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

Circle the wagons ! It's Senator writing time !!!!

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

Circle the wagons ! It's Senator writing time !!!!

Old 04-21-2016, 11:40 AM
  #151  
RichardGee
My Feedback: (156)
 
RichardGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Dixon, CA
Posts: 1,163
Received 20 Likes on 17 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
Sport my Friend , What I'd like is for the AMA to flourish due to being relevant to ALL aeromodeling , and not due to government mandated membership !

If the AMA had spent half the effort that Sen Inhoffe did in getting the distinction made between the separate classes of RC craft , the AMA could have promoted the best of both worlds . It has always been MY opinion that there is enough difference between LOS and BLOS RC flight to justify two completely different flight classifications , each with their own specially tailored set of operating standards and conditions , based on the relative levels of risk and competency to operate within the more technologically elaborate flight condition .

In other words , the AMA coulda promoted Drones WITHOUT tossing the rest of the hobby under the Bus . Maybe then membership mighta took an upward tick or two , as BOTH groups of traditionalists and droners feel they're being represented not at the expense of each other ?
Absolutely correct. A fairly accurate parallel might be dirt bikes...When buying a pure racing class dirt bike, it gets one classification of off-road license that covers it ONLY when used in closed course competition. The AMA should be providing insurance and support pursuant to the USE of the RC craft in question. For example, those of us who fly exclusively at an AMA sanctioned club/field that adheres to the AMA Safety Code, we should be granted specific coverage that is completely separate from all other RC aircraft being operated OUTSIDE the guidelines I just outlined. Our aircraft should also be classified according to the manner in which they are operated (private vs. public). This is very simple and a distinction the AMA should have made right out of the gate, rather than allowing ALL OF US to be thrown under the FAA's giant web of bureaucracy. As I have already stated, now that we are on the FAA radar and have already complied with their initial registration mandates, our autonomy is GONE!!!
Old 04-21-2016, 12:05 PM
  #152  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by RichardGee
As I have already stated, now that we are on the FAA radar and have already complied with their initial registration mandates, our autonomy is GONE!!!

Govt meddling is kinda like Virginity , once the corks been popped , there ain't any stuffing THAT Genie back in the bottle ........
Old 04-21-2016, 12:06 PM
  #153  
vertical grimmace
My Feedback: (1)
 
vertical grimmace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ft collins , CO
Posts: 7,252
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
Sport my Friend , What I'd like is for the AMA to flourish due to being relevant to ALL aeromodeling , and not due to government mandated membership !

If the AMA had spent half the effort that Sen Inhoffe did in getting the distinction made between the separate classes of RC craft , the AMA could have promoted the best of both worlds . It has always been MY opinion that there is enough difference between LOS and BLOS RC flight to justify two completely different flight classifications , each with their own specially tailored set of operating standards and conditions , based on the relative levels of risk and competency to operate within the more technologically elaborate flight condition .

In other words , the AMA coulda promoted Drones WITHOUT tossing the rest of the hobby under the Bus . Maybe then membership mighta took an upward tick or two , as BOTH groups of traditionalists and droners feel they're being represented not at the expense of each other ?

Especially considering one is essentially IFR, and the other VFR. They are as different as the full scale rules. But do not let the rule makers get bogged down with such trivialities. Just get out the broad brush.
Old 04-21-2016, 12:16 PM
  #154  
skylark-flier
 
skylark-flier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: VA, Luray
Posts: 2,226
Received 15 Likes on 13 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by RichardGee
Absolutely correct. A fairly accurate parallel might be dirt bikes...When buying a pure racing class dirt bike, it gets one classification of off-road license that covers it ONLY when used in closed course competition. The AMA should be providing insurance and support pursuant to the USE of the RC craft in question. For example, those of us who fly exclusively at an AMA sanctioned club/field that adheres to the AMA Safety Code, we should be granted specific coverage that is completely separate from all other RC aircraft being operated OUTSIDE the guidelines I just outlined. Our aircraft should also be classified according to the manner in which they are operated (private vs. public). This is very simple and a distinction the AMA should have made right out of the gate, rather than allowing ALL OF US to be thrown under the FAA's giant web of bureaucracy. As I have already stated, now that we are on the FAA radar and have already complied with their initial registration mandates, our autonomy is GONE!!!
I'm always saddened to see this kind of "division advocacy". Why would AMA alienate those of us who DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF A NEARBY AMA SANCTIONED CLUB/FIELD to fly at? I've been an AMA member since 1973. In all that time I've had an AMA sanctioned club/field within 40 miles of me in exactly one place - West Berlin Germany (not even within the USA) - and that was for 3 years, just 14% of my total flying life.

When I fly at my local town-owned park (for which I pay enough taxes to support) I observe every AMA Safety Code item - to include roping off my flying area from the rest of the park (I bought the rope & stancions myself) and posting my own signs. You would still penalize me (and thousands of others like me) simply for NOT driving a minimum of 80 miles round trip when I fly? Tell y'what - you pay for my gas, time & vehicle maintenance - I'll fly at your "sanctioned" field.

Last edited by skylark-flier; 04-21-2016 at 12:19 PM.
Old 04-21-2016, 12:51 PM
  #155  
RichardGee
My Feedback: (156)
 
RichardGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Dixon, CA
Posts: 1,163
Received 20 Likes on 17 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by skylark-flier
I'm always saddened to see this kind of "division advocacy". Why would AMA alienate those of us who DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF A NEARBY AMA SANCTIONED CLUB/FIELD to fly at? I've been an AMA member since 1973. In all that time I've had an AMA sanctioned club/field within 40 miles of me in exactly one place - West Berlin Germany (not even within the USA) - and that was for 3 years, just 14% of my total flying life.

When I fly at my local town-owned park (for which I pay enough taxes to support) I observe every AMA Safety Code item - to include roping off my flying area from the rest of the park (I bought the rope & stancions myself) and posting my own signs. You would still penalize me (and thousands of others like me) simply for NOT driving a minimum of 80 miles round trip when I fly? Tell y'what - you pay for my gas, time & vehicle maintenance - I'll fly at your "sanctioned" field.
Skylark, you are an exception. Your RC experience is unique to the vast majority of us who've been in this hobby for decades. I've no doubt others could pipe in with their unique stories as well, but to what end? Rules are made to have a positive impact on the majority. The main reason we have been part of AMA is for the insurance. Insurance of any kind always comes with stipulations. IF insurance carriers were to craft every policy to take into consideration every exception, either we would have alot less insurance or we would be paying far more for what we have. Should I be paying for the unorthodox practices of modelers who do not live within what they consider to be a "reasonable" distance from a flying field? Regardless of how careful you are, there is simply no way your flying in a local park can be as safe as that of a pilot in a private, sanctioned club. Yet, you feel entitled to the same coverage as I have when I am adhering to a very different set of safety guidelines - I am NOT imposing a "penalty" of any kind; what I am proposing is that those who fly in public areas SHOULD NOT be given the same consideration as those who fly in PRIVATE SANCTIONED fixed base operations... that's common sense. Would the FAA allow, or the AOPA endorse, a full scale Cub landing in a public park even if the area had been roped off by the pilot and signs posted? I think not. Those who fly in public and those of us who have made the time and monetary commitment to fly at a private RC field, should be subject to different rules, guidelines, and coverage/protection. That's just common sense. Further, those who fly camera-carrying drones which can hover in another person's private space and film them AND those who fly First Person View aircraft which can be flown beyond line of site, SHOULD be subject to entirely different scrutiny AND the AMA should have made this delineation VERY, VERY clear to the FAA. IF I am wrong, then WHY is the FAA all of a sudden so interested in RC aircraft? We've been out here flying weekend after weekend for decades, and they never gave us a second look.
You have made conscious CHOICES not to live within what you find to be a reasonable distance from an RC field. That is NOT our problem.
Old 04-21-2016, 01:28 PM
  #156  
skylark-flier
 
skylark-flier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: VA, Luray
Posts: 2,226
Received 15 Likes on 13 Posts
Default

So, by your logic, if you drive a Mercedes you are entitled to better insurance than my Ford. Your house is in Dixon CA, mine is in Luray VA - so you're entitled to better insurance, better neighbors, better "whatever" because you live on the left coast? I don't "feel" I'm entitled to the same insurance and benefits - I PAY THE SAME AS YOU DO - - I'D BETTER BE GETTING THE SAME INSURANCE AND BENEFITS!!!!

Sorry, I'm not "the exception" - I think I might actually be more "equal" to you, or anyone else, in what I do.

Your "common sense" is what has led to the general national situation (in whatever sense you wish to refer to it) we're in, and I'm going to actually use one of your "left coast" phrases - I'm offended by your attitude toward your "specialness".
Old 04-21-2016, 01:42 PM
  #157  
RichardGee
My Feedback: (156)
 
RichardGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Dixon, CA
Posts: 1,163
Received 20 Likes on 17 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by skylark-flier
So, by your logic, if you drive a Mercedes you are entitled to better insurance than my Ford. Your house is in Dixon CA, mine is in Luray VA - so you're entitled to better insurance, better neighbors, better "whatever" because you live on the left coast? I don't "feel" I'm entitled to the same insurance and benefits - I PAY THE SAME AS YOU DO - - I'D BETTER BE GETTING THE SAME INSURANCE AND BENEFITS!!!!

Sorry, I'm not "the exception" - I think I might actually be more "equal" to you, or anyone else, in what I do.

Your "common sense" is what has led to the general national situation (in whatever sense you wish to refer to it) we're in, and I'm going to actually use one of your "left coast" phrases - I'm offended by your attitude toward your "specialness".
Congrats, Skylark, at being first person in the 6 pages of this forum to express "offense." Your examples are non sequiturs... It's not a matter of driving a Mercedes vs. Ford. It doesn't matter if we BOTH drive YUGO's! All that matters is that I am driving mine on legally sanctioned highways and bi-ways, and you are not. NO insurance company would offer us both the same policy, given such different situations. Further, you may live in a more rural part of the country than do I. I'll bet your car insurance rates are substantially lower than what I pay for the 'privilege' of driving in the congested SF Bay Area... WHY IS THAT? Seems pretty unfair, but that's what insurance actuaries do! Different rates for different situations. And if I am paying MORE than you, shouldn't I be receiving better or more insurance?? By your logic, yes. But again, that isn't the case.
It's clear from your rhetoric you're a conservative talk radio fan... as am I. WE probably have far more in common than you think.... my points remain unswayed by your reasoning and because I consider myself part of the SOLUTION to what ails this limping, over-taxed, over-regulated, politically-corrected republic, I will be voting for TRUMP who is also a "pay as you go" self-made American success.

I want the FAA to get the heck OFF OUR NECKS. Now that the AMA has allowed them jump in our sand box, I see NO WAY to remove the government parasites, but to delineate between what we who fly at sanctioned, private, controlled clubs do... and what everyone else is doing. Sorry.
Old 04-21-2016, 03:14 PM
  #158  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by skylark-flier
I'm always saddened to see this kind of "division advocacy". Why would AMA alienate those of us who DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF A NEARBY AMA SANCTIONED CLUB/FIELD to fly at? I've been an AMA member since 1973. In all that time I've had an AMA sanctioned club/field within 40 miles of me in exactly one place - West Berlin Germany (not even within the USA) - and that was for 3 years, just 14% of my total flying life.
Skylark, I'm not unlike you..my closest field is 13 miles one way, $100 a year on top of AMA, and it's rough grass - which limits the type and size of planes I can fly unless I want to be constantly re-bending landing gear etc. or do hand launches and belly landings only with smaller stuff - again further limits. Since it shares with a private full scale grass field, there's zero chance of ever putting in a paved surface.

On the other hand, I can just fly smaller electrics, helos of any size or power type, and fly at a little used public park (just a square of grass really) within 50 yards of my house. Since I own my own home, it's my insurance that pays first anyway.

I voted for convenience. The first two years I lived where I do now, I flew maybe 10 half days. Since I switched to electrics and helos, I fly much more often. That $100 club dues now goes into batteries, parts, and upgrades. At some point I suppose the $75 AMA dues will go that way too.

For me it's about tangible value for my dollar. AMA dues was required because I needed it to fly at an AMA field. If I'm not flying at AMA fields, what exactly do I get for my money and is that worth what I pay?
Old 04-21-2016, 05:31 PM
  #159  
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 Sport_Pilot
Sorry but when I replied to your statement on what the AMA was working on I stated what was actually put in. I have no idea what the AMA did but I really don't understand why you have an issue with the AMA trying to require membership on one hand, then complain about lack of effort to boast membership on the other hand. Seems it would have to be balanced on a knife to satisfy you.
You've been in the AMA forums long enough to know that no matter what they do, the AMA will be blamed or vilified. I love the way the new "rumor", based on virtually nothing...is that the AMA is now working with the FAA to force people to join the AMA. Its like, if it's said enough, it must be true. But as you point out, is more membership a bad thing? Of course it is....lol.
Old 04-21-2016, 06:06 PM
  #160  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,499
Received 80 Likes on 70 Posts
Default

you do realize that the AMA insurance is already covering every member like skylark, no matter where they fly, as long as they have permission to fly there.
and most likely, would still cover without permission as long as no law/local ordnance was being broken.
that specially crafted policy you say no insurance carrier would ever write, has already been written and is being used now.
oh yeah, AND I DO NOT REMEMBER ANY MENTION OF EXTRA COST BEING APPLIED TO MAKE IT THE WAY IT IS.
Old 04-21-2016, 06:56 PM
  #161  
TimJ
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Oh boy....here we go.......down this road agian.
Old 04-21-2016, 07:07 PM
  #162  
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 mongo
you do realize that the AMA insurance is already covering every member like skylark, no matter where they fly, as long as they have permission to fly there.
and most likely, would still cover without permission as long as no law/local ordnance was being broken.
that specially crafted policy you say no insurance carrier would ever write, has already been written and is being used now.
oh yeah, AND I DO NOT REMEMBER ANY MENTION OF EXTRA COST BEING APPLIED TO MAKE IT THE WAY IT IS.
It should also be mentioned (although oddly enough, never acknowledged) that the AMA coverage is in fact primary for members as well, not everyone owns their own home, or even has renters insurance. It's impossible to find coverage for even 10% of what the AMA offers, for anything close to the dues fee.
Old 04-21-2016, 09:12 PM
  #163  
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 RichardGee
Skylark, you are an exception. Your RC experience is unique to the vast majority of us who've been in this hobby for decades. I've no doubt others could pipe in with their unique stories as well, but to what end? Rules are made to have a positive impact on the majority. The main reason we have been part of AMA is for the insurance. Insurance of any kind always comes with stipulations. IF insurance carriers were to craft every policy to take into consideration every exception, either we would have alot less insurance or we would be paying far more for what we have. Should I be paying for the unorthodox practices of modelers who do not live within what they consider to be a "reasonable" distance from a flying field? Regardless of how careful you are, there is simply no way your flying in a local park can be as safe as that of a pilot in a private, sanctioned club. Yet, you feel entitled to the same coverage as I have when I am adhering to a very different set of safety guidelines - I am NOT imposing a "penalty" of any kind; what I am proposing is that those who fly in public areas SHOULD NOT be given the same consideration as those who fly in PRIVATE SANCTIONED fixed base operations... that's common sense. Would the FAA allow, or the AOPA endorse, a full scale Cub landing in a public park even if the area had been roped off by the pilot and signs posted? I think not. Those who fly in public and those of us who have made the time and monetary commitment to fly at a private RC field, should be subject to different rules, guidelines, and coverage/protection. That's just common sense. Further, those who fly camera-carrying drones which can hover in another person's private space and film them AND those who fly First Person View aircraft which can be flown beyond line of site, SHOULD be subject to entirely different scrutiny AND the AMA should have made this delineation VERY, VERY clear to the FAA. IF I am wrong, then WHY is the FAA all of a sudden so interested in RC aircraft? We've been out here flying weekend after weekend for decades, and they never gave us a second look.
You have made conscious CHOICES not to live within what you find to be a reasonable distance from an RC field. That is NOT our problem.
Total BS. Radio controlled airplanes have been carrying cameras from the start. Your rules would only alienate modelers, many who fly quads as well as "traditional models". This is not a problem of AMA members flying quads, or even the uneducated mass buying quads. Its a problem with BLOS capable model aircraft which are sold and flown despite it being illegal to fly. But the problem isn't even that bad the FAA is soliciting sighting reports. Most are either made up or reports of legal flights. It's not the AMA's fault, its idiots, drone manufactures, and the FAA.
Old 04-22-2016, 07:10 AM
  #164  
RichardGee
My Feedback: (156)
 
RichardGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Dixon, CA
Posts: 1,163
Received 20 Likes on 17 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Total BS. Radio controlled airplanes have been carrying cameras from the start. Your rules would only alienate modelers, many who fly quads as well as "traditional models". This is not a problem of AMA members flying quads, or even the uneducated mass buying quads. Its a problem with BLOS capable model aircraft which are sold and flown despite it being illegal to fly. But the problem isn't even that bad the FAA is soliciting sighting reports. Most are either made up or reports of legal flights. It's not the AMA's fault, its idiots, drone manufactures, and the FAA.
SP, you are the quintessential example of "whistling past the graveyard" - the ONLY thing you've gotten right is the problem with "idiots," but isn't that why virtually ALL laws get put in place? If everyone used common sense, courtesy, and logic, we wouldn't need an AMA or even an FAA, now would we...? Not sure how you can claim this has nothing to do with camera-carrying quads when in FACT, NONE of this came to fruition until those RC vehicles were being flown en masse, or landed on the White House lawn. Further, many quads ARE BLOS capable, having on-board GPS. Sure, a few RC aircraft and even model rockets had on-board cameras years ago, but they weren't hovering over your patio or parking outside your bedroom window with an HD video camera, now were they..? I WANT quad and FPV pilots SEPARATED from the types of traditional RC flying I have already described in detail. IF that alienates them (or you) TOO DAMN BAD. We who have been flying fixed and rotary wing RC aircraft for decades (and supporting the AMA) without indecent or even being noticed by the FAA, were never asked if we wanted our insurance, and reputations as responsible hobbyists, RISKED by being lumped together with flying things (and their owners) that have zero in common with us. The AMA's quest for memberships CREATED THIS PROBLEM. Period.

Last edited by RichardGee; 04-22-2016 at 08:10 AM.
Old 04-22-2016, 07:27 AM
  #165  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Richard the AMA did do a survey about drones and I'll bet the greatest majority of us said "no way" and then the EC went ahead and began "romancing the drone" anyway . I don't think that survey was any more than a way for the EC to gauge the backlash from us old farts against gambling our existing hobby for the promise of the almighty drone dollar .

PS , Nice looking Gee Bee , BTW .... Never owned one , but have always liked the look of them .
Old 04-22-2016, 07:53 AM
  #166  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Its a problem with BLOS capable model aircraft which are sold and flown despite it being illegal to fly

Sport , I think I just heard the Angels sing !!!!


I have maintained from the beginning that it not the type of model aircraft , but the mission attached to it's flight , that should be the determining factor in what classification it's identified with . Flown LOS only , for the fun of seeing it fly only in the "traditional" model aircraft way , then it's a model aircraft . Fitted with a camera or other guidance to permit any sorts of BLOS , then it's a drone and not part of what I would consider a model airplane .

I used to think the AMA WAS going to be effective in maintaining the distinction between so called "#550 FPV" and drone operations , till I realized the EC DOES want us all lumped in together , mandated members by FAA decree , all the better to swell the ranks .

PS , just to be clear , so we don't go getting off on any hairy tangents (heaven forbid) , one LOS model airplane towing a LOS model airplane glider aloft is still just as much "model aircraft operations for the fun of seeing it fly only" as things like candy drops are for club field day events . Those type of missions being for fun and not for profit , and of course LOS only , make them perfectly acceptable model aircraft operations ...

Last edited by init4fun; 04-22-2016 at 07:56 AM.
Old 04-22-2016, 08:10 AM
  #167  
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 init4fun
Richard the AMA did do a survey about drones and I'll bet the greatest majority of us said "no way" and then the EC went ahead and began "romancing the drone" anyway . I don't think that survey was any more than a way for the EC to gauge the backlash from us old farts against gambling our existing hobby for the promise of the almighty drone dollar .

PS , Nice looking Gee Bee , BTW .... Never owned one , but have always liked the look of them .
Funny how we never saw the results of that survey. I've been involved in 2 now.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/members...uassurvey.aspx

Mike
Old 04-22-2016, 08:11 AM
  #168  
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 RichardGee
SP, you are the quintessential example of "whistling past the graveyard" - the ONLY thing you've gotten right is the problem with "idiots," but isn't that why virtually ALL laws get put in place? If everyone used common sense, courtesy, and logic, we wouldn't need an AMA or even an FAA, now would we...? Not sure how you can claim this has nothing to do with camera-carrying quads when in FACT, NONE of this came to fruition until those RC vehicles were being flown en masse, or landed on the White House lawn. Further, many quads ARE BLOS capable, having on-board GPS. Sure, a few RC aircraft and even model rockets had on-board cameras years ago, but they weren't hovering over your patio or parking outside your bedroom window with an HD video camera, now were they..? I WANT quad and FPV pilots SEPARATED from the types of traditional RC flying I have already described in detail. IF that alienates them (or you) TOO DAMN BAD. We who have been flying fixed and rotary wing RC aircraft for decades (and supporting the AMA) without indecent or even being noticed by the FAA, were we ever asked if we wanted our insurance, and reputations as responsible hobbyists, RISKED by being lumped together with flying things (and their owners) that have zero in common with us. The AMA's quest for memberships CREATED THIS PROBLEM. Period.
"En Mass" ? When was the last time you saw anyone flying a quad outside the RC field? I don't think I ever have! Fact is most are flown a time or two and put into the closet. We don't need the AMA or FAA for these and most that are flying are not breaking the rules. Go read the sighting reports from the FAA, you would be hard pressed to be absolutely sure that the report was real and of a illegal flight. This is not a true issue but a made up one by the press and FAA.

Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 04-22-2016 at 08:13 AM.
Old 04-22-2016, 08:14 AM
  #169  
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
Richard the AMA did do a survey about drones and I'll bet the greatest majority of us said "no way" and then the EC went ahead and began "romancing the drone" anyway . I don't think that survey was any more than a way for the EC to gauge the backlash from us old farts against gambling our existing hobby for the promise of the almighty drone dollar .

PS , Nice looking Gee Bee , BTW .... Never owned one , but have always liked the look of them .
I recall the majority said yes.
Old 04-22-2016, 08:17 AM
  #170  
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
Sport , I think I just heard the Angels sing !!!!


I have maintained from the beginning that it not the type of model aircraft , but the mission attached to it's flight , that should be the determining factor in what classification it's identified with . Flown LOS only , for the fun of seeing it fly only in the "traditional" model aircraft way , then it's a model aircraft . Fitted with a camera or other guidance to permit any sorts of BLOS , then it's a drone and not part of what I would consider a model airplane .

I used to think the AMA WAS going to be effective in maintaining the distinction between so called "#550 FPV" and drone operations , till I realized the EC DOES want us all lumped in together , mandated members by FAA decree , all the better to swell the ranks .

PS , just to be clear , so we don't go getting off on any hairy tangents (heaven forbid) , one LOS model airplane towing a LOS model airplane glider aloft is still just as much "model aircraft operations for the fun of seeing it fly only" as things like candy drops are for club field day events . Those type of missions being for fun and not for profit , and of course LOS only , make them perfectly acceptable model aircraft operations ...
The camera would not be BLOS if it did not have a downlink to the transmitter. The FAA should take those off the market for anyone other than with a commercial license. But allow modelers to add them. It's the ones who have no inclination to add one or learn the rules that is the problem. But a camera that takes video recordings should be allowed.
Old 04-22-2016, 08:35 AM
  #171  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcmiket
Funny how we never saw the results of that survey. I've been involved in 2 now.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/members...uassurvey.aspx

Mike
Your right Mike , I can't recall seeing the results either

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
I recall the majority said yes.
So with my answer to Mike still fresh , and both He and I having not seen these results , can you recall where you saw that a majority said yes ?

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
The camera would not be BLOS if it did not have a downlink to the transmitter. The FAA should take those off the market for anyone other than with a commercial license. But allow modelers to add them. It's the ones who have no inclination to add one or learn the rules that is the problem. But a camera that takes video recordings should be allowed.
A camera taking video or stills from a LOS capable only flight for the fun of it , is no problem . A camera taking video or stills for use in a commercial selling real estate is no longer for the fun of it , even if the craft taking the video remains LOS the entire time . Intent of use figures in here too ....
Old 04-22-2016, 08:57 AM
  #172  
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

So with my answer to Mike still fresh , and both He and I having not seen these results , can you recall where you saw that a majority said yes ?
Not sure we are talking the same thing. I recall as similar survey back in 2008 or 2009. This is more recent.
Old 04-22-2016, 09:25 AM
  #173  
RichardGee
My Feedback: (156)
 
RichardGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Dixon, CA
Posts: 1,163
Received 20 Likes on 17 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
"En Mass" ? When was the last time you saw anyone flying a quad outside the RC field? I don't think I ever have! Fact is most are flown a time or two and put into the closet. We don't need the AMA or FAA for these and most that are flying are not breaking the rules. Go read the sighting reports from the FAA, you would be hard pressed to be absolutely sure that the report was real and of a illegal flight. This is not a true issue but a made up one by the press and FAA.
Just spotted one yesterday, as a matter of fact, right off the freeway on a frontage road. A kid who works for me, and has zero RC experience, purchased a camera-quad and was out flying it in a national park. He lost control and thought it was gone. He was walking back to his car when he heard the craft coming down towards him. He did not even realize it had a 'homing' GPS and was returning to the transmitter in his hands... obviously, this IS 'Beyond Line of Sight' capable, and only about $400, HD camera and all. These things are everywhere!
Go to any motocross track or snowboard arena, and you will find them being flown, filming.
Was at a Xmas party and a kid there had one. He flew it in the back yard of my buddy's house... pitch dark night sky. He accelerated straight up like a rocket and then hovered over the neighborhood maybe 100 feet. He could see the orientation based on the colored lights on the craft. It too had a camera and GPS. Nothing particularly dangerous about it - this kid knew how to fly it - just MAINTAINING my position that these 'flyin thingz,' flown in this manner, have ZERO in common with what I do and have been doing LOS, not invading anyone's privacy, at a controlled model field for 4 decades.
Had the AMA made this legal distinction right out of the gate, it would not matter HOW WRONG FAA reports were... my hobby (and industry) would not be in jeopardy from an over-reaching, over-bearing, bureaucracy lumping MRVs in with my airplanes!
Old 04-22-2016, 09:45 AM
  #174  
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

Had the AMA made this legal distinction right out of the gate,
It did. All flights per AMA rules are LOS. Even the FPV is to be flown LOS. The FAA and especially the politicians do not understand the difference.
Old 04-22-2016, 03:56 PM
  #175  
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
Funny how we never saw the results of that survey. I've been involved in 2 now.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/members...uassurvey.aspx

Mike
Not sure they ever said they were going to release the results of them, why do you feel your entitled to them? They might have been done for a number of reasons, and there's a good chance some of the information gathered is proprietary. You can always ask on the AMA blogs for a more specific response.

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.