it is, we are NOT protected from the FAA by that law. The focus of the AMA right now should be getting itself approved as a CBO. Without that, anything else is pointless.
Old 01-03-2016, 09:11 PM
  #28  
jeffrey solomon
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

After reading about what the NCBON and CBOs are I am more confused than before,
but that is ok.

Look at this link:;https://www.sph.umich.edu/ncbon/pdf/...Procedures.pdf

I wonder why the FAA uses the term CBO at all ?

The NCBON concerns itself with chiefly education and health for all.
I guess safety could be considered a health issue but I haven't found anything in the NCBON writings that are
applicable to RC flying.
Old 01-04-2016, 10:32 AM
  #29  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ltc
The single fault in the AMA's decision to 'embrace drone$' (OK, besides the $) is simple.

Multirotors/drones/tri/quad/hex/octocopters/etc all have one thing in common which allows anyone to immediately do something incredibly stupid with a high degree of confidence and success.

They simply do not require any instruction or skill to 'fly'. Period. None, nada, zero.

Sorry to all the MR "pilots" but it's an unavoidable fact.

Look at traditional RC planes and helicopters (and if you want to include the other AMA classes covered by the FAI)
The path to being able to successfully 'take off and land' was traditionally fairly long (weeks/months/a season or two). It has been this way for decades, long before I started flying in the 70's

You buy your plane at a local hobby shop, show up at a field recommended by the hobby shop or AMA website, and ask to be trained by an instructor.
You inevitably crash since YOU are responsible for controlling the plane/heli in all axes and orientations. That's OK, it's all part of the learning process.
You hardly ever see someone show up with a Kadet/Falcon/etc training and single handedly learn to fly by themselves. It just doesn't work.

Contrast this with Multirotors/drones/tri/quad/hex/octocopters/etc Complete opposite.
Self stabilizing, panic recovery modes, headless operation, fully autonomous operation, return to home.
In essence near zero skill required.

This lower 'barrier to entry' allows for completely untrained, uninformed "pilots" (and i use the term loosely) to fly anywhere, as high as they like from basically the first couple of times out.
If they were to crash a few dozen times before ever getting to altitude (way below 400'), the problem would self correct.

This is the fundamental difference between a "drone" and a "traditional AMA aircraft"....again, a loose definition of a traditional AMA aircraft would be one covered under the FAI regulations. They simply do NOT belong in the same organization, operating under the same set of rules/guidelines/regulations. They would be far better served (as would traditional AMA members) if the MR crowd formed their own CBO

Again, this is never going to happen, since no matter what the AMA states publicly to its members, since it is entirely about $.
From this point forward, it's all damage control. If the entire AMA organization resigned tomorrow and new individuals were to take charge, it would make little to no difference.
This may be true for the more expensive units that simply fly from waypoint to waypoint, but skill is needed to fly a simple MR craft.
Old 01-04-2016, 10:36 AM
  #30  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by jeffrey solomon
After reading about what the NCBON and CBOs are I am more confused than before,
but that is ok.

Look at this link:;https://www.sph.umich.edu/ncbon/pdf/...Procedures.pdf

I wonder why the FAA uses the term CBO at all ?

The NCBON concerns itself with chiefly education and health for all.
I guess safety could be considered a health issue but I haven't found anything in the NCBON writings that are
applicable to RC flying.
This is for residential communities, not a CBO as defined in the Federal Code.
Old 01-04-2016, 11:26 AM
  #31  
crash99
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Eldon, MO,
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

There is a issue with MR pilots that some clubs are to blame since we are doing the blame game.

There are many, many RC clubs that do not permit MRs at their field. So they miss the chance to educate the new flyer.

When this happens they will fly other places with no guidance from AMA season flyers.

So how I see it you should thank those clubs members for the FAA actions that pushed these flyers out. Those club members have no room to complain about the FAA.
Old 01-04-2016, 11:33 AM
  #32  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by combatpigg
This is about 133.3 drones per county, based on 3000 counties.

I should expect to be able to drive through a few counties on any nice day and see some drone activity.
Really? I doubt more that even 1% are flying at any one time.
Old 01-04-2016, 01:33 PM
  #33  
rgburrill
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,857
Received 76 Likes on 67 Posts
Default

Itc, I could give you a number of electronic systems for helicopters and planes that would prove you are wrong but I won't. You basic assumption is just flat wrong. The simple, one solid reason the AMA is in trouble has nothing to do with multirotor, it is FPV. And that problem started long before multirotors existed.
Old 01-04-2016, 01:34 PM
  #34  
rgburrill
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,857
Received 76 Likes on 67 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Really? I doubt more that even 1% are flying at any one time.
And once again you pull it directly out of your adz.
Old 01-04-2016, 01:43 PM
  #35  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by rgburrill
And once again you pull it directly out of your adz.
Come on. you only fly these things 5 to 10 minutes. If you go to an RC field you will find maybe a dozen people at the field but only one or two flying at a time. So even with intent to fly in a few minutes only about 10% are flying. And when you go home even if you fly every weekend you wait another 160 hours to fly again. I would say that is actually a lot less than 1%.

I think you need to step away from the keyboard for a while. I am doing nothing you should be angry about. Sure we may disagree, but not over anything you should get angry over.
Old 01-04-2016, 04:45 PM
  #36  
combatpigg
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 20,388
Received 26 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Really? I doubt more that even 1% are flying at any one time.
If so, then that means the average Drone sees daylight 3 times in a year.
Not exactly a huge, untapped market for the AMA to capitalize on.
Like I've alluded to earlier, I'll be surprised if I just see ONE DRONE during my travels this year [that isn't being flown by an existing AMA member at a club field]
Old 01-04-2016, 05:29 PM
  #37  
jeffrey solomon
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I believe a lot of the drone sightings are AMA members.
So how can the AMA make money on memberships if they
are free? next year?
Unless, the memberships are subsidized by manufacturers and retailers.
Like a big lumps sum donated to the AMA by the manufacturers as an off-set against new drone members.

So maybe the AMA got us in this mess for no money.?
Great, I thought these guys had some shrewdness.
Old 01-04-2016, 06:06 PM
  #38  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,498
Received 80 Likes on 70 Posts
Default

if an existing AMA member buy one of these AMA membership supplied drones, doe he/she still get the "free" membership?
Old 01-04-2016, 08:22 PM
  #39  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mongo
if an existing AMA member buy one of these AMA membership supplied drones, doe he/she still get the "free" membership?
I wondered about that too. Have not gone looking for the answer, but AMA isn't Santa Claus.....existing members are in the bank, by far most likely that only new members in the fat target market of drones get the perks.
Old 01-05-2016, 08:07 AM
  #40  
kmeyers
 
kmeyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: lake in the Hills, IL
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 14 Posts
Default

Yea, like my phone bill, "these low rates are for new customers only".
Old 01-05-2016, 10:35 AM
  #41  
jeffrey solomon
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

If you ever had an AMA membership they would have a record of it,
and I would believe you would not qualify
for a free membership for a drone purchase
Old 01-05-2016, 11:03 AM
  #42  
ltc
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mendon, MA
Posts: 1,447
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes on 18 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rgburrill
Itc, I could give you a number of electronic systems for helicopters and planes that would prove you are wrong but I won't. You basic assumption is just flat wrong. The simple, one solid reason the AMA is in trouble has nothing to do with multirotor, it is FPV. And that problem started long before multirotors existed.
Please prove me wrong

or put another way...
go grab a new "pilot"
hand him a MR (headless, self stabilizing, no GPS or FPV)
ask him to take off, fly one circuit and then land
now hand him a fixed wing airplane (EDF, prop, turbine) and ask to do the same (take off, fly one circuit and land)

99% of the time I know which craft ends up in pieces
(hint: it's the one with wings)

i spent the first part of my career designing inertial sensors and systems so I know a bit about electronic systems, but welcome the discussion

Last edited by ltc; 01-05-2016 at 11:09 AM.
Old 01-05-2016, 11:04 AM
  #43  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

I think the free memberships are from Best Buy and Amazon. AMA said they would forward that to next years membership fee.
Old 01-05-2016, 11:17 AM
  #44  
jeffrey solomon
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

An unknown number of AMA pilots who fly MR do not do it at their fields either by choice or prohibition,
they fly rogue, where ever they can without being seen.
I do not have a number of how many do this, but any number is too much, and in violation of the AMA safety code.

How would these AMA members caught flying at a non-approved AMA cite explain themselves if the AMA decided to pull their membership?
They knew the rules, they were educated about the rules, and at times practiced the rules but decided in this instance not
to follow the rules
That would be a hard position to defend wouldn't it?
Old 01-05-2016, 11:59 AM
  #45  
NorfolkSouthern
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,588
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Multi rotors with cameras are here to stay, whether anybody likes it or not. Fixed-wing "line of sight" model planes got mixed in, because the AMA opened their mouths, and riled the FAA over Section 336. If the AMA wins their lawsuit, as well as that attorney who flies drones, then people will do what ever they please with their toys. It will be that way, until an act of congress puts a stop to it, probably by striking Section 336 out entirely on request from the Department of Transportation.

It's best to just keep a low profile. But, you all can do what you want to do. Raise your voices and hold picket signs if you like, and see how the FAA reacts.
Old 01-05-2016, 12:00 PM
  #46  
crash99
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Eldon, MO,
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

So your saying an AMA member flys at a non AMA field is not flying in accordance with the AMA Safety Code?
Old 01-05-2016, 12:22 PM
  #47  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern
Multi rotors with cameras are here to stay, whether anybody likes it or not. Fixed-wing "line of sight" model planes got mixed in, because the AMA opened their mouths, and riled the FAA over Section 336. If the AMA wins their lawsuit, as well as that attorney who flies drones, then people will do what ever they please with their toys. It will be that way, until an act of congress puts a stop to it, probably by striking Section 336 out entirely on request from the Department of Transportation.

It's best to just keep a low profile. But, you all can do what you want to do. Raise your voices and hold picket signs if you like, and see how the FAA reacts.
Uhh, the registration is for line of sight sUAV of all types. BLOS is not legal per the FAA. In fact everything under 336 and not much more.
Old 01-06-2016, 01:56 AM
  #48  
Rob2160
Senior Member
 
Rob2160's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by crash99
You are not 100% correct. You would be correct if you said Multirotors with GPS but that would be incorrect for racing quads.

You do need some skill flying them. Watch the FPV250 racer videos on YouTube. I'm starting to fly them and it's a challenge.

Crash99
Originally Posted by jeffrey solomon
Racing drones whether they are raced LOS or FPV requires huge skills
It's like a racing helicopter with 4 or 5 other helicopters
on a tight torturous course.
I fly 3D heli and I doubt I would finish a race.
Nice to see that some people actually "get it"

Claiming that ALL MR are easy to fly is as naive as doing two circuits with an E-flite Apprentice in beginner mode and believing all RC fixed wing are that easy to fly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucTdBa6AzfY Some of the out of the box GPS equipped machines are very easy to fly - I don"t disagree with this.

But I'll throw out a friendly challenge to the OP - post a video of yourself flying an acro 3D capable multi rotor like this and I'll happily concede your point... that should be easy enough right? Because ALL multi rotors require no skill at all to fly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TktTO-ePsoc

Last edited by Rob2160; 01-06-2016 at 04:04 AM.
Old 01-06-2016, 01:53 PM
  #49  
warningshot
 
warningshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: OU-OSU OK
Posts: 548
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jeffrey solomon
An unknown number of AMA pilots who fly MR do not do it at their fields either by choice or prohibition,
they fly rogue, where ever they can without being seen.
I do not have a number of how many do this, but any number is too much, and in violation of the AMA safety code.

How would these AMA members caught flying at a non-approved AMA cite explain themselves if the AMA decided to pull their membership?
They knew the rules, they were educated about the rules, and at times practiced the rules but decided in this instance not
to follow the rules
That would be a hard position to defend wouldn't it?
Your post is so wrong. Maybe you need to read the AMA rules befor you post.
Old 01-07-2016, 01:07 AM
  #50  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by jeffrey solomon
An unknown number of AMA pilots who fly MR do not do it at their fields either by choice or prohibition,
they fly rogue, where ever they can without being seen.
I do not have a number of how many do this, but any number is too much, and in violation of the AMA safety code.

How would these AMA members caught flying at a non-approved AMA cite explain themselves if the AMA decided to pull their membership?
They knew the rules, they were educated about the rules, and at times practiced the rules but decided in this instance not
to follow the rules
That would be a hard position to defend wouldn't it?
??? There are no rules that say you must use an AMA approved cite (I think you meant site). In fact there are no AMA approved cites or sites. There is a charter for the club, but that does not approve the field. Nor is there a rule against flying from wherever you want.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.