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

If you want to fly act now

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

If you want to fly act now

Old 03-21-2016, 06:32 AM
  #26  
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 rcmiket
They are a "player" in all of this and it would be wise to watch them close as they actually have the funds to get it done.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/29/tech...nes-air-space/


"Airspace of up to 200 feet would be reserved for "low speed localized traffic" like survey, inspection and video drones, including those without sense-and-avoid technology. Amazon said the airspace between 200 and 400 feet would be designated "high-speed transit" for "well-equipped vehicles." That's likely where its delivery drones would operate. The space between 400 and 500 feet would be a "no fly zone," except for emergencies. "

Mike
I wonder how Mr. Burrill would like it when the FAA denies certification of his model because the tail fin is out of alignment, or whatever?
Old 03-21-2016, 06:37 AM
  #27  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
That was up before the senate bill was announced. Or at least before I saw it here.
I believe you are correct about that. Although they do make really nice posters diagramming just how they will get nothing accomplished.

Mike
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	special-rule-workflow.jpg
Views:	88
Size:	1.76 MB
ID:	2153465  
Old 03-21-2016, 06:54 AM
  #28  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
That was up before the senate bill was announced. Or at least before I saw it here.
It was posted after BOTH the House and Senate versions were first mentioned. The discussion section includes talk about the Senate version.
Old 03-21-2016, 07:01 AM
  #29  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
It was posted after BOTH the House and Senate versions were first mentioned. The discussion section includes talk about the Senate version.
Senate bill 3-16-2016 the blog was dated the 9th. While I may be wrong here but although the senate version is mentioned they had no way of knowing what was in it.

Mike

Last edited by rcmiket; 03-21-2016 at 07:05 AM.
Old 03-21-2016, 07:10 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 rcmiket
Senate bill 3-16-2016 the blog was dated the 9th. While I may be wrong here but although the senate version is mentioned they had no way of knowing what was in it.

Mike
The information was out there before the bill was final. When I first saw this there were no comments. May have been before the 9th. I think maybe they need to fire Chad. Hire Burt or someone with some clout.
Old 03-21-2016, 07:54 AM
  #31  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcmiket
Senate bill 3-16-2016 the blog was dated the 9th. While I may be wrong here but although the senate version is mentioned they had no way of knowing what was in it.

Mike
3/16 was the final version. The original version was posted on 3/9 and the AMA was aware of it. Look at the date of the thread I started on this very subject:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...-aviation.html

Here is what Chad Budreau posted on the 10th in response to my post on the 9th:

Hi Bill, based on your text, you are most likely referring to staff working draft of the Senate bill. We are still very early in this process as the bill will go through multiple revisions and amendments.
Seems they were well aware of it then.
Old 03-21-2016, 07:57 AM
  #32  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern
I would have to disagree on the ultralight being more of a safety concern than a drone (model airplane). Drones do NOT have an occupant, so the pilot of an ultralight is less likely to take the risks that a drone operator would. And yes, this includes fixed-wings as well as multi-rotors. I honestly feel that the requirements in the Senate version are minimal, and all that will be needed would be a basic knowledge test and simple registration. Also: 400 feet is a long way up for a smaller aircraft, .40 sized or less. It may present a bit of a challenge for 50cc and larger gas-powered planes, but those are beyond the budget of most people.
There are a lot larger models in the air and they are not in any way beyond the budget of most people. There is no reason to have a hard 400' limit and it is to low and will do nothing to enhance safety. As for the basic
knowledge test it could be a good idea to help educate modelers.
Old 03-21-2016, 09:45 AM
  #33  
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
I wonder how Mr. Burrill would like it when the FAA denies certification of his model because the tail fin is out of alignment, or whatever?
I thought you told us you were going to stop flying until the AMA (or someone else) gets the requirement for registering thrown out. You sure have a lot of argumentative views for someone who doesn't intend to abide by the law.
Old 03-21-2016, 10:11 AM
  #34  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rgburrill
I thought you told us you were going to stop flying until the AMA (or someone else) gets the requirement for registering thrown out. You sure have a lot of argumentative views for someone who doesn't intend to abide by the law.
Hi RG ,

With all due respect ,

Sport never said he was not going to abide by the law , he said he was not going to participate in the hobby . How could someone not participating break the law ?

"You sure have a lot of argumentative views for someone who doesn't intend to participate in the hobby"

Is the way I see your sentence as having far greater impact on the fact that , yes , yes sir indeed , Sport would argue the chicken VS the egg debate till evolution put the chicken out of production !
Old 03-21-2016, 10:41 AM
  #35  
bokuda
My Feedback: (7)
 
bokuda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: South Deerfield, MA
Posts: 905
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Also included in this version of the bill is a prohibition on "home brew sUAV's," which could effectively end what is a major part of the hobby for many of us: building. With that, and the possible design certification requirement, it seems there exists a possibility that all current r/c aircraft, including ARF's could become illegal since none of them are certified.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngogl.../#100a54cea6f2
Old 03-21-2016, 11:12 AM
  #36  
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
I thought you told us you were going to stop flying until the AMA (or someone else) gets the requirement for registering thrown out. You sure have a lot of argumentative views for someone who doesn't intend to abide by the law.
What law am I breaking. I am not breaking any stinking law! You obviously don't know the law! I have flown nothing so how can I break the law? When I do it will be 1/2 A and free flight. Maybe I will try an free flight altitude record.
Old 03-21-2016, 11:13 AM
  #37  
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 init4fun
Hi RG ,

With all due respect ,

Sport never said he was not going to abide by the law , he said he was not going to participate in the hobby . How could someone not participating break the law ?

"You sure have a lot of argumentative views for someone who doesn't intend to participate in the hobby"

Is the way I see your sentence as having far greater impact on the fact that , yes , yes sir indeed , Sport would argue the chicken VS the egg debate till evolution put the chicken out of production !
Trying for the FAA not chickens.
Old 03-21-2016, 06:08 PM
  #38  
ltc
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 rcmiket
They are a "player" in all of this and it would be wise to watch them close as they actually have the funds to get it done.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/29/tech...nes-air-space/


"Airspace of up to 200 feet would be reserved for "low speed localized traffic" like survey, inspection and video drones, including those without sense-and-avoid technology. Amazon said the airspace between 200 and 400 feet would be designated "high-speed transit" for "well-equipped vehicles." That's likely where its delivery drones would operate. The space between 400 and 500 feet would be a "no fly zone," except for emergencies. "

Mike
If I am flying my jet, obviously LOS, am I not as the pilot capable of "sense and avoid", especially if a fellow pilot is acting as spotter?
I find it hard to believe that Amazon would be able to effectively 'own' or 'define' the airspace....Google perhaps since they have more money than most countries.

The AMA is still living with the dream that getting all the FPV/Multirotor "pilots" to join AMA will "increase their numbers" ... translated "increase advertising revenue".
The fatal flaw was getting into bed with a bunch of "pilots" who have no association or appreciation for the AMA and what has come before them.

I still have a hard time envisioning waking up one morning and finding out that I can no longer fly anywhere in the USA.
I will likely have to take a test, send $100 to some government agency and continue flying at my local club/field.
Whether or not the AMA is still relevant in that scenario remains to be seen.
Old 03-21-2016, 07:25 PM
  #39  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ltc
If I am flying my jet, obviously LOS, am I not as the pilot capable of "sense and avoid", especially if a fellow pilot is acting as spotter?
I find it hard to believe that Amazon would be able to effectively 'own' or 'define' the airspace....Google perhaps since they have more money than most countries.

The AMA is still living with the dream that getting all the FPV/Multirotor "pilots" to join AMA will "increase their numbers" ... translated "increase advertising revenue".
The fatal flaw was getting into bed with a bunch of "pilots" who have no association or appreciation for the AMA and what has come before them.

I still have a hard time envisioning waking up one morning and finding out that I can no longer fly anywhere in the USA.
I will likely have to take a test, send $100 to some government agency and continue flying at my local club/field.
Whether or not the AMA is still relevant in that scenario remains to be seen.
Many folks have a hard time envisioning the same thing, in part because it's never going to happen. Notwithstanding the constant drone of the "end is near" crowd. Bolstered by a simple registration, they march forward thinking it's just the beginning of the end. And all because of a few multi-rotors.
80 years of relevance isn't going to disappear anytime soon. What affect they can have going up against the titans of industry certainly remains to be seen, but I'm confident they will continue to advocate for us. Who else will, haven't seen anyone else stepping up to the plate.
Old 03-22-2016, 03:23 AM
  #40  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
3/16 was the final version. The original version was posted on 3/9 and the AMA was aware of it. Look at the date of the thread I started on this very subject:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...-aviation.html

Here is what Chad Budreau posted on the 10th in response to my post on the 9th:



Seems they were well aware of it then.
OK they were "well aware" but apparently unable to sway anyone in our direction. Seems like we just keep going in the same direction..............backwards.

Mike
Old 03-22-2016, 03:32 AM
  #41  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ltc
If I am flying my jet, obviously LOS, am I not as the pilot capable of "sense and avoid", especially if a fellow pilot is acting as spotter?
I find it hard to believe that Amazon would be able to effectively 'own' or 'define' the airspace....Google perhaps since they have more money than most countries.

The AMA is still living with the dream that getting all the FPV/Multirotor "pilots" to join AMA will "increase their numbers" ... translated "increase advertising revenue".
The fatal flaw was getting into bed with a bunch of "pilots" who have no association or appreciation for the AMA and what has come before them.

I still have a hard time envisioning waking up one morning and finding out that I can no longer fly anywhere in the USA.
I will likely have to take a test, send $100 to some government agency and continue flying at my local club/field.
Whether or not the AMA is still relevant in that scenario remains to be seen.
It's not just Amazon drone delivery is coming regardless of we make think or want. This will require redefining airspace. While I don't think it will kill the hobby as a whole it will become more restrictive over time which will curtail participation.

I hate to use Europe as a example but drone delivery is already being used in the medical field.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dro...rks-2015-11-30

Here's US use.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...720-story.html

Mike

Last edited by rcmiket; 03-22-2016 at 03:34 AM.
Old 03-22-2016, 03:41 AM
  #42  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by rcmiket
It's not just Amazon drone delivery is coming regardless of we make think or want. This will require redefining airspace. While I don't think it will kill the hobby as a whole it will become more restrictive over time which will curtail participation.

I hate to use Europe as a example but drone delivery is already being used in the medical field.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dro...rks-2015-11-30

Here's US use.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...720-story.html

Mike
If I didn't know better I would swear that was a positive outlook right there! Nice!
Old 03-22-2016, 04:05 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

Actually I think allowing Amazon drones to fly at 200 feet will cause a huge uproar from the populace. The FAA doesn't want this either. But with huge pockets bribing politicians it may come about. I doubt it will last after lots of complaints and lots of drones shot down.
Old 03-22-2016, 04:13 AM
  #44  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Actually I think allowing Amazon drones to fly at 200 feet will cause a huge uproar from the populace. The FAA doesn't want this either. But with huge pockets bribing politicians it may come about. I doubt it will last after lots of complaints and lots of drones shot down.
Why would there be a "uproar" ? People would get their junk in a few hours rather than a few days. Do you really think the FAA cannot be bought ? As with any government entity all it takes is enough money.

Mike
Old 03-22-2016, 04:49 AM
  #45  
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 rcmiket
Why would there be a "uproar" ? People would get their junk in a few hours rather than a few days. Do you really think the FAA cannot be bought ? As with any government entity all it takes is enough money.

Mike

I don't think they will be flying drones across the country, there is none with enough battery capacity for that. Instead they will be from a local depot to home, saving maybe a half day. And the neighbors would not be happy.
Old 03-22-2016, 04:56 AM
  #46  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
I don't think they will be flying drones across the country, there is none with enough battery capacity for that. Instead they will be from a local depot to home, saving maybe a half day. And the neighbors would not be happy.
OK here goes. I never thought I'd have to register myself to fly a toy airplane with the FAA and now it's looking like 400 feet will be the ceiling I can operate them under. Now there's also something about home built models being a issue with the FAA.
At this point anything can happen and it's foolish to think otherwise.

Mike
Old 03-22-2016, 05:18 AM
  #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 rcmiket
OK here goes. I never thought I'd have to register myself to fly a toy airplane with the FAA and now it's looking like 400 feet will be the ceiling I can operate them under. Now there's also something about home built models being a issue with the FAA.
At this point anything can happen and it's foolish to think otherwise.

Mike
Oh they may get the FAA to set this up. I just don't think they will be viable for a long long time.
Old 03-22-2016, 05:30 AM
  #48  
Badger Flyer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I am a bit surprised that this issue is being cast mostly in terms of absolute altitudes that apply everywhere. The existing national airspace system is certainly not set up that way; the altitudes vary dramatically depending on location (as all full-scale pilots must learn as part of their licensing). Amazon may want to have its own slice of airspace over densely populated urban areas with nearby distribution centers, but they have no conceivable use for the airspace anywhere else. Likewise, it makes some sense to cap the altitude for model aviation at 400-500 feet within a few miles of airports, due the higher density of climbing or descending full-scale traffic. There's no reason to implement such a restriction in most other areas though (with the exception of military training airspace, etc.). If you can see your model you can certainly see and avoid the occasional full-scale airplane that might pass by.

Here's hoping that AMA is carefully explaining this to those on the Hill, who apparently are having a knee-jerk reaction to public perception of a hazard?
Old 03-22-2016, 05:46 AM
  #49  
rgburrill
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,857
Received 76 Likes on 67 Posts
Default

One thing that could, I repeat COULD, come out of this is that us hobbyists will be forced to return to designated fields and clubs. No more park flying. No more open field or school yard flying. The AMA would like this because it would force those park/open field flyers to join the AMA so they could join clubs. These clubs fields could then be designated restricted zones for Amazon and the like.
Old 03-22-2016, 06:21 AM
  #50  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Oh they may get the FAA to set this up. I just don't think they will be viable for a long long time.
Kinda like solar power and electric cars? The same was said when electric powered aircraft hit the scene years ago and look how that turned out.

Mike

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.